Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Three Surprises

1

In every state, Obama takes the evangelical dem vote.

Posted by umvue | February 5, 2008 6:15 PM
2

Go Hills!

Posted by X-intern | February 5, 2008 6:16 PM
3

Don't worry, ECB - I'm sure Hillary's team will find a way to stymie our vote here in Seattle. There are more important voters to count, after all, like the ones in Michigan.

Posted by tsm | February 5, 2008 6:16 PM
4

holy crap msnbc called massachusettes for hillary! woooooot!

Posted by kim | February 5, 2008 6:19 PM
5

Re: "Mike Huckabee: WTF?" - did you mean on his wins, or just in general? Because I say that every time I see him on TV.

Posted by erika | February 5, 2008 6:19 PM
6

I think Clinton underperformed in New York. She was supposed to win 70-30; it's more like 60-40 right now.

Posted by Fnarf | February 5, 2008 6:25 PM
7

dude, in the exit poll in NY; she lost among white independents.

i am seeing a message; she can win with democrats, she is struggling with indies.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 5, 2008 6:27 PM
8

How "HUGE" is Hillary's margin in New York compared to Obama's "HUGE" margin in Illinois?

Posted by Christian | February 5, 2008 6:34 PM
9

Hey, the way tonight's going, Obummer may even withdraw before the WA primary. Aw, shucks.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | February 5, 2008 6:36 PM
10

Idaho and ND going for Obama in early returns?! That's WTF?

Posted by gnossos | February 5, 2008 6:42 PM
11

and NPR just called Kansas for Obama?

Posted by gnossos | February 5, 2008 6:45 PM
12

Hillary is romping on Obama in Oklahoma, currently leading in 76 of 77 counties, even leading in the university towns. In a few counties, Edwards is beating Obama pretty soundly.

Obama isn't winning the white Southern Democrats over from Edwards. Is this his Achilles heel?

Posted by dw | February 5, 2008 6:47 PM
13

Let's start a email effort and persuade Obama to take the VP spot - god what a ticket.

I agree with the post about McCain willing to use nukes. He will.

Remember as well, he only recently decided the, yes, the polar cap is melting. Duh.

No computer skills, not even email? Duh.

Dangerous man.

Posted by Lynn Ward | February 5, 2008 6:50 PM
14

Whoa, did ECB just cop to having an emotion other than "mad"?

Posted by also | February 5, 2008 6:50 PM
15

Glad your a Democrat first, cause I won't be any longer if Clinton is the nominee. I'm sick of dirty tricks. I'd rather not be the new-GOP and deal with a Clinton representing me again.

Posted by Ed | February 5, 2008 6:55 PM
16

Fuck this sucks.

Hillary: When you say you want change but are too spineless to vote in favor of it. Way to go Democrats.

Posted by Ryan | February 5, 2008 6:56 PM
17

It will be interesting to see how HRC, in the general election, makes up for losing liberal democrat males such as myself or independent males who can't stand her. Are there enough women and latinos to compensate? Hitler could be running against her and I still wouldn't vote for her.

Posted by Mark in Colorado | February 5, 2008 6:56 PM
18

ECB - that's what we thought, too. re: Huckabee.

Where ya at?

Posted by NaFun | February 5, 2008 6:59 PM
19

God, the thought of possibly having to align myself with unbelievably obnoxious one-note Baby Boomer fossils like Robin Morgan is enough to make me want to tear all the flesh off my face.

Well, it's hardly over yet.

Posted by tsm | February 5, 2008 7:00 PM
20

@15, 16, 17:

Oh, come on. Grow up. If Hilary gets the nomination, you're going to, what? Throw a tantrum? Quit the party? Vote for McCain?

We all have preferences. Sometimes we don't get what we want. Adults -- hopefully including most Democrats -- learn to accept and work with second choices.

And, heck, even if everything goes Hilary's way today, it's far from over. No need to throw the toys out of the crib quit yet.

Posted by also | February 5, 2008 7:01 PM
21

At least she won't need to African American vote to win in Nov. McCain FTW!

Posted by Fitz | February 5, 2008 7:03 PM
22

Uh, this is nowhere near over for Obama. He's lost a couple of states he was expected to lose. It's still tied. Count the delegates. We won't know anything until California, and probably not even then.

Posted by Fnarf | February 5, 2008 7:08 PM
23

Yep, it's not over until California.

And then, if Obama loses big, it's over - both the primary and the general. Goddamn ... twelve straight years of Republican rule. This nation will be on life support.

Posted by tsm | February 5, 2008 7:09 PM
24

^ but only if he loses big. Again, it's not winner-take-all.

Posted by tsm | February 5, 2008 7:11 PM
25

Obama will finish his Senate term, then be a success in the private sector. Good luck to him and his family.

Posted by Life is good | February 5, 2008 7:13 PM
26

If Obama were to be stupid enough to accept being VP for HRC, I'd lose all respect for him and I still wouldn't vote for her. --from a proud liberal democrat, gay male, looking forward to not voting for her in the general election.

Posted by Mark in Colorado | February 5, 2008 7:14 PM
27

@ 23 & 24: there are still several very large and important states after today. Even if Obama comes out of tonight 150 to 200 delegates down he still has a shot at it. I doubt very seriously on what we've seen so far that today settles anything for the Dems.

Posted by gnossos | February 5, 2008 7:16 PM
28

Will you fucking morons stop talking like Obama's lost?

Posted by Fnarf | February 5, 2008 7:16 PM
29

@28: Perception is reality.

Posted by Get real | February 5, 2008 7:19 PM
30

Erica - amen to your third comment. This IS exciting in a way that 2004 wasn't, regardless of the ultimate Dem nominee.

Also, what Fnarf @28 said. As long as California is in play tonight, it's ridiculous to jump to any conclusions. And even when you wake up tomorrow, it's still gonna be a contest. Enjoy it.

Posted by Gabriel | February 5, 2008 7:21 PM
31

Huckabee. Fucking Huckabee. I thought he was going away. Just saw him give his speech in Arkansas, and damned does he suck.

Posted by Julie | February 5, 2008 7:21 PM
32

also, what if democrats arent the ones voting for obama?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | February 5, 2008 7:22 PM
33

@17
GO FUCK YOURSELF, COLORADO.
That's ridiculous - comparing Hillary to HITLER? You highlight just how ridiculous this over-hyped and irrationally-founded Hillary-hatred is. So you really think that Hillary is as bad as murdering MILLIONS of people? Really?
You give Hillary-haters a bad name, Colorado.
C'MON people, Hillary is a decent candidate. So is Obama. If you favor Obama, that's fine. If you favor Hillary; fine too. It looks kinda bad for the Democrats that the supporters are getting so polarized. It's win win for democrats, especially when we compare it to any REPUBLICAN (yet not Nazi) alternative.

Actually, while Obama has been more or less cool on the smear tactics, his SUPPORTERS have been downright disgusting. I fear any candidate that can muster such thoughtless, dirty support.

Posted by onion | February 5, 2008 7:31 PM
34

@33
Can you read? I wrote: if Hitler was running against her. I did not write--she is like Hitler. Obviously that would be absurd. Let me also disabuse you of your assumption that I am an Obama supporter. I was an Edwards supporter.

Posted by Mark in Colorado | February 5, 2008 7:38 PM
35

If Clinton's winning, why hasn't she won more delegates than Obama? It's the delegates, people.

Posted by Fnarf | February 5, 2008 7:52 PM
36

@34: You're right. You didn't say she was like Hitler. You said she was *worse* than Hitler. Just own it, apologize, and refrain from juvenile hyperbole in the future. It is the internet, after all.

@35: Salon is showing Clinton ahead in estimated delegates awarded today, 58 to 50. Of course today is far from done, and even when today is done the race won't be done.

Posted by also | February 5, 2008 7:56 PM
37
I fear any candidate that can muster such thoughtless, dirty support.

This is just another variant of "Your candidate's mean supporters drove me to his/her opponent." Whatever. Childish.

Posted by tsm | February 5, 2008 7:59 PM
38

Clinton's had some pretty unpleasant supporters as well. There was that NY state NOW thing. And that's not even an internet troll.

Posted by daniel | February 5, 2008 8:29 PM
39

And speaking of trolls can we just not tar the candidates with the worst statements of their worst "fans"?

Posted by daniel | February 5, 2008 8:30 PM
40

Ok no one is prolly reading this thread any more but I'm mad. Sorry for feeding a troll:
COLORADO @17 implied in his statement (in a hypothetical election where only Hillary and Hitler were candidates) that he would not vote for Hillary, which means he would vote for Hitler (unless he means he just wouldn't vote at all? which would be almost as bad).

To imply (thank you @36 for correcting me) that Hillary is *worse* than Hitler is A) either complete hyperbole or B)complete understatement of how bad the Holocaust really was. To imply the later is INSULTING TO HITLER'S VICTIMS.

I'm Jewish, and members of my family died because of Hitler.
And Ok @37, it's not what I really meant, it was just fear-inspired backlash. I don't fear Obama any more than I fear Hillary, but how bout I restate it?
I fear COLORADO.

Posted by onion | February 6, 2008 3:31 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).