Heckuva Job, Penny

This "little unknown guy" (Obama) has had his campaign masterminded and run by David Axelrod who has managed the past campaigns of Mayor Richard Daley II of Chicago, the man running the biggest Democratic political machine in the country.

The NYT piece is probably accurate - Hillary hung on to old friend and confidante Patti Solis Doyle as her campaign manager for far too long before replacing her with another old friend and confidante, Maggie Williams. Returning loyalty to those who are loyal to you may not be the smartest way to run a campaign, but it is a personal value that I, and many who support Ms. Clinton, find admirable. It also belies the canard, popular among conservative Republicans and now the Obama Democrats, that Hillary is "ruthless" and cares nothing about anything, or anyone, except if it advances her personal gain.

I totally agree with Change's comments again and again. dl misses points and is wrong on many aspects. No, I am not in the Clinton camp. I am not even a Democrat but an independent from Illinois. Change is very informed and his logic is intact.
dl not so.

You media people are going her far to much credit. She or they are JUST NOW beginning to run a "real" campaign. It's to late now, this little un-known guy has put a beating on her. Make no mistake about it, HALF OF THE SUPPORT SHE IS GETTING NOW IS DUE TO SYMPATHY AND RACE - moreso her sympathy votes have kept her in the race aside from her name than anything else. Hillary is a loser. McCain a 71 yr old grandfather will win b/c of her. Hell hath no fury like a loser Clinton scorned.

The Clintons can't run the race without drama, they have not been able to hold a marriage together without drama, and I think over 20 affairs is WAY too much drama to forgive, and they don't play well with others....

dl,

Okay, I chuckled when you recommended the Daily Show, but I have no preference for a specific source...I just happened to find one that attempted to allocate the balance of states to red or blue to some degree.

It's always good to try a few sources to average out potential biases. I will check it out.

and LOM not to sound like a partisan jerk but I have a problem with Rasmussen...he is always on FOX and I don't think I have ever seen him on another station...

so I am not trying to nit pick but I am very wary of his numbers... check out the maps that the daily show has up...I know this sounds like a joke but...seriously they have some that they have combined but you can even look at the separate ones.

sorry Arkansas...Hillary had a huge number 70 to 26

...and I should say that even in these states Hillary's numbers never get greater than a 10 point spread in the primary...mostly under 4

Change...you are not getting it...

Look at how those states each year got closer to the Blue Column...yes...they have gone red and there state officials may even be Repubs...but if the trends follow...and this year looks like they may in a big way...we have a chance to pick those states up.

If Barack is a really popular candidate on the democratic side and McCain is not as popular on their side...and the margins were close in the last two elections...and the numbers in the primary elections were tending strongly toward the dems...

this sets up a battle state...

I count 15 of these (in the states we have had primaries in so far 5 typical swing states, 7 challengeable (within 7 point spread)3 harder but challengable)

Out of these 4 of them Hillary...11 barack)...

Exactly Change. We don't need target practice to shoot ourselves.

dl,

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about thinking a red state would be exclusively red. I was not talking about expanding the democratic congressional base either. I was speaking directly to how a democratic nominee could win the 270 electoral votes WITHOUT the need of deeply red states and thus return a democrat back into the White House (which I think is priority number one here). I was basing the numbers on the Rasmussen Reports data that assigned states as Safely Democratic, Likely Democratic, Leans Democratic, Toss-Up and so on.

I think it should be delegates...with a very small percentage of superdelegates...like 5% or something...

I am not exactly sure how these are weighted... but yeah I agree there should be a better system... just not sure how to break it all down and back up... ya know...

The biggest pain I think is the system we have now may cost us the election...but hopefully not.

Accurate, Dog Soldier,

If there is a way to lose, the Democratic Party will find it.

Should read automatically get 75%

Let's see,

2000 and 2004.

Weren't those Bush electorate victories?

Isn't a red state win, a red state win no matter how you spin it?

Can anyone expect to pull pages from the Kerry play book and win?

Has the Supreme Court changed significantly as to favor any Democratic challenges to the voting process?

Caucus = Mob Rule

sorry Mccain actually got his butt kicked in Colorado (19 to mitt's 59) but Colorado too...went from 13% spread repub in 2000 to
5% spread in 2004

and the numbers republican to dem in primaries percentage wise from both of those have gone strongly 2 to 1...

As you know DL I'm a Clinton supporter, yet I look around at the democratic party itself and I'm angry. Angry because we have the stupidest system of voting of any western democracy. Who in their right mind devises a system of so called super delegate? And we sit here and take this crap. Obama wins big on weekend and ONLY picks up 7 delegate while Clinton gets 5? The Texas two step? Millions and millions of dollars and we're still here with nothing decided yelling at each other, WHY? It isn't Clinton who turned Obama supporters against her, nor is it Obama who turned Clinton supporters against him, it is the democratic party SYSTEM and their ridiculous system who turned us against each other. Why not if you win a state, even by one vote, you atomically get 75% of delegates and the rest shared? No super delegates. No caucuses. Now the democratic party is sitting there wringing their hands over a party split. Yes, we're split and may never come together. Well the democratic party got no one to blame but themselves. Period.

LOM

Look at those red states...you think they all are exclusively red...like Missouri...which went from 17 point spread in 2000 to a 7 point spread in 2004
to the numbers for primaries suddenly showing a huge jump in percentages this year toward Dems...(2 to 1 ) turn out as opposed to the last times were the opposite in primaries...and McCain got his butt kicked there..

That may turn out to be a challengable state...but only with Barack...who won by a 9 point spread

This is one of those states that I call a harder to challenge but still challengeable...there are many states where the numbers are even more favorable...

This is not just a question of winning this is a question of changing the map.

I have a list of swing...challengeable, and harder to challenge... this year there are more states on the table in both directions... CT...for instance in the other direction (although unlikely in some ways because of the tone of the nation) ...but Lieberman is backing McCain. This is a state that is threatened barack won.

It is not the big blue states that we neeed to worry about... it is the questionable ones...and expanding our congressional base.

And, when you get right down to it, this argument will go on until August.

After watching Chairman Howard Dean blather around yesterday, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democratic Convention disintegrate into complete and total chaos.

And, anyone who identifies me with the Clinton campaign needs to start paying a little bit more attention.

Caucus = Mob Rule