Matthew Dowd

Caucuses are dumb.It disinfranchize voters who can't wait in line too long .Obama is echoing Clinton's issues since he didn't have one's till recently just changing a little bit here and there. I think popular votes mean more than a few thousand votes from caucuses.The success Obama is a direct result of Republican's machine. Why do you think Rep. has fewer votes?

Jose,

Why would Obama (or anyone other than desperate grandma) need your fraudulent vote? Can you even vote? 4/5 of latinos can't even get a driver license so how are their "votes" become so important?

Obama and Clarie McKaskell as Veep
Obama and Jennifer Stenholm as Veep

McCain is toast !

People who post like bindex should be honest instead says people who like hillary or bill are liars what a idiotic post, this obama thing is a joke I cannot imagine this country with someone like him in the white house if that were to happen(god forbid) I suppose he would open the door for all the kenyans in africa to come on over after all that is where his daddy came from?

Obama will be even stronger in the general election than in the primaries, as the results already in clearly show that he gets strong support from Independents and even some Republicans, while Hillary's polarizing character would just provide intense motivation for the Republicans to come out in droves to defeat her (ABC: Anything But Clinton).

I agree that Obama is likely the nominee! It is a historical moment. But, sadly, Whites in middle america and the SOUTH! will not vote for him. You can bet we will have another White Male in the White House. Sorry, but that is the truth. The demographics show that Obama won the south because more than 75% of the Black vote went for him. But, counting the white vote in the South, which is large, he got little. In the end, McCain will likely be our next President and with that no change in the course of policies. Sad. Hillary may have changed that, but she wasn't attracting votes. Obama is clearly a better speaker and visionary, but .... because of his race, he will not get those votes. Hard fact!

Hillary Will Win the nomination!!!you will see...Hillary Rocks!!

I still havn't heard anyone talk about the "early voters" in California. I heard that there was over 3 mill. early voters...and most were for Hillary...Then Obama surged in the polls and lost by only a few hundred thousand votes..????? If ALL the voting had taken place on primary day...I think he would clearly be the winner.

Along Mr. Dowd's same line of argument, wouldn't the superdelegates then also have to consider the delegates and votes of Michigan and Florida? Can we really afford to disenfranchise these two swing states? And if those votes and delegates are considered (correct me I'm wrong), wouldn't Hillary have a plurality of the popular vote and of pledged delegates?

Also, if Obama ends up winning only the small and mid-sized states (most of which are likely to vote republican during the general election) other than Illinois (assuming Hillary wins Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania), does that not show that Hillary is better able to win the big states that the democrats need to win the general election? I think that argument should be of equal sway to the superdelegates.

Well, I guess we can all just fold the tents and go home now that Matthew Dowd has spoken, cause “you’ve done the math” but where is that math? Not so fast. It’s not over til it’s over. The will of the people, majority of delegates, majority of states and the primary process are terms that can be folded to make any number of paper planes but will they fly? Obama takes Alaska – 405 votes - Colorado approx 100,000 voted. Iowa approx 25,000 voted. Washington approx 30,000 voted. Nebraska approx 38,000 voted.

In your wildest calculations and dreams do you think this is a mandate or “the people speaking” or that a carnival like caucus equals a primary with actual electoral process that involves privacy and a lack of intimidation? And how does Obama explain changing the rules so he wins. What about Florida and Michigan? Gonna leave out a couple of million voters and let the 405 in Alaska rule for us. If so, we need to call for UN advisors to oversee this election. Before you and the boys send flowers to the Clinton residence celebrating her demise, stop and yes …. Think! It's far from over.

Please check the number of people voting for Obama compared to republicans. He has got twice the number of votes in the most of the red states than republican candidates. So He will win those states in general election for sure. Also about Michigan and Florida, if Obama would have campaigned there he would have won those states too. The problem with Obama was that he was not well known and popular at the time of Michigan primaries and during Florida he never campaigned. The Clintons are well known from start. Obama had to start from the whether people know him. Once people started knowing more about him then tend to like him more due to his personality and policies.

Clinton broke the rule of democratic party by keeping her name on the ballot but she got around 55% vote compared to no name on ballot 40%

r cahill, Stop hating! are you Native american? if not then you are also an immigrant, so why hate?

KateR:

The party as a whole has already made their decision not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates because of their decision to move their primary dates up......they should have waited!!!!

Too late for them; the decision was already made....

You are now looking at potentially ruining the democratic party if senator Obama is not nominated......and I can assure you that if he is not on the ticket--nominee or vp slot, I well not vote democratic....I would vote for the other party...which will essentially be a vote against Hillary.......

She comes across to me as if the presidency is owe to her....No!!! let the people decide....and not some super delegates!!!!!

I think everyone is right...whether you like Clinton or Obama. How can this Jerry Springer love-fest be bad for the Dems? I think the problem is in how everyone views leadership. Leadership is an inspirational act, which requires everyone to share a common vision prior to accepting direction from the top. Obama has better motivational skills, whereas Clinton is the techie. That's why her stump speeches are bland and boring. Clinton has great experience, but you have to be able to motivate people to lead them...not just preach at them.

For rcahill,

Did you forget that the United states was created by the immigrants from Europe?

During the general election electoral votes counts so wining small states counts a lot. Thats what Obama can do. Win the red and blue and in between states and leave nothing for Republicans.

To those who keep repeating the Clinton spin that Hillary has more experience than Obama, you need to focus on REVELANT experience. Hillary is older so she has more life experience, but we all know that does not necessarily equate to appropriate experience. Hillary has had one single elected office - that of two-term junior New York Senator. Her husband is the one with legislative experience. If my husband is a doctor and I work in his office, how could I claim to have experience in the practice of medicine? Don't be fooled, that is the type of experience Hillary is claiming. In actual fact she has no more personal experience than Barack Obama in legislative experience. On the other hand, what she undoutedly has more of is the deep-seated hatred of half the country. Do not listen to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter about voting for Hillary over McCain. There is no one alive, with the possible exception of Bill, who has the total Republican party and its supporters against her, in the way they hate her. They would move heaven and earth (though they wouldn't have to try very hard), to get their supporters to the polls to vote against her. That's when the real "Right Wing Conspiracy" would raise its ugly head.

Who is Matthew Dowd ? I've never heard of you or most of the people for whom you have "strategized". Obviously you need to go back to Strategy School and learn how to enhance your personal public profile and well as the profiles of your employers. No excuses like you work behind the scenes - you just are not all that good at your job.

Kate R. wrote:

"Also, if Obama ends up winning only the small and mid-sized states (most of which are likely to vote republican during the general election) other than Illinois (assuming Hillary wins Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania), does that not show that Hillary is better able to win the big states that the democrats need to win the general election?"

No. In the general election, New York, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Michigan will vote for whomever the Democrats nominate. Similary, Florida and Texas will go Republican this year regardless of the nominee. The key states are Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Viginia and New Hampshire. These are the states that were close in '04 and could swing in this election. Hillary's big state victories demonstrate that she requires institutional advantages like large unions to succeed. Obama's independent appeal and grass roots support suggest that he will be the stronger candidate for the swing staes of 2008.

Another prime example of the Media trying to sway voters. who cares about this guys opinion. FACTS are important, not opinions.

Hillary did not campaign in florida or michigan. None of the candidates did.

So where do you get that HIllary campaigned in Florida when she didn't.

All the candidates had ads running in the newspapers...just no tv ads.

SO in my estimation, if i am correct, they all took part equally in those two states.

So if they were equal in their representation in those states, why shouldn't hillary get those votes?