This is amazing.
Coryell Co., Tex
updated 10:47 p.m. EST, March 4, 2008Clinton 2,434 49%
Obama 2,434 49%100% reporting
What are your thoughts on tonight so far?
This is amazing.
Coryell Co., Tex
updated 10:47 p.m. EST, March 4, 2008Clinton 2,434 49%
Obama 2,434 49%100% reporting
What are your thoughts on tonight so far?
That Obama won a state. I was convinced that he’d lose all 4 states tonight, so I’m pleased he won one. That means he’s won 25 states. That also means that he’s won 12 of the last 15 races. Assuming that he loses TX tonight.
I’m so frustrated! I’ve been over at another blog populated mostly by Hillary fans (you know which blog I’m talking about) all night, and they’re practically crapping themselves in ecstasy. The math didn’t get any better for her tonight, and yet everyone’s acting like she’s been resurrected.
Okay, I’m openly mocking people who say that Clinton made a comeback in OH. She was up 25+ points two weeks ago and up 11 pts. in polls this morning. That’s not a comeback in way, shape or form.
Bless you, Fabooj…you’re a little island of lucidity in a vast sea of insanity. I’m about to permanently swear off the blog mentioned above.
I’m sort of thick: which blog is that?
Probably TalkLeft. Possibly also Taylor Marsh.
Reality will hit sometime the next week.
Lou Dobbs just said that Obama’s lead is not insurmountable. HUH? Hillary can not gain on delegates even when she wins states so when does she actually get above Obama?
MSNBC’s Chuck Todd is the only one making sense.
Well, expecting Lou Dobbs to make sense is a losing proposition most of the time.
Clinton team hits new lows in consistently dirty pool.
Charges against Houston caucuses and Ohio polls staying open? Will this be the new campaign message? We can take the slime, and we’re gonna dish it out?
Obama 56% – 44% Clinton
That’s an early glimpse of the caucus results, which are one third of the Texas total.
A 3% margin and 77% in allowed them to call it for Clinton. Oddly, that’s only a 70,000 margin, so it may tighten still.
The delegate story is still uncertain, but it looks close to a draw.
Next comes the Clinton lawsuit to throw out the caucus results.
Looked great. Did his thing well.
I know it’s near sacriledge, but I like his Reagan shout outs. I really think he has a chance to claim the other side’s rhetoric and move the center to the left.
And I like his sincere spirituality, too. There are a lot of people of faith out there who will feel comfortable voting for Obama because of it.
Given that the voice of dominionist proto-fascism in American politics has a lot of egg on it’s face right now, and is splitting the Republican party to boot, I think it’s the right move to stake out a strong stance whereby American Christians (the non-“values absolutist” variety) can identify as Democrats. It addresses a huge long term strategic branding problem that is a direct result of successful Republican positioning on the issue.
He is also the one who kept his promise to Edwards and talked about poverty.
I agree with you about claiming the rhetoric of sweeping yet doable idealism–there’s no reason that the GOP should have a monopoly on that.
I, too, agree.
Despite the clamor for the ‘substantive,’ people are not motivated by laundry lists of policy positions. Reagan, like him or not, was able to communicate to a great number of people. Many Democrats are still in denial about him, preferring to think that he somehow fooled people.
I’ve tried on many occasions to explain the idea of what Reagan and other speakers are doing that allows them to connect, but, as Louis Armstrong said: “there are some people, if they don’t know, you can’t tell them.”
George Lakoff has elaborated on this idea, and the following posting from the Rockridge explains some of the basics.
http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2008/02/28/why-voters-arent-motivated-by-a-laundry-list-
of-positions-on-issues
In essence, the 50+1 strategy is the antithesis of the VIP idea. People buy into a “cognitive policy,” as Lakoff explains. This is the frame, a term that’s been talked about a lot but is still largely misunderstood.
MSNBC calls Texas for Clinton
I heard them say she gets the primaries, but what about caucus results?
MSNBC called Texas for Hillary.
A bad night for Obama. 3 out of 4, as I expected.
Yeah, it looks bad, but the real story is, look at the delegates. At best she’ll reduce Obama’s lead by about ten.
All it means is that she isn’t going to drop out. Which makes us the losers.
Yes. NO DELEGATES are awarded based on the statewide vote totals. They are awarded per State Senate District, based on past Dem voter participation rates for each of those districts. He won the juicy ones and will get more delegates based on the vote. And he will likely also win the caucuses, giving more of a delegate lead.
I’ll be surprised if she comes out of the night with a net gain, actually. Right now I think they’re saying she’s up somewhere between 5 and 7, maybe 10 at the most on the day.
CNN too.
Bad night for Obama.
It concerns me that he can’t close the deal in a big state when she goes head to head with him, spends a lot of money and time and pulls all the stops out. It’s not so much the particular state as the fact that whenever they do go head to head – she wins.
It concerns me because I actually think McCain is a tougher adversary than her. Of course a primary is different than a GE.
I’m not all that concerned, really, because a Democrat vs. Democrat race is not the same as a Democrat vs. Republican race. Look at California for instance. It’s going to go to the Democratic nominee whoever it is.
I’m not concerned about a particular state. I’m concerned that he hasn’t been able to do what it takes to win against her when they go head to head. I want to feel comfortable that he’ll do what it takes against John McCain.
Because in the GE most states are winner take all.
Again, it comes down to who he’s running against. Win or lose in the big states, he’s building an Organization that won’t be competing against Clinton after Labor Day. I don’t want to take anything for granted of course, but I think people in big states and small are going to want to vote for Hope and Change instead of Four More Years.
I’m trying to be optimistic here.
I’m also worried about whether he can close the deal.
I disagree about McCain being tougher though. I think Obama beats him easily on policies and inspiration.
Well, let’s just say that he beats Hillary on all the things Hillary threw at Obama. So if she can make a percentage of the electorate doubt Obama, he could too.
Experience? He’s the only one with real experience.
Thank god he’s got the personality of a rock.
“So if she can make a percentage of the electorate doubt Obama, he could too.”
I buy that to a healthy extent. But he also got hit from the press and from McCain at the same time. So it wasn’t all her.
Keep in mind that the press is lazy and repeats the lines it is fed. McCain and Hillary were feeding it the same line. So maybe they paid attention to it more because there were 2 of them. Or maybe they would have reported it even if only McCain was feeding it to them. I vote for the second scenario since they seem to love McCain anyway.
Truthfully I’ve always felt that either of them can beat McCain.
But tonight still concerns me.
They’re calling Texas for Clinton.
There is going to be no living with the woman, and really, even if she wins the popular vote, it’s not going to make a bit of difference. And now that she has won the big states there’s no way she’s going to drop out.
Why is it they are still talking about what she needs to do to win?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blah blah and crap.
Can Russert campaign for redoing Michigan and Florida anymore?
It’s actually a good idea. Obama has an over 150 pledged delegate lead and about a 40 deficit in superdelegates, which is evaporating. Tonight’s totals won’t change that much. Redoing both Michigan and Florida would allow him to dispel legitimacy question that will remain, and he wouldn’t lose many, if any, on the delegate race.
I think it’s time for Obama to stop being quite so nice and demand the Clinton’s’ tax returns – in ads. Show them as fabulously rich, with money falling from the sky wherever they go since Bill left office. Make us wonder where all this money is coming from. Hedge Funds? Russian Mafia? You name it.
Do the ads tastefully, as financial disclosure is a legitimate request of the Clintons. She’s not too busy. All it takes a simple phone call to her accountant.
The commander-in-chief question is largely about showing whether you’re tough enough. He can play a role straight out of a Sidney Poitier role — gentlemanly, but I’ll kick your ass if I have to. People do respond to this. And surprisingly, a lot of people want to see a #itch put in her place, failing to respond forcefully merely reinforces her charges. As always, it’s about showing rather than saying. Many of the Clinton memes — action, problem solver, experience, etc., are just rhetoric in speeches, and the media has given her a free ride on them.
I take my Chuck Todd comment back. He just started mumbling about Hillary needing to know Carolina BBQ and Obama supporters drinking lattes.
Todd: “Obama can’t get to 2025 either”
Let me try extend some of my earlier comments;
The is a very basic emotional logic the underlies thinking, and much of this emotional logic can be understood by looking at our expectations for a character in a movie.
My understanding of this idea comes from the work of Erving Goffman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving_Goffman
Goffman appropriated the term Dramaturgy to describe our expectations for a given social milieu. When a social actor fails to act in accordance with this set of subconscious role expectations he runs the risk of being stigmatized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramaturgy_%28sociology%29
Obama’s problem of late is that he tried to honor his commitment to being a new kind of politician and failed to react in a way that we expect for someone in his circumstances. It’s a little like John Wayne failing to defend himself when attacked. Surprisingly, we look down on a person who doesn’t respond in that situation. And, to use another example, when the Democrats in Congress failed to show backbone when pressed by Bush, their crime was that they betrayed us, they lacked courage, not that they didn’t show proper judgment. Our understanding of a role like the Commander-in-Chief is very much tied up in this basic emotional language. Even though we may talk about a seemingly rational concept, we’re really just asking whether Obama will respond at an emotional level in the way we understand, in accordance with our dramaturgical expectations.