Obama's acceptance smackdown.

Wow, of the top ten speeches I've run into Obama has about three of them.

Obama Picks Biden

Now I've got to whitewash everything bad I said about him. Which isn't much other than gimme some great liberal. Biden is an okay choice and certainly better than Bayh and Kaine pretty easily. He's also got crazy foreign policy experience and was the only reasonable person on Iraq early on (crack that bitch in three and run away).

Is Hillary the stronger candidate?

The three swing states she does better in are Ohio, Penn, and Florida. It's harder to find states with bigger totals in play. electoral-vote.com has Clinton swimming in electoral votes and Obama simply winning a pretty hearty amount. The general election map shows her winning more than a few states not generally known for being swing states. Honestly the map looks like (Bill) Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign win margin (states for states). It's as if the (Bill) Clinton supporters in those states are (Hillary) Clinton supporters.

She's lost the nomination and Obama is pretty set to win the general election. However, I'm not sure there isn't some merit to the argument that she would win by a larger margin. As much as I am a fan of the Clinton's from my youth, I really do want some outside blood with some real hope and hopefully down-ticket coat tails.

Though the state polling seems to indicate she'd win in the 340s whereas Obama wins at about 290. Not only does she crush Obama in the Appalachia regions but she appears to have enough crossover appeal in the polling to win a number of those states in the general election just as her husband did in 1996.

I'm not supporting her by any extent, but looking at the current snapshot of the polls she is doing better. I don't really think that polls prior to the full-fledged start of the general election are indicative of what will happen in the general election but unlike most of the crap she pulls out of her ass there is a bit of truth to the argument. It's a moot point as she's already lost the nomination. Further, I think the link between saying that a current snapshot of the polls shows her doing better vs. "the stronger candidate" is not a very well established one. If it were really true, she wouldn't have epic failed during the primaries (insert Mark Penn diatribe). Obama seriously ran a better campaign and generally that's a pretty good metric for determining the stronger candidate.

Both Clinton and Obama would defeat McCain, so by proxy this stands as more of a general election battle much like some of the districts where the Democrat will win and the primary is effectively the election. I think this is how she sees it and asking her to quit as such just seems a bit silly regardless how slim her chances.

That said, I hope she drops out really soon. She can't win and I'd prefer to move on to the next part and get those Clinton supporters behind Obama as soon as possible.

Why won't she quit? Because she's not stupid.

As much as she's lost, she's also tantalizingly close.

Anybody who wonders why Hillary Clinton hasn't quit needs to take a couple seconds in her shoes. She's 160 delegates down with 400 delegates left. But, she knows as well as anybody else that the Democratic Nominee is going to be president. Either of them would probably win with ease. That said, would you ask that McCain stop his campaign in October? All your really mean ads are going to hurt the unity of the country and you don't stand a chance as you're polling down 15 points! Do you think McCain could or would stop? Now look at the primary again. Either one of them would probably easily trounce McCain, who eeked out a win against a pathetically weak bevy of opponents ranging from Sleepy McEatTerrorists to Rev. LetsRewriteTheConstitutionIntoTheBible and nobody should forget PayeeMcCash MagicUnderpants.

I doubt even the worst she could toss at Obama would damage him enough to lose. As much as people love to say they wouldn't vote for the other person in the primary, the alternative is to vote for a third term for Bush in a much more decrepit packaging.

If she drops out she'll have to wait until 2016 to run again and even then Barack's VP would be presumptive and she'd be downright old.

One shot, and you need 300 of 400 delegates... to become president or you very well might never have another chance. Would you quit? What if you were probably going to lose?

-- That said, she should totally drop out. She's become the creepy ex-girlfriend of the Democratic party. Sorry Hillary, stop calling... we're with Barack now.

Below The Even I Can Do That Math Threshold.

After squeaking out a win in Indiana and getting trounced in North Carolina Hillary Clinton now has a new problem. The media isn't abusing Occam's Dildo anymore. It is not longer giving the titillating glimmers of hope to the campaign from several days ago. Given the choice between favoring the theory that due to sheer obviousness Obama now has it pretty much sewn up and Hillary Clinton has a shot "can she do it?" -- They are now dropping the much more infotaining choice mandated by Occam's Dildo (which the new media uses regularly).

Clinton now needs 324.5 out of 487.5 remaining delegates to win, or 66.5% of the remaining delegates. Yesterday she only would have needed 59% of the remaining delegates to get the nomination. That said the media loosing interest in pretending there's fight left in the old girl yet and she's on the ropes but gaining momentum seem to be fading.



Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic Nominee for President.

Primary in 7 Minutes.

In case you haven't paid attention.

Another Victory For Clinton! Now she REALLY needs to give up.

Honestly, ain't no math says she can do it. Up maybe 10 delegates isn't digging her out of the hole. No more big prizes left and she's up shit creek without a paddle.

Update: Clinton about 9% netting about 10 delegates. That makes her win shift the count such that Obama has 1490 pledged to Clinton's 1337 with 231 to 255 supers. So, Obama 1721 and Clinton 1592... 129 delegate hole. With 716 left 129 is 18%, of the remaining delegates she needs 60%. 43% are super delegates. If that breaks roughly even makes her need about 80%+ of the vote in the remaining elections of which most she is certain to lose. With realistic counts on the voting she'd need about 90% of the supers who probably wouldn't upset the pledged count.

Clinton Coattails?

Open Left has a fairly interesting post about predicting a 50+ shift in the house due to the +R win of Bill Foster (who is a scientist by the way) in Hastert's old seat in Illinois' 14th district. The post makes what is the dumbest non sequitur I've ever seen:

Cillizza looked for Republican-held districts with a PVI of between R+1 and R+5, which is basically a measure of districts that are slightly Republican to fairly Republican, and listed them as possible on the table. 21 of them alone were in Ohio, Michigan, and Florida, which suggests that Clinton might have some serious House coattails.

The only logical connection between the two ideas wins across the board in PVI districts of up to R+5 and Clinton is that she won in Ohio and was on the ballot in the other two states when they had their elections with the well known consequences of making their delegates not be seated. However, Ohio according to SUSA would be won by ten points by either Clinton or Obama

It's pretty well a moot point anyhow. Even if you majored in math or miracles, Clinton simply doesn't have the numbers.

Looking at early voter turnout was one of the things which made me an Obama supporter. I think driving some Republicans to the polls just to vote against Clinton isn't going to help the down ticket races. The turnout and excitement for the race certainly does equal coattails but you need to take a good look at who the massive turnout helps. I'm not exactly sure there would be that much vigor and excitement among the old women (my sister and mother included) of Clinton's core voters.

I honestly don't see any coattails specifically for Clinton. There's certainly a wellspring of votes to oppose McCain (as well as a depressing support for McCain) but I don't exactly see anywhere near the excitement in the Clinton camp.

The argument seems to be:

Bill Foster wins in a PVI +R district.
Therefore, Clinton must have coattails.
Therefore, Clinton can help win 50+ districts.

Bill Foster won in Illinois with the help of Barack Obama (he might have done it alone as he had major help from the DNCC, but I don't know how you'd measure that). This bodes well for the coming election season (clearly) however it has nothing to do with Clinton. Good omens for the coming election do not make for some kind of specific claim about one candidate over another.

Moreover, according to SUSA and various general polls, Obama is set to win a much larger victory against McCain than Clinton would, this does actually equal coattails. There's nothing like lackluster candidate suffering an overwhelming defeat to a charismatic individual to send shockwaves through the downticket races. I think the general conclusion of Clinton's lackluster general election prospects (she'd win mind you) doesn't scream coattails.

In fact, I find Clinton's argument that she's the perfect person to go toe-to-toe with McCain another reason not to support her, not because she's tacitly advocating a McCain presidency, but because there's no reason to go toe-to-toe to a guy you can ignore and defeat while extolling the reasons why you are the man for the job. Going toe-to-toe with somebody means that you're at their level. The implicit assumption is that to bring Obama to McCain's level means that he needs to step it up a bit. Rather, to do so, Obama would have to lower himself to that level just as Clinton has lowered herself. Clinton's current strategy to advocate that she's the person to oppose McCain even though every matchup suggests that she does significantly worse is strange enough. However, when you're faced with another four years of McBush who advocates keeping troops in Iraq until they are as old as he is, nobody needs to go toe-to-toe with McCain! He is is the embodiment of failure. He's going to lose. He had a hard time beating a field of humorously weak candidates before GOP bigwigs decided he was the best of the bunch.

Also, not only was Bill Foster helped in his special election, but even in 2004 when Obama was busy sailing to victory for his Senate seat, he started campaigning for a number of house races and having his volunteers help them out. In Clinton's 2006 race, she helped nobody but herself and spent massive amounts of money in an election she was never remotely close to losing.

Further, Obama's ground game is astounding, you win big with good ground game.

Coattails? Clinton? I don't think so.

The Lie About Momentum

Watching this election closely has given me a new appreciation for bullshit. There's something to the fact that winning some early contests can establish you as a front runner candidate and make people in other states vote for you because you're the one who stands the chance. Basically there's no point to voting for Kucinich it he's only going get a couple percent (full disclosure, 2004 I voted for Kucinich after Dean dropped). Which a self fulfilling prophecy, in that, even if there was support out there it wouldn't be enough because you can't support a person without support.

Anyhow, what is true for the first couple contests becomes rather absurd this far out. After Super Tuesday, Barack Obama had pretty much the rest of February tailor made for his campaign, in that, he was set to crush everything on the agenda for a while. At least until Ohio and Texas which Clinton was set to do well in. She did ... eh, though only netting 4 delegates which the California certification pretty well reversed the day after (the other counts were three votes Clinton heavy, three votes Obama shy), and as a consequence, she is mathematically Hucked (a quick political allusion to Huckabee).

The insistence on narrative is a bit 'lie-y'. She underperformed Super Tuesday (Obama netted more delegates) when she needed to get a strong enough lead to block for the rest of February. Then she needed to do well in VOTR primary, which she didn't, but did "win" the states (at least the ones which mattered). Further, she'll win in PA too... but it isn't going to save her. If Florida manages to get a new election (looking doubtful) or Michigan (looking a bit better for a caucus) she'll still going net so few delegates that she'll end up losing.

The narrative is complete crap. After Edwards dropped out just before Super Tuesday, a couple days later everybody had pretty well made up there minds. I think the idea that everybody voted for Obama because he was on fire, winning 12 in a row, is about as dumb as the idea that Clinton just can't be knocked out of this thing, keeps rising from the dead, or can't be counted out. She underperformed where she needed to do really well at every turn. -- She's now lost. It makes for a crappy story. Looking at the delegates she's started off with a good number of Super Delegates from the DNC and DCL and proceeded to be whittled down to the point where there's no chance of her winning. There's your narrative. She's never won in this election, not from the first contest to this latest one. She's underperformed where in the races where she won, she's underperformed in the races where she lost.

Winning states is kind of crap too. It's a primary, they're delegates. Obama won in Georgia. Clinton won in Texas. How much did they win by? Obama netted 33 in Georgia and Clinton netted negative 5 in Texas. I honestly wish the news networks would try to report the news as it matters. Sure, "Obama wins Wyoming, TAKES MOMENTUM!" Sounds good, but winning that state is exactly as obvious as the fact that he's going to win Mississippi come Tuesday. I bet the momentum he gains from Wyoming helped him there!

The race is honestly interesting if you look at it fairly, this need to create a meta story, is unneeded. Why not report the truth rather than jerk people around? Clinton started out with the endorsements of some party bigwigs because her husband use to be president. She's done okay, but not well enough to win.

Clinton Wins! -- Should probably give up now.

After the VOTR (Vermont, Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island) primaries/caucaprimary Clinton won both large states Ohio and Texas which she needed to continue. Thus far it looks like she won a net gain of 2 delegates. This is the same difference is exactly winning New Mexico or my district (CA-43) breaking 3-1 in favor of her rather than 2-2 as any normal even district would.

Starting the night down 159 delegates (pledged total) she finishes up 157 delegates down. And a third of the way closer to the end. To put this in Texas Holdem analogy because I've decided to do that and this isn't your blog...

The season started with Obama having Pocket Deuces vs. Ace King (11:10 in favor of Obama). We'll call this the flop... no help to anybody. This is a massive help to Obama. No hand improved, but, the odds are much better and much more in his favor even after these "losses". There's only so many cards coming and she needs to hit somewhere. The odds may have started out pretty much as a coin flip but they aren't good at this point.

Prediction for Primary on Tuesday

Obama wins Texas and Ohio. And somehow, let's suggest magic, he wins even more delegates than Clinton does. She drops out of the race after a large number of superdelegates began a rush to Obama just to put the race away and start focusing on the general.

California: Home district voting totals.

The people (how very distant they seem) in my family actually live an Even district. So it would take a lot to force a 3-1 split. And, frankly, it happened. 3-1 in favor of Clinton. Arg. Clinton took my district at a 2.025 to 1 margin. That .025 there means a difference of two delegates (One from Obama, One for Clinton).

Update: Wait, those were older numbers. Late breaking votes for Obama according to raw vote totals: 1.84 to 1. Means a two/two split. The 33.7% of the Obama supporters in this area succeeded. With 100% of votes in. What a difference between 63.2/31.2 and 62.1/33.7!

Woo... go 43rd congressional district.

THE FIGHTING 43rd!

Update: Never Mind. The math is more arcane than that. 62.1/(62.1+33.7)>.62! Hillary actually does snag 3-1 rather than 2-2.

Boo... go fuck yourself 43rd congressional district.

THE FRIGGING 43rd!

Stoopid California.

I blame my Sister and Mother. (for Hillary winning California) Give em the right to vote and they vote wrong. My mother apparently was "waiting 8 years" to vote for her [Hillary]. My sister was the victim of terrorism. Anybody who supports Obama is clearly "pulling a fast one" (too scared to risk it). My brother didn't vote based on his previous 2 hour wait in 2006. It took me literally three minutes to go in and go out. Done.

The younger generation has been doing a lot of heavy lifting politically and Hillary does well? Well, Obama did well too. But, still, old people would happily allow a party without a backbone to waffle-around and suck. Young people got Howard Dean in and shifted up the party to win back both houses and most likely this Presidential election. I want my dream-speaking candidate! Good speeches and strong actions. But, you backboneless freaks want your small margins and small wins. Obama for president would be either in 60s or the 40s and far more likely the former in a general election. However, some people in the party want Hillary's 52% win. I want Obama to crush the election with 60+% and sweep in a good number of Senate seats and a dozen house seats to pad the lead.

Yes, dumbass, Hillary can win. Obama can WIN.

Work then voting...

Off to work (at a real job not a campaign) then vote for Barack Obama, I'd recommend the latter. The former is making me get up at 6 in the bleeding morning.

God Snot, teetering on the edge, switches to Obama.

Well, now that John Edwards has dropped out of the race, I'm supporting Obama without the nagging feeling of betrayal. I, like many people, was torn between Obama and Edwards. Initially I supported Edwards because he spoke to a lot of the core values I endorse. He wanted to get rid of the lobbyists and reform those things you can't reform because of the lobbyists and also because he was white. Not that there's anything wrong with race, but I was worried that racists would keep Obama down. A good section of this country is downright unacceptably hatefilled and I thought this race was too important to avoid the same charismatic, southern, Christian, white, male mold that has served this country well since the founding fathers stopped getting elected (mostly deist). However, I was ready to jump ship after South Carolina. Specifically for the reason I didn't want Clinton. I think the Hillary Clinton lacks coattails. There's honestly close to two decades of built in hate. And even people who stand no chance of voting this their state blue (electoral votes are such that if you live in Illinois or California, there's basically no point voting; you should always vote). However if they drive out to vote against Hillary, a number of other pivotal candidates will lose. There are opportunities to make large strides in the Senate and some strides in the House but mostly if democratic voters vote and to an extent if Republicans don't (addendum: if you're a Republican go ahead and ignore the always vote advice). Well, Obama drove out so many voters in SC and young voters in Iowa that I was tempted to switch based on the fact that he could win in a landslide and drive a vast number of voters to the polls who might not have gone otherwise the the voting booths as Democrats.

With Edwards out of the race. Obama has it pretty well sewed up. That and the coattails issue. I have a choice now between negative coattails and positive coattails. Also Hillary is pretty right wing. Her position against video games may put her heavily loved by mothers, but not so heavily on the other side of me. Also, I view her as an establishment figure.

I was ready to jump ship and now I will. I hope Obama will choose Edwards as VP. Hillary could be secretary of state, Dean the surgeon general. It could be one happy family. And we could replace everybody incompetent with competent people. Ah, competence!

2008 Election Guide.

2008 election guide.
(via grrlscientist)

Why does Obama get to declare delegate victory in Nevada but not in NH?

Final NH breakdown:

* Hillary Clinton has won 9 New Hampshire delegates (3 statewide, 6 district-level)

* Barack Obama has won 9 New Hampshire delegates (3 statewide, 6 district-level)

* John Edwards has won 4 New Hampshire delegates (2 statewide, 2 district-level)

* 22 Democratic delegates were at stake in the New Hampshire primary

* There are also 8 Democratic “superdelegates” in New Hampshire. Of those, 2 support Clinton and 3 support Obama, according to a CNN survey.

That looks remarkably like Obama gets 9 delegates vs 9 delegates and 3 superdelegates vs 2. So Obama gets 12 to Hillary's 11?

Silly system.

Soft number in NH / Endorsement

Everybody has a theory as to why Hillary won the NH primary my guess is that it has a lot to do with liking most people running on the Democratic side.

The Republican numbers were pretty straightforward because sometimes you hate one a bit less than less than the others, and the hate doesn't switch as easily as mild preference. Though I support Edwards, the field isn't that bad, I won't be mourning the eventual nominee. I actually like all three of the top folks. Though, I do rank them Edwards, Obama, Hillary as Hillary isn't liberal enough, doesn't have many coattails, and I'd just really love Edwards style reform.

Though, might as well make it official myself and Godsnot (this blog, of which I'm the only blogger) are hereby endorsing:

John Edwards for the Democratic nomination.

Previous I did endorse Alan Keyes for the Republican nomination. I think insuring a loss for the Republican party would be a more productive use of Keyes time than ranting about Cheney's lesbian daughter while ignoring his own lesbian daughter.

John Edwards will win the nomination. This prediction brought to you by Is-From-An-Ought Inc.

Hillary? NH?

Hm. I hope she doesn't win. I'd prefer a bit more of a liberal, more a shoe in, and with larger coattails... Edwards.

Driving up voting against her in areas that make a difference in her race but would in other races is a worry. That and I'd prefer some fresh blood.

Iowa Caucus.

I have done a reasoned analysis, crunched the numbers, sensed the winds, viewed the future through the eyes of a cold calculation, looking at massive amounts of data in order to bring you a fantastic prediction about what the Iowa Caucus will bring.

John Edwards will win. His victory will swell the ground game and cause a domino effect sapping strength from the message of Obama (see message of Edwards) putting him into a head to head contest in the national race against Hillary Clinton for the nomination. He will win the nomination and choose Obama to be his running mate (Hillary will be Chief of Staff). A few months prior to the general election, Edwards' wife will tragically die of metastatic breast cancer. The Republicans will debate continuing on their negative message, and despite the fact that only a callous bastard would do such a thing they will continue. Romney's presidential bid will fail, not as a result (he was already down 20 points in the polls at this point anyhow) but it certainly didn't help. And Edwards will be elected with 64% of the vote, to Romney's 30%, with Ron Paul's independent campaign pulling in 7%.

What statistics suggest such a thing? How could I be this impressive with my tabulations of the future? Mostly, I pulled it out of my ass. Heck I had to look up the Iowa Caucus to know it was on the third. Of course I could just say that you have your math and I have THE MATH! -- But, only an ass would do such a thing. In all seriousness I hope Edwards wins the nod. Mostly because I want a slam dunk and kind of want the Dems to pick up several additional senate seats. Think Hillary-hate might drive out the vote on the Republican side, even in states where they stand no chance at winning, costing some minor races their wins. That said, she'd win the general. Heck Kucinich would win the general.

Here's another prediction two years out. The Governator becomes the Senatator defeating Boxer, and Vitter is sunk, both in 2010.