HUGE Night

Spock:

"we have 3 very good candidates." Wow are you admitting the McCain is not an apostate now? Good development.

But as far as the candidates go, it is Mitt that needs to sit.

He's paid over One Million dollars for each delegate earned. I know this is better than Rudi's 40 Million $ for his one delegate. But at Mitt's current rate he'd have to spend 1 Billion Dollars to secure the nomination.

Mitt may be a Million dollar man, but he sure ain't a Billion dollar man. So the nomination is out of reach for him. He might as well pack it up and turn things over to Huck.

And it sure seems like there are some angry Clintonista's out here today. But she can take some heart because we all are still pulling for her.

I am sad to disagree, if you look at the states Hilary won those are all Blue States, Obama won in states that have always gone Republican, so sadly if Hilary loses it will put those Blue States in play.

Now looking at the important race with the Republicans, since we have 3 very good candidates it is hard to decide, I wish Huckabee would pull out so we get a better feel. Because then those states would of went to Romney.

Thou Huckabee is a good Social conservative at this point in time we need the best for the economy and that is Romney!!

Ib smart: Sorry, no matter how much your blind partisanship spins Hillary's results last night, you still have to accept that the numbers showed that she has NO CHANCE of winning a general election. The numbers don't lie, she will be the best thing for the Republicans to face because her style of campaigning, and the vengeful messages they contain are exactly the style of campaigning the Republicans excel at, and are better at, than her. So go ahead, wish with all your heart, go against honest messages of hope and change and get Hillary the nod. We, the Republicans, will be thanking you for providing us with yet another 8 years of government. After all, nothing looks better to an electorate than a bunch of angry, revenge seeking democrats.

If Willard (Mitt) Romney is going to continue to throw money away, I sure could use some

oh btw, who decided on the seating arrangment last night?...they might as well have put George over on the side with the other guys crunching numbers

The "liberal, unbiased press" tried to deliver a democratic coronation for Obama last night and failed. Instead of reporting fairly, the press coverage of Obama was consistently positive and upbeat compared to the coverage they gave Clinton where they did not even cover, in a timely way, the endorsement of the farm workers of California that Clinto received over 16 days ago. As for Edwards, they ignored him entirely
and forced him out of the race.

If the primary results were different with Clinton loosing the big delegate states, their reporting would be that Obama was the clear winner, the one who could deliver the key blue states. Does anyone really believe that the mid and southern states will go blue this year?
You can't be that obtuse, or can you?

Further, the democratic primary delegate count is not the same as the electoral college. Votes are not proportioned in the electoral college. It is winner takes all. So Clinton taking the delegate rich states would be way ahead of Obama. Why was this point not voiced by even one commentator last night.

But in the end, fighting the star power of Oprah and the Kennedys, and our biased press, Clinton held her ground
thanks to the bread and butter democrats that are not swayed by the media.

I have not contributed this year to any campaign, but I will now. Anyone want to guess where I am going to place my dollar?

Tkaufman

TO 2009 @ Feb 6, 2008 10:35:11 AM

Good try. But you are kind of mixed up here with the two statements below. They contradict and disprove your hypothesis.

(1) Obama won where..... "no democrat is going to win in November no matter who the nominee is." And:

(2) In Missouri....."Clinton winning 98% of the state, and Obama only hanging in there because of the 3 city areas."

So Obama wins in the Red states but good hearted red staters eventually end up voting Republican (Go Huck in 08!). So these Obama wins should be disregarded.

Clinton loses MO but wins the reliably red parts of MO while Obama wins the state by cleaning up in the 3 blue areas. So this Obama win should also be disregarded because he did not win in the Red areas but only in the 3 blue areas that always vote Dem. BTW these are the 3 areas that carried McCaskill to victory in 2006.

When Obama wins a state on Red turf we are to pay no attention to the win, because its dark Red turf. When Obama wins a state by taking the deep blue parts of it we are to pay no attention to that win either.

Maybe this is just an honest mistake, but as a HUCKster, I am well used to Clintonian spin.

This is just another example of why we need to nominate HUCK. He's ready for these guys.

Thnx DKNY.

Yesterday, I was a Nazis according to a lot of people. You get trashed when you are the one to have to make the part-pooper points that no one else is willing to see or speak about.

Clinton has a LONGGGGG way to go. But boy I can't tell you how nice it is to see John Scarey on CNN right now. Oh, its a spirited race. Obama won more states than Hillary. Obama is within 100 delegates - 14 to 8 states. He won the majority of delegates, he won red states unbelievably -

This idiot thinks Dems are going to win Idaho, Utah, and Alaska? He is still a very marginal and pathetically weak speaker and politician. What a mess. And I voted for him over Bush because a vote for diabetes is sometimes better than a vote for cancer. What a turd Kerry is LOL

Anyway, it's all about Red states are now going to convert to Blue just because of Obama.

Will no one say that NY or NY or CA has more delegates than 2/3s of all the states Obama won?

No. You will never hear that.

Will anyone say that winning Red states in a Primary doesn't win you them in November.

No. You won't hear that.

And now the Kennedy's and Kerry, and the Governor of Massachu are all explaining how the polls had Obama ahead yesterday and how he lost by 17pts?

There just can be no loss, no matter how big, no matter how complete, that this side is going to relent on. Nothing is a loss. None of it means anything. Except of course, for what we did. None of it is important - it damn sure was yesterday, wasn't it? All about delegates, said Barack. Who cares how many states she wins - we are looking at delegates. So what?

And now today, its about "I won the most states! I did that, she didn't. I am the winner of the majority of this country. I showed I can win Red States".

Funny how no loss is a loss. Bring up polls from Autumn. Bring up polls from December. Remind folks she was ahead by 30 pts.

But Monday it was all about change. All about now. All about the tidal wave. All about how they had caught up and now were passed Clinton, how they were ahead in California, ahead in Massa, ahead in NJ, close in NY, close in Oklahoma, pulling away a clear win in Missouri.

That ain't spin. It's a fairy tale.

Clinton didn't blow him out by any means. She held on and he charged. But she recovered from the 200 polls that showed her that she was toast. She came back and kicked the Kennedy clan in the nads. Shriver - go ride another horse, the one you were on came in 2nd. Usher - there's an exit somewhere with your name on it. Oprah? I guess the ghetto accent and the preaching didn't turn it on like a light bulb, did it? She was in NJ making sure people could vote - and they did - by 11 pts for Clinton. Shows you the power of Talk. Kennedy was there babbling between highb4lls about change. I guess when he recovers from his hang over he will catch the papers in Boston. Caroline Kennedy? How could you compare your father to a really young amature junior Senator, with little experience, and an inaccurate and misleading resume? You own backyard rejected that argument flatly by almost 20 pts.

It wasn't a landslide for any of them, but you would have thought the sun was going to come up in the west, according to the media.

Today it rose in the east and the media is scratching their bald heads again, stumped.

I think it's interestiung that the Kennedys couldn't deliver Massachusetts.

Huckabee gives me faith in the Republican Party. McCain shouldn't even be where he is today. People are feedup with the representation in Washington and want a change. That is why Huckabee is giving such a strong showing. Republicans are in trouble in November.

I voted for Hillary. Have to say I was a little surprised how it turned out in California. Many latest polls had Obama leading there (Reuters-Zogby by 13%). It seems like the polls were all over the place again...

I quess no matter who you voted for, it was a very exiting night.

I love that the endorsements by the two Kennedys, Swartzenagher and Oprah have not really made a difference. I think the people are way more into this election than that.

Well done, 2009.

I would like to see someone ask the candidates who they would consider for their vice president.

I awake to a little spin on both sides, and that isn't a surprise.

Obama wins the most states.
Clinton wins the most delegates.

Yesterday, all we heard was 'you might win the states, but it's the delegates that count', and now that Obama has more states its about who won the most states.

Here is another reality check for so many very new political watchers, youth voters who have no experience really paying attention to the way States vote in November:

IDAHO - no chance at all of going Blue - Repos ALWAYS win - they still have Sen. Larry 'bathroom footsies' Craig in office and haven't called for his removal - because hypocrititis runs rampant. Let Craig have been a gay liberal - he'd be draped over a fence dead.

NORTH DAKOTA - not a blue state
ALASKA - no chance of going blue.
UTAH - no chance at all of going blue.
COLORADO - small chance of being blue.
KANSAS - despite Mama, this isn't a blue state.

We won't argue that Missouri and Connecticutt were a toss up and almost evenly split down the middle.

As for Georgia and Alabama, they are clearly a toss up in November. Minnesota is also cloudy as to what will happen, though it usually goes Blue, barely.

For Hillary, Tennessee and Oklahoma would be tough for Dems, Tennessee is easier. Arkansas is a toss up.

The point I am making is this: the media ran up the score for Obama, focusing on delegates when Clinton won, and focusing on the number of states, when Obama won.

Bloggers here on the blog during the last 5 days shouted a lot about delegate counts and congressional districts because they thought Barack was going lose in the total state count.

Alas today, its a 180' reversal. But that is OK. I could say the same thing for Clinton.

Point is:

Clinton won many of the huge states that will go blue in November. They have the most delegates and the most electoral votes.

Obama won a lot of states but one of the issues with this HE WON THE MOST campaign is that nearly half the states he won were low on delegates and terribly low on electoral votes. The other issue is that a large number of states he won are states that no democrat is going to win in November no matter who the nominee is.

We will have to see how the spin is going to take this. So far its 'but', 'machine', 'establishment', 'don't know how'. It's a little unfair to just keep pounding away on this. Massachusettes had almost every politician in the state against Clinton and she wiped him by double digits. Same thing in NJ. Yeah she was way ahead, but Obama drew even with her. So it is the polls that are from yesterday that count most, not polls from December or September. That is right out of the Obama camp. Don't count those old polls. We have movement, we have a tidal wave of change. And Missouri's McCaskill, that didn't turn into anything but a draw, with Clinton winning 98% of the state, and Obama only hanging in there because of the 3 city areas. So the McCaskill endorsement looks weak at best.

Clinton will have a tough go now for a few states though where this racial divide is strong. Obama picked up some white voters, so we have to see by what margin he starts winning by this weekend.

I stayed up late to watch returns; and was pleased at results; there was a time I would have cheered Mcain on(yrs ago) but I think he sold out to bush then. and I was so disgusted to see Lieberman -traitor -grinning behind him- he was rejected by his party -talk about riding the fence!!! and Juliani still mopping up in someone elses glory booo!

"Huge Night"

Ya man. For Huck that is. This may well be the wake up call that Willard "Mitt" Romney needs. Time for him to act with some grace and withdraw from the race.

The people have spoken and have (understandably) rejected Mitt and his million$ of slick, deceptive and brazen ads.

I did indeed vote yesterday, and was gratified to see that the word "inevitability" isn't what some people once thought it was.

I think we're in for a spin-fest from all five remaining candidates. Each one showed some strength (actually, not Mitt) and some significant weakness. The good news: More time to flesh out the candidates as they continue to speak (and maybe debate). The bad news: Three Senators will continue to shirk their duties amidst the single greatest budget atrocity of modern history.

P.S. Nice shirt/tie combo last night!