Do the math.  Hillary Clinton is going to have to win nearly two-thirds of all the remaining delegates to beat him in pledged delegates.  She won't do this.  A "victory" for her means barely winning the Texas primary (Obama, by the way, came out of Texas with five more delegates than Hilldog) and by coming out of Ohio with plus 9.  After Mississippi, which will likely go for Obama, there are 10 contests left.  Even if she came out in plus nine delegates in all of the races left (in some, that is an impossibility), she would be down by 60 something pledged delegates.  

Hillary Clinton needed big wins in Texas and Ohio.  What she got was a "technical victory" in Texas and an "average" victory in Ohio.  Pennsylvania is her last chance to really cut into Obama's lead, but I expect results similar to Ohio.  While states like North Carolina, Oregon, and (surprisingly) Indiana appear to be leaning Obama in latest polls, while one would expect South Dakota and Montana to follow trends similar to the rest of the west.  

Hillary Clinton would need a miracle to win.  The only chance for that miracle to occur would be a HUGE victory in PA, followed by victories in every other state.  This just seems unlikely to occur.

I just got back from Nicaragua, and am trying to catch up in school/Resident Advisor work, but I'll try to post something on VBDems about this soon.

I wasn't aware that was what we called 100,000 votes margin in a state.  Isn't that about what Tim Kaine won by?  Jim Webb won by 1/10 of that- what does that make his victory?

You're smarter than that, Ben, and you know it's a bullshit argument.  In Webb and Kaine, they weren't fighting for delegates.  They were fighting for votes.  If pure votes were what mattered in Texas, then there would be no denying that she won Texas in every way.

But this race isn't about pure votes.  Hillary herself admitted it.  And though she halts a lot of Obama momentum with that win, the fact is that the lost the delegate race, just like Nevada.  Because of Texas' struture, Hillary won by 4 delegates after the primary, but Obama came out plus 9 from the caucus.  Hence, Obama leaves Texas with 5 more delegates.  Is it spin?  Sure.  But it's good spin that brings up a solid point; it is near impossible for Hillary Clinton to overcome Obama's delegate lead.  And even her "massive" (I say that with a grain of salt) in Ohio that the "anti-Clinton" media is talking about gave her a nine delegate lead.  I expect similar results in PA, which Obama can easily counter through Carolina and Oregon.  Remember, Obama doesn't need to pad his lead, just protect it.  

Hillary Clinton did win a "technical victory" in the sense that she won the popular vote, and the media is using this to talk about her campaigns revival.  But as Time Magazine pointed out, "It may be too late."  I think it is.  Her "victory" in Texas did nothing to help her in the delegate count.  In fact, she fell further behind.  And if Obama can keep his pledged delegate lead above 100 votes, then there is simply no way the Superdelegates can overrule the will of the people without risking destorying the Democratic Party.  You know this as well.

Totally understandable how you could dismiss people for a formula.

Not.

You know that popular votes don't mean anything in the Democratic Nomination process.  The only thing that matters is delegates.  And Obama won more delegates than Hillary.

only electoral votes -- aks President Al Gore -- or for that matter, President Samuel J. Tilden

But it's a shame Obama supporters have to point to George W. Bush when they point out you don't need more votes to actually win.

Been there, done that, don't want a President who doesn't win the popular vote again.

If popular votes don't mean anything in the Democratic Nomination process, will you be upset if Superdelegates hand Senator Clinton the nomination and Obama leads the popular vote?

I'm only pointing out that this Texas was only a "technical" win is not a great argument.  A win is a win.  She won the primary by votes cast.  And the stories coming out the next day were that she swept three of the four contests.

On the caucuses, the Texas Democratic Party stopped reporting unofficial results and the last results they have are just barely 50% of all precincts.  Official results won't be available until the end of March.  So, we don't know ultimately whether Senator Obama came out ahead here.

and make the popular vote the only thing that ever matters. Just ask President Gore.

The Clinton campaign claimed second place in Iowa based on delegates. You can't have it both ways.

Besides, Texas is a red state. It doesn't count anyway.

What is it about? Is it about what the voters want, or is it about delegates?

If it is about delegates, part of the reason that Obama is ahead is because his campaign did a much better job or gaming the system (I don't mean that in a negative way). Clinton won Texas by 100K votes, while Obama tied or won more delegates.

He followed the rules, and was smart, so I have no problem with it. But lets not pretend that the delegate apportionment in any way reflected the "will of the people."

Indeed, in many states, the number of delegates available is typically based on a  number of factors completely unrelated to the 2008 elections, such as levels of voter turnout in the last election.

I think if it turns out that following the primaries, and assuming some sort of revote in MI and FL, if Clinton leads in the popular vote while Obama leads in the pledged delegate count, then neither has a clean claim to the will of the party. It will then be up to superdelegates. This does not mean a backroom deal, BTW -- superdelegates can act with transparency.

If Obama leads in both, then it is a different ball of wax. I'm not sure Hillary's "big state" argument works for me. I understand the logic of the electoral math, but I'm not sure why the preference of a Democrat in California should count more than the preference of a Democrat in Wyoming.

Kos did the math today and says that Clinton is around 700,000 popular votes behind Barack Obama.  

Meanwhile, since Obama won in Iowa in January and proved that he could really challenge Clinton, he has won new super delegate endorsements at a margin of 3 to 1 over Clinton. That super delegate thing has not panned out for Hillary Clinton and is not going to get her anywhere. She had a lead in that department only because of the people who came out for her before the voting even started because they thought she was 'inevitable.' Now that she's clearly not inevitable, they've been breaking for Obama for months.

No matter how you slice and dice this thing, Hillary Clinton loses. Even if Florida and Michigan both have new elections, Obama will sweep Michigan with it's enormous black vote. And he'd certainly be over 40% in Florida as well.

All of these ideas from a month ago for how Hillary Clinton could grab this thing have turned to dust. Time keeps passing, more primaries and caucuses are held and Obama keeps either winning or holding down the margin of her few victories to such a low level that the standard required for her to recover in the dwindling states remaining becomes more and more absurd each week.

Hillary Clinton lost the election.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sweep" MI, but assuming a revote in FL were to draw about 2 million voters, and a 60-40 split, that's 400K votes right there. A 55-45 divide in PA adds another 250-300K. If Clinton does better, she could overtake him.

Also, I don't simply accept the idea that even if Obama is ahead in the popular vote by some very thin margin (say, .25%) that all superdelegates automatically need to vote for him in order to reflect the will of the voters. I suspect that many superdelegates -- at least those who are elected officials -- will follow the will as expressed by their particular electorates (Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick notwithstanding). Those who are not elected officials are supposed to exercise their independent judgment.

It's simply not a done deal. I think you make it much more clear cut than it really is.

I just think it is essential that whatever superdelegates do is done with transparency. The election is close enough that both candidates will need them to win, and anything that smacks of back-room deals for either side would be wrong.

You win a hockey game whether the score is 10-2 or 3-2.  You don't win based on # of shots on goal, or # of hard hits along the boards, or whatever. You win based on the # of goals scored, as per the rules set forth (well) prior to the game.  In this case, having the superdelegates overturn the results of the primaries and caucuses would be like having the ref's decide after the hockey game that the team with more goals didn't really win and awarding the victory to the other team.  How would the fans feel about that?

Hockey?  Really, Lowell?  Are we discussing Canadian politics now? ;)

in Hartford.  Also, last time I checked, there was an NHL team that plays about 5 miles from my house. :)  (they actually practice about 1 mile from my house)  

(and not because it's hockey, which I like just fine).

By its own rules, the election game isn't simply decided by who has the most points at the end of regulation time, like a hockey game or a football game, but by who is the first to reach a particular threshold, which neither candidate will reach.

A better sports analogy is perhaps a pick-up basketball game where the first to reach 11 baskets wins. If the score is 7-6 and it starts to rain, so everyone has to go inside, there is an argument that the team in the lead is the "winner," but there is also an argument that there is no winner, there is only a leader, and the game has yet to be decided.

I can tell you from experience that where you stand on that argument depends on whether you're playing with the squad that has 7, or the squad that has 6.

I thoroughly disagree with some of your points.  First of all, I think the idea of Superdelegates is incredibly undemocratic, and I am not a fan of the idea.  This may be why I don't want them changing the results of the primaries.

It's really quite simple: if Obama has more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton after the primaries are finished, he should be the nominee.  And I think I'm being one of the more generous Obama supporters by saying that if he only has a 20-or-so Pledged Delegate lead than I would accept it if Hillary Clinton somehow gets the nomination.  But if Hillary wins contrary to how the primaries have gone, myself and many other Democrats will walk.  We'll help Mark Warner, but won't lift a finger for Clinton.  Why?  Because we will NOT support a candidate who was chosen by party insiders as opposed to the people.  We're Democrats, for God's sake, not Republicans!  Don't we have any populism left in us?  Or are we all so cynical that the ends always justify the means?

The people arguing against the pledged delegate total, discounting its imporants, are arguing an interesting point of view.

The number of delegates awarded to each state is, and please correct me if I'm wrong, based upon the total number of voting Democrats in those staes. This is not a general election. We are supposed to be trying to discern the will of Democratic Party members and the undeclared and independent voters that make up the bulk of the Democratic coalition. This process of primaries (some open, some closed) and caucuses and hybrids was legislated by the people elected by Democrats to ensure that such a system accurately reflected this view (the DNC) in concert with the state parties. I can almost not think of a more democratic process for navigating the complexities of this messy democracy we call America.

How in the world can you then argue that the position that earns the most delegates selected by Democrats and voters in all the states (and territories) shouldn't be the nominee?!? It literally boggles my mind.

When people state she is losing because Barack is playing by the rules better, what they are saying is she is losing because Barack energized more Democrats to vote for him and participate. That means he ought to be the nominee.

And regardless of the scenario that comes in June when Puerto Rico ends the primary process for us, I think the Superdelegates should vote for Senator Obama.  Senator Obama has demonstrated he can bring new people to the party, capitalize on the energy of young voters, and raise a lot of money.  These same people are not going to turn out for Senator Clinton.  

Senator Clinton just brings the same old base of the Democratic Party to the table (me, for example).  The same base that would be voting for Senator Obama if he were the nominee.  And in some cases, Senator Clinton at the top of the ticket, polarizing figure that she is, would hurt some of our candidates for other offices.  

I like and admire Senator Clinton.  She has done great things in her life.  She is super knowledgeable and super intelligent.  But as much as it pains me, Logos doesn't win elections.  Pathos and Ethos are what win elections.

This argument about pledged delegates and vote totals is not important.  It should be about who can win in November and who can best increase the size of the party.  

a 55-45 split in PA would add something closer to 125K net for Clinton.  

One way to look at this: Clinton won by almost exactly 300K in NY where there were 232 pledged delegates at stake with 57% to  40% for Obama.  PA has a total of 158 pledged delegates -- so we can extrapolate the PA's vote is likely to be about 68% the size of NY's vote.  NY had about 1.75 million votes.  So, if PA has the same turnout let's say there will be about 1.2 million votes cast in the PA primary.  A 55-45 split works out to about 655,000 for Clinton and 535,000 for Obama.  

To get to 250,000 votes in PA Clinton needs a win that is approximately 61% to 39%.  Possible, but not too likely.

Assuming that Clinton wins PA 61-39% -- and that Clinton and Obama split North Carolina.  Out of the remaining contests there would be about 2,145,000 votes left.  In order to close the remaining gap Clinton would need to continue with about 61% to 39% margins in the remaining states in order to close the gap.

Michigan and Florida change the dynamic.  At this stage though I don't think anyone knows how those will go.  It took Oregon 10 years to work out its mail-in ballot system.  It seems unlikely that Michigan and Florida could develop a reliable above-board system in just 3 months.  

but I think your numbers are off and it could make a difference.

There were nearly 2 million voters in Ohio, and I suspect the total number of Democratic votes will be closer to that number, so a 55-45 split results in a net 220K votes for Clinton. A 60-40 split means 400K.

I sincerely wish there was greater clarity in the race, but there isn't. Democratic voters are closely split -- that is a fact . The idea that Obama is a "clear choice," and a presumptive nominee, such that Clinton should just drop out, is just wrong.

But more to the point, trying to force Clinton from the race with this argument doesn't even accomplish what you want. Doing so will just alienate millions of Clinton voters.

Texas has a rich history of both progressive and conservative politics.  The Democratic Party there is just a mess and needs a lot of TLC.  We would be unwise to ignore the second most populous state in the union.  Just a scant few years ago, they had a majority Democratic delegation to Congress before Tom Delay stole even that from them.  

What Hillary and all her supporters seem to forget is it is all about delegates.  Obama won more delegates in TX that is all there is to it.  Al Gore won more votes George Bush is president it really sucks but that is the way it is.  In this case it is awesome that Obama keeps winning more delegates.

If you really want to get technical, Obama won Texas. Because he did in fact get more pledged Texas delegates than Clinton did.

Hillary 'won' Texas in the sense that she got a higher number of votes in the primary phase of the Texas election. But she lost Texas in the sense that this contest is a race for total delegates and Obama got more pledged delegates out of Texas than she did.

Now I can see how she'd think it was fair to trumpet Texas as a victory, but it's also fair to dismiss that victory as irrelevant to her prospects of winning on account of Obama getting more delegates.

Hence 'technical.'

I heard on NPR the yesterday that Clinton won Texas by 4 delegates. How do these people get away with this stuff?

Hillary won the primary by 4.  But that's not including the caucuses.  Obama won the caucuses by 9.  Hence, he comes out ahead but 5.  It's not a lie, just selective truth.

Winning means both the primary and the caucuses are included. Try telling Texas their caucuses don't count.

but if you want to go total of votes, then add the votes in the caucuses to those in the primary -  hey, TX is like Chicago, some people get to vote more than once!

Obama has racked up an awful lot of blowout victories. Clinton cannot counter those with mere wins.

Even 54% in PA for Clinton would only catch up with the 13 delegate edge that Obama will likely take over her in Mississippi today. A respectable win in PA would thus leave her in exactly the same delegate hole that she was in yesterday.

Which, of course, is exactly the same delegate hole she was in before Texas and Ohio. Win or lose the battle, Hillary loses the war.

Heh.  I grew up walking distance from the Mississippi river (albeit in MN).   Our little spelling mnemonic was to break it down like this:

M-iss-iss-ipp-i

Regarding the primary, the odds for Clinton keep getting slowly worse, and their scenarios for victory keep getting to be more and more unlikely.  And when she emulates Lieberman she isn't exactly going to endear herself to many in the party, either.

with an overall lead in the popular vote, if not pledged delegates. But she would need double-digit wins on average in the remaining contests (after MS, she'll need @57-58% in the 10 remaining races). Not to mention the fact that her only chance of winning that way means stretching this out until mid-June at least.

I like how Mike Ciresi dropped out of the race for the Senate in MN against Al Franken. He knows that beating Norm Coleman in the fall is much more important than a long, uphill nomination fight. If only every Democrat had such priorities.

He will win North Carolina and Oregon.  And he has legitimate opportunities in Montana, South Dakota, and Indiana.  If this is factored in, you begin to realize that the number (57-58%) is in fact much higher than that in the races that Hillary will need to win.

and he will win MT and SD by the way.

.. the delegates are what is being won, not the popular vote. just trying to switch the verbage.
The delegates is what gets the nomination.
and isn't obama ahead in the popular vote also?

Even when Florida is factored in.

It doesn't count all the people who showed up for caucuses.  Saying the popular vote is acceptable disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of Democrats

Overall the popular vote does seem to follow the same pattern as well as was pointed out including adding in Florida..... AND the one bigger point is that almost no state can be walked away from because it has been a traditionally "Red" state..... Using Virginia for a big example, everything I've read, heard and seen says that there will be a lot more Purple and Blue this year or at least color blind cross-overs....

The next 6 weeks will be annoying. Because we all know perfectly well that Barack Obama will be the nominee and we all know perfectly well that Hillary Clinton is mathematically doomed.  We should be switching into general election mode right now, yet here we are. Forced to contend with what amounts to a tantrum by a spoiled brat of a candidate.

Clinton can't beat Obama any more. But she can damage and weaken him going into the general election. We've got probably 6 weeks of dealing with a vandal in our midst. Someone who calls herself a Democrat and yet is apparently devoted to the idea of wrecking and dividing the Democratic party. Personally insulting entire states, threatening a repeat of the '68 Chicago convention and doing her best to alienate black voters.

It will be an annoying time because there really isn't even a horse race to follow any more. The only question is by exactly what margin Obama will thump Clinton at the convention. Yawn.

Maybe we'll get lucky and there will be an intervention by party leaders before then. Reid, Pelosi and Dean might get together and come to an agreement about the state of things. Maybe Reid can threaten to yank her committee assignments away. That would be interesting. Sometimes a kid throwing a tantrum just needs to be punished.

if obama was in the the situation that senator clinton is in now, all you people would not be calling for him to drop out. you would be hoping for change. the fact is that obama cannot get to the 2025 needed with pledged delegates either.

for the same reason: the losing candidate can't win without upsetting the winner of pledge delegates coming into the convention.

any hope for that died after she won Ohio.  But she really has no ability to win the nomination without Superdelegates overturning the will of the pledged delegates.  She's down 155 delegates.  There are only 10 primaries left (excluding Mississippi).  Where do you see Hillary's delegates coming from?  I just don't see where.  Even you have to admit that.  Hell, the Clinton campaign is pushing this idea.  Ed freakin' Rendell was on the news stating just that; Hillary is hoping that Superdelegates will ignore all the primary results and simply annoint her, regardless of the peoples' choice.  And it will destroy the Democratic Party if that happens.  If Obama wins fair and square, most Hillary supporters will accept it, just as most Obama supporters would accept it if Hillary won fair and square.  But as an Obama supporter, I can promise that most of us will walk away from the party if she happens to win the nomination while significantly losing the pledged delegate count.  Why?  Because I want nothing to do with a party that is decided by insiders against the will of the people as a whole.

I have always said that I would vote for Hillary should she win honestly (as in wins the pledged delegate count).  Hell, I could probably support her if she only loses the pledged delegate count by 20-30 delegates.  But 100?  No way.  That's a blatant disregard for our entire primary system.  

the other day:

...we most certainly have to be respectful of the candidacies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who knew what the rules were...and changing the rules halfway through the game is incredibly unfair to both of those candidates and frankly would split the Democratic Party so we're not going to do it.

you mentioned superdelegates going against the will of the people. would you consider ted kennedy, john kerry, and deval patrick to be going against the will of the people in massachusetts where clinton crushed obama?
how about in here in virginia. rick boucher is a superdelegate for obama but senator clinton won his disrict by a wide margin.

Both are Clinton superdelegates from Washington State, where Obama won every single county?

Obama is arguing that every single district should be taken into account by superdelegates.  Congressman should listen to their district, governors and Senators to their states, etc.  This is because if that were the case, he would win more superdelegates than Hillary, though I'm not sure whether he'd have enough to win the nomination.

Frankly, I disagree with him.  I'm not gonna say I have the solution: I don't.  What I'm saying is that after this year, we are going to need a massive overhaul of our primary system, and one of my hopes will be that the concept of superdelegates will be re-evaluated.

in the prostitution ring scandal?  I'm not suggesting I have any inside information.   But what if?  Would she drop out then?

Or a non-paid sex scandal involving Bill?

Or a sex scandal involving Hillary?

Or a financial scandal involving one or either of them?

Or people find out that Chelsea worked for a hedge fund about the time that hedge funds begin to take down the economy and everyone's pensions the way Enron's pensions disappear...

I'm not saying any of these will happen, nor am I intimating (ooh, what a word in this context) that any of the scenarios has any validity, but what if on one or more?  Might she withdraw then?

I am making clear that I am not positing that any of those things would happen, merely asking if person to whom I am responding thinks there really are no circumstances under which Clinton would withdraw

I could offer quite a few more.  And by the way, I know for a fact that some of what could be offered has been seriously discussed within the Clinton campaign, which has its own share of worries

It's a crappy comment, but it's a clear response to Ken's crappy comment, and they deserve to be seen side by side.

He talked about having used it in the late 70s when he was an undergrad at Occidental college.  No one there remembers him doing so -- the NY Times actually did a story on this one.  Odds are if he did that we could probably count the number of times on one hand with a few fingers cut off.

The real estate issue is a non-starter.  The Clinton's have Rezko connections.  One of their top fundraisers -- Rendell has strong Rezko connections.  The idea that the Obama's got a "sweetheart" deal with their real estate purchase in 2005 is laughable if you understand how pricing works in the high-end market.  $200,000 off the list price on a home that has been sitting on the market for months is chump change for bigger properties -- especially if you're dealing with antsy sellers (a co-worker of Michelle Obama) -- who are looking to sell the property without taking a loss so that they could move to Florida (which is exactly what the previous owners did).

HRC had much better luck in her ROI on the cattle futures investments.  Never mind the $40 million that the Clintons have raked in 8 short years post-presidency.

Of course nobody can get to 2025 without super delegates because that number is the majority of delegates including super delegates.  If super delegates are taken out of the equation a majority is reached at 1627.  Right now Obama has 1411 pledged delegates do you think he can get to 1627.  That is the number to reach without pledged delegates.

I'm really glad to see the intraparty wars laid out on this thread, but I sortof have a question about TODAY's primary...

When do the polls close in MS?

!

D'uh, I should have known that.  God forbid a Southern State were to keep its polls open past 7 pm.

Their desparation is so extreme that they send out Gerry to play the race card for the red neck hicks of central PA.

This move is positively Nixonian and should disqualify both Clintons from any gathering of respectable Democrats.

"At long last Senator have you no shame? Have you no decency?"

It seems Billary is determined to destroy the Democratic Party  if they can't own it as their personal plaything.  

and the reason why the good people of central PA usually don't vote democratic.

Not all the folks from central Pa are red necks. Hell, I married a "ridge runner" and one of my kids goes to college there. But there are lots of red necks among my in-laws and his classmates. Ferraro's race baiting will resonant with the very few of them who might think about voting in the Democratic primary.
 

Do you have a shred of actual evidence for this allegation?

In fact, the post below, citing to the Politico story that Ferraro basically said the same thing about Jesse Jackson in 1988, suggests that Ferraro was just spouting off some pre-existing racist perceptions she holds -- nothing that was part of  a plan.

I suppose it is reasonable, since we are talking about the Clintons, that way back in 1988, the Clintons planned to have Ferraro utter a racist remark about Jesse Jackson, knowing that at some point in the future, perhaps in about 20 years, they would need her to beard from them in making other racist remarks, but would require some kind of plausible deniability that Ferraro was just a racist.

It sounds crazy, I know, but well within the demonic plotting capabilities of both Clintons.  

very simple: Ferraro made some utterly outrageous, unacceptable remarks.  The Clinton campaign should sever all ties with her immediately and "reject and denounce" the remarks. Just as they did with Bill Shaheen, and just as the Obama campaign correctly did with  Samantha Power. It's really not complicated.

Except, I think in the Samantha Powers case that the simple and immediate apology was sufficient. Resignation wasn't justified, IMHO.

And I'll add that I am completely baffled by Clinton's failure to have run as far away from Geraldine Ferraro as possible. I suspect the reason is wrapped up somewhere in the minutia of New York politics, but that doesn't make it right.  

to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton knows Ferraro's comments resonate with a lot of white voters in Pennsylvania.  Remember, this type of race-baiting helped the Republicans build majorities all across the south.  This woman is destroying the Democratic Party just so she win the nomination.  Whether it's "Reagan Democrats" or black and young voters, someone is not going to be happy in November and I place the blame almost entirely with Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

and she doesnt seem to get that...

Here's what Ferraro said today....

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

This makes me sad. The first campaign that I remember following was Mondale/Ferraro (I was 13). I looked up to her then.

If Obama's skin color was the "reason" he's in the place he is now. Why didn't it help Jesse Jackson...or for that matter Alan Keyes????

and I know we went round with this in connection with South Carolina.

Through 30-odd years in public life, both Clintons seem to have pretty good records when it comes to civil rights and issues affecting minorities, so I think maybe they deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to speculating about motives.

But sure, could be a cynical racial politics playing out. But it could be some local NY thing, a sense of misguided to loyalty to Ferraro, or perhaps simply a blind spot on the part of Clinton to issues like this.

Damned if I know for sure. All I know is that she needs to be stronger in distancing herself from both these remarks and from Ferraro.

Obama definitely has the better videographers pulling for him.

work means very little if it is negated by a white electorate that becomes convinced that they are receiving the short end of the stick.  We already see the impact this type of thinking is having on policy.  Look at California and Michigan.  Ward Connolly has engaged in a crusade to end affirmative action by tapping into the very same sentiment of racial resentment that Geraldine Ferraro (and Clinton's campaign)is speaking to.  

There are a lot of white voters out there who truly believe that blacks are getting things that they don't deserve, that blacks somehow have it easier in the nation because of the color of their skin, and that they have to work harder to get the same results.  The Clintons and Ferraro have to know this and know that a lot of these votes live in Pennsylvania, central especially.  What they don't seem to realize or don't seem to care about is what this type of campaigning does outside of the political arena.  Did they not see the 52% drop in black enrollment at Berkley in California after the passage of Prop. 209?  Do they not see what black and other minority students have to go through on college campuses across the nation?  Do they not understand why people like Sean Hannity and racist Bill O'Reilly are standing behind Ferraro on this?  

I suspect they do understand all of this.  I suspect they feel it is a bad thing.  I believe Hillary Clinton is concerned about civil rights and race relations in this nation.  HOWEVER, I think those things place a distant second to her desire to win.  That is a position that I have absolutely no respect for.  Until Clinton apologizes for the way her campaign has conducted itself and "rejects and denounce" Geraldine Ferraro, I will not give her any support now or ever.

Is it only me or is anyone else feeling embarrassed to be a Democrat?

White people in Mississippi showed today that they haven't really grown at all in terms of racial development.

in fact even more so. exit polls showed 91% voted for obama.

Don't compare black voters in Mississippi to white racists.  Unwise.

It doesn't prove that more blacks are voting for him because he is black.  Nor does it make them racist if they do vote for him.  

This logic is absolutely ridiculous.  By this same logic women are sexist since they vote in greater numbers for Hillary.  The elderly are ageist because they vote overwhelmingly for Hillary.

Black Democratic voters in Mississippi have voted for white candidates for national office numerous times.  The inverse is not true.  Yes, that's a function of there not having been numerous black candidates.  But white Mississippi voter were given an opportunity today and they didn't take it.  That would seem to be the point you're trying hard not to understand.  

White voters in the state of Mississippi are not a monolith.  And the choice on the ballot was not prove your not racist by pulling this lever, punching this hole, or pressing this button.  They were presented with two qualified candidates.

And another reason why this is ridiculous is because this is the first time I have seen this come up.  We didn't question white voters intentions in any other state.  Will we do this in six weeks in Pennsylvania?  What about Ohio or Michigan?  Are the only racists in existence in the state of Mississippi?

I get what you are saying but you must remember that Obama has tried to keep race out of this while people like Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro keep playing the race card.  I mean, I just don't get what people expect.  The Clinton campaign is actively playing on the prejudices of the so called Reagan Democrats.  Do you really expect black people to stand behind her despite this?  Ferraro's comments appeal to the very same sentiments that Nixon was appealing to when he talked of the "silent majority."  It is the same sentiment that Reagan appealed to when he announced his candidacy in Philadelphia, MS (a location brought to prominence after the murder of civil rights workers there) and when he talked of "welfare queens" in Cadillacs.

Overall I fear for the party as a whole.  The coalition between working class whites, upscale elites, and blacks seems like a fragile one.  The Clintons seem to be working on these fault lines for a short term victory.  Come November, this fractured party may see a part of it break off regardless of who the nominee is.  If Obama wins the nomination he will have a tough time bringing working class whites on board who have been convinced by Clinton that Obama doesn't have the "experience."  Based on her weak response to the Ferraro comments it also seems that she is also trying to say that Obama is only where he is because he is black.  I know that the appeal of this argument in segments of the white community is very real.  If Clinton wins the nomination there will be many disillusioned black and young voters who may not show up to the polls.  I know some people like Paul Begala believe that this prolonged battle between the two is good for the party but I frankly disagree.

I want to take a moment to touch on the Ferraro comments a little bit more.  I cannot tell you all just how much these comments hurt and anger me.  As a black male at a top university I have to work constantly to disprove this notion that I am only where I am because I am black.  The idea that blacks, let alone black males, have it easier in this country because of their race is completely and utterly ridiculous.  Let us not forget that it was only forty or so years ago that this country eliminated de jure discrimination.  Blacks were defined as second class citizens (if that) and in many cases, property, at this country's conception.  Following emancipation, blacks were then discriminated against through legal means for an additional hundred years.  Should we then be surprised, claim it is a coincidence, or due solely to personal character that blacks lag behind whites on practically every indicator of social welfare?  Geraldine Ferraro absolutely disgusts me.  I rank her among Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, and Pat Buchanan in terms of the respect I have for her.

I am sorry for the extended rant but, it was just something that has been on my mind since I heard Ferraro's comments.

So, if you are white and you vote for Senator Clinton, you are racist?  That's a pretty broad brush to paint all white voters in the state of Mississippi with.

Trust me, I've been accused of being sexist for supporting Obama over Clinton.  I wouldn't want to throw race at Clinton supporters.

But this is Mississippi.  Are you honestly going to tell me that race didn't play an issue for many white voters?

Racism most likely did play a factor in some people's vote.  But it is quite harsh to say: "White people in Mississippi showed today that they haven't really grown at all in terms of racial development."  That is indicting a whole class of people.  

The other thing I find unfair about this comment is that this is the first time I have seen white voters' intentions in a particular state questioned.  There is racism that exists throughout America.  According to exit polls, 70% of white Democrats in the state of Ohio voted for Senator Clinton.  But I don't recall anyone saying, white Ohioans should be ashamed of themselves because they showed today that they haven't really grown at all in terms of racial development.

I know that Mississippi is synonymous with racism in a lot people's minds, and for a good reason.  But I also find it odd that we are quick to call people in the South racist; but once we pass the Mason-Dixon, it's as if it disappears.

Look at my quote, dude.  I'm definitely not anti-South.  And there are plenty of voters in places like PA and New Jersey that have racial issues.  I just get a strong feeling, especially seeing how the number of self described Republicans and Conservatives that voted for Clinton, that race played a big part in the decision of many white voters.

So no, you aren't really following my logic at all.

we have to candidates of different races in this election so race is going to be a factor. but it is not a factor just for "racist white people in mississippi"

there are some whites that voted for clinton because she is white. (in the south AND the north)
there are some racist whites who voted for obama because it made them feel better about themselves. (allow me to explain- there are some white people who describe themselves as liberals and democrats who hold racist views. those views are not socially in many places. this scenario plays out here in arlington sometimes).
there are also some blacks who are voting for obama because he is black.
there are some hispanics who are voting for clinton cause she's white and not black.
there are some hispanics who are voting for obama cause he's a minority.

unfortunately people in this country are not perfect and race does play a role for some. but for those who say it is just racist whites voting for clinton cause she's white, they miss the bigger picture. the racial issue is not a one way street as many rabid anti-clinton people will not admit.

The Mississippi Secretary of State projected that about 150,000 voters would vote in the Democratic primary.  As of now, CNN has 100,000 votes counted with 32% of precincts reporting.  Factored out, that would be about a 300,000 vote turnout, basically doubling estimates.  

Chuck Todd now estimates that Clinton would have to win in excess of 64% of the remaining delegates to wrap up the nomination at the endof the primary season.

Obama, Todd said, would have to win just 46% of the remaining delegates to clinch the nomination.  And that is doable!

If he gets 46% in all the other states, plus winning North Carolina and Oregon, he could definitely prevent a convention problem.

and Clinton should boot her off her fundraising team.

And the press should investigate the dollars raised by Ferraro for Clinton.  Considering her husbands business dealings in the past and the controversy he was involved in during the 1984 campaign, I bet there are some interesting tidbits to be uncovered.    

were similar to the comments she made in 1988.  She hasn't evolved at all.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

So, any time a black person succeeds, it's BECAUSE they're black?  And she claims she's not a racist.  OK...

Sadly, that is pretty much what a lot of people think.  I have to deal with such ignorance all the time.  The worst part about this whole thing is that there are many Americans who believe what she said is true.  This is part of the reason why so many whites oppose affirmative action.  For some people think the civil rights legislation and rulings were magic wands that eliminated racism and that they completely leveled the field.

She should be fired from the Hillary campaign.

And the media should investigate the pattern of race baiting that has been coming out from the Hillary campaign. It is no coincidence that in every race there is a Hillary supporter than is bringing up race.

Of all of the things to do, for a Democrat to engage in race baiting is probably the lowest dirty trick.

Of all people to do it, for Hillary to allow her campaign to pursuit this tactic reflects very, very poorly on her character if she fails to do anything about it.

She must fire Geraldine. And she must strongly state to her supporters that racists attacks are not acceptable.

From an email today to supporters and contributors:

When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."

When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.

When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.

When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.

But the facts are clear.

For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.

Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton. ...

With our overwhelming victory in the Mississippi primary yesterday, our lead in earned delegates is now wider than it was on March 3rd, before the contests in Ohio and Texas.

And thanks to your help, we have dramatically increased our support among so-called "superdelegates" -- Governors, Members of Congress, and party officials who have a vote at the Democratic National Convention in August.

As the number of remaining delegates dwindles, Hillary Clinton's path to the nomination seems less and less plausible.

Now that Mississippi is behind us, we move on to the next ten contests. The Clinton campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania -- a state in which they have already declared that they are "unbeatable." ...

The key to victory is not who wins the states that the Clinton campaign thinks are important. The key to victory is realizing that every vote and every voter matters.

Throughout this entire process, the Clinton campaign has cherry-picked states, diminished caucuses, and moved the goal posts to create a shifting, twisted rationale for why they should win the nomination despite winning fewer primaries, fewer states, fewer delegates, and fewer votes.

1. As far as I know, it was not the Clinton campaign that derided Obama supporters as "latte-drinking" elitists, but a union president who is supporting Clinton (Yes, I know. Hillary Clinton controls every work that comes out of every supporters mouth. In fact, she is dictating this post to me).

2. We have won "more states." I am still waiting for someone to explain the relevance of this data point to me. It is utterly meaningless.

3. Interesting that more than half of Clinton's popular vote total comes from only 5 states. That suggests her support is quite localized. Uh Oh, just under half of Obama's popular vote total comes from only five states as well.

They do make one good points: Obama has won more pledged delegates, and the math looks very difficult, if not impossible, for Clinton to catch him.

There are two aspects to this race left to be decided. One is the popular vote. If Hillary overtakes him in this area, then arguably her ethical claim on superdelegates is as strong as Obama's, which is based on pledged delegate superiority.

The other is what to do about FL and MI. Perhaps the answer lies in seating FL delegates as is, and devoting all resources to organizing a caucus in MI. This way, each side gets something (Clinton gets her Florida votes, where neither candidate campaigned, and Obama the opportunity to soundly beat her in Michigan in the process where he has done best). Just an idea.