Slog - Comments on Obama Wins Mississippi

Comment by doesntcount

doesntcount — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:32:33 -0800

Doesn't count. Regular blue-collar people, the kind who vote for Clinton, can't be expected to spell Mississippi. Plus they can't afford dictionaries like Obama-voting latte-sipping Volvo drivers. Something like that.

Comment by Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:39:49 -0800

CLEARLY Mississippi is a bunch of Volvo driving Latte' drinking wimps.

And as a result this state is totally unimportant. I mean has anyone been there? Hillary = McCain!!!

Word!!!

Comment by tiptoe tommy

tiptoe tommy — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:40:42 -0800

Great--that means he automatically wins Mississippi in the general, right? And Wyoming too?

Comment by Reporting from a "white" state

Reporting from a "white" state — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:40:44 -0800

In this case, blame the blacks.

Comment by Bub

Bub — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:45:39 -0800

And this from CNN's article on Obama's victory in Mississippi (emphasis mine): "Obama will also finish first in the Texas Democratic caucuses, which were held last week. He will get MORE DELEGATES out of the state than rival Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won the state's primary. Under the Texas Democratic Party's complex delegate selection plan, Texas voters participated in both a primary and caucuses last week. Two-thirds of the state's 193 delegates were at stake at the primary, while the remaining third were decided by the caucuses." But I guess the Clinton campaign still has "momentum."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/11/miss.primary/index.html

Comment by Michigan Matt (soon to be Baltimatt)

Michigan Matt (soon to be Baltimatt) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:50:31 -0800

Yay! Poor Hillary. She just keeps tanking . . .

Comment by Mike in Iowa

Mike in Iowa — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:54:48 -0800

I now understand why so many people grew to hate the Clintons. They are destestible. Thankfully, with her having six weeks in Pennsylvania, the folks there will likely grow as sick of her as we did in Iowa.

Comment by It's Mark Mitchell

It's Mark Mitchell — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:57:31 -0800

This made me happy to see.

No chance she'll even consider exiting, huh?

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:05:05 -0800

The fact is Mississippi wasn't as importan# to hillary's campaign as pennsylvania. but the fact she doesn't even try is sad. is she gonna do that in november? focus on 3 states and not even try in the rest?

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:05:13 -0800

@3, you are perhaps suggesting that Democrats who live in red states should just fuck off and not expect to have any say in who their candidate is? Then no red state can ever turn blue again. That sounds like a strategy designed to gradually turn EVERY state red to me.

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:10:12 -0800

@3 your point has been debunked many times. winning a primary doesnt win the general. but are you seriously suggesting we ignore democrats in states that have gone republican?

Comment by I am Astonished

I am Astonished — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:28:46 -0800

The headlines say Obama "rolls" to a victory. With the results reported so far, this doesn't look like "rolling" to a victory. It looks like a pretty close race, with, at this point, 700 votes separating Obama and Clinton, and Obama getting 6 delegates, and Clinton getting 5.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:36:56 -0800

Believe it or not, the news people know what they're doing, @12. They are paying attention to what parts of the state have returned so far. Otherwise they wouldn't have called it so quickly. Currently CNN has 52%-45%, 6 to 3 on delegates, with 12% in. There are 24 more pledged delegates to assign. Watch how they go, and you'll see why they said what they did.

I think he'll get 60%, but I could be high.

Comment by annie

annie — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:39:25 -0800

@12: There are 33 pledged delegates at stake, so those are either superdelegates or weird projected minimums.

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:43:00 -0800

14% difference doesnt equal roll but 4% in texas warrants any adjective attached to it?

Comment by annie

annie — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:43:15 -0800

Fnarf, CNN includes superdelegates in their breakdown, so only a few of those may be pledged.

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:06:35 -0800

No, the CNN page I'm looking at -- http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/index.html#20080311 -- doesn't include superdelegates. Obama currently leads 16 to 9; 33 are up for grabs.

In addition, MS has 7 superdelegates, three of whom are supporting Obama (none for Clinton, yet) (I think; accurate, up-to-date info about superdelegates is tough to come by).

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:08:38 -0800

PS -- 60% looks optimistic at this point; 55-56% may be more like it.

Comment by Digger

Digger — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:32:51 -0800

Getting confused.

DID racist, hard core Republican in modern times MISSISSIPPI just vote to make Obama the president. Does he get their electoral votes now?

Isn't it the electoral college votes that count?

Digger Smith

Comment by Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:35:02 -0800

Digger Smith;
Does any win in any primary speak to the general election? Nope. Anyone that thinks different obviously hasnt followed the primary wins of every candidate in any election ever.

Comment by skye

skye — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:46:24 -0800

@18 - 59% with 80% reporting... 60% maybe not so optimistic?

Comment by Fnarf

Fnarf — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:55:37 -0800

Maybe not. Looks he'll end up with a 100,000 edge in the popular vote, too, if anyone's counting (and you know they are).

Comment by Y.F.

Y.F. — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:00:04 -0800

I like Obama (and will vote for him if he is the Democratic Nominee), but I think Hillary is tougher. So far the attacks on him have been pretty soft ball compared to what he'll face if he runs against McCain. If he's going to survive 'swift boating' he's going to need to grow a pair. I don't think he's nasty enough to really fight back effectively. Hill, on the other hand, certainly can handle anything the Republican party can throw at her. She's teflon and can dish it out pretty well herself.

Or do you want another Republican in office? Especially one endorsed by both Shrubs.

Comment by Apocalypse Tom

Apocalypse Tom — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:29:29 -0800

@23 - I'm not sure I can agree. I have a sense that whenever Clinton gets a shot in the arm and goes on the offensive, the Obama campaign pulls back a bit and lets the Clinton campaign talk and talk and talk, because invariably someone in the Clinton campaign will say or do something to put itself back on the defensive, whether it's Ferraro talking about how easy the black man has it, or it's taking credit for flying into harms way with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow.

And then Sinbad comes after them.

But my serious point is that Clinton seems to thrive under the attacks. By not hitting too hard, the Obama campaign refuses to play to her strength.

Comment by Bob

Bob — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:09:06 -0800

Please don't make this about race.

Comment by shine

shine — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:33:33 -0800

i vote for obama, just because i causually see a pic on a site named interracialmatch.com/photo/blackchats he helped a poor girl come from africa. i think he will be the winner. hope he won't become the 2nd Spitzer

Comment by Morgan

Morgan — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:34:41 -0800

@23 - Nasty != strong. Sure, it's one way to appear strong, but it's not the only way. I think many Democrats have been taking the wrong message from Kerry and the Swift-Boaters. The problem is not that Kerry was too nice, it was that he was inactive. He didn't necessarily need to respond by being a bigger bastard, he just needed to respond, period.

The Republicans have got nasty covered. They've mastered that game, and we're never going to beat them at it. The best way to win is to play another game. Not to ignore them, as Kerry tried to do, but to project a different kind of strength: calm, measured, and mature.

Also, while the R's nastiness has worked for them for a while, I don't think that's always going to be the case. Even some Republicans are starting to get sick of it. Witness the mini-revolt for Huckabee, who aside from being a crazy fundie, was also the most positive Republican in the race. If his beliefs and policy proposals weren't so far out, he could have been a serious contender. I suspect this is also part of the reason Obama has been drawing support from from moderate Rs. Even though they disagree with him on policy, they respond to his difference in attitude.

I think the nastiness of Hillary and Co. will lose them the election.

Comment by vooodooo84

vooodooo84 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:29:11 -0800

@27 just FYI 20% national sales tax equals far out regressive

Comment by bakfiets

bakfiets — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:24:41 -0800

@28 Yep like 27 said Huckabee's policies may have been whacked, but he *sounded* "positive". This whole "hope* thing does matter...

Comment by catalina Vel-DuRay

catalina Vel-DuRay — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:25:27 -0800

Hilary Clinton is unelectable. The Angry White Male group (who is a huge voting bloc, like it or not) despise her and the women-who-hate-other-women (another huge group of neurotics who actively vote) can't stand her either.

Do I think that's fair? No. I resent that Neanderthals control who we elect, but that's what you get in a democracy when you have an uneducated, selfish populace with corporate media.

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:52:14 -0800

C V-D--Hillary's recent campaigning is not doing a lot to make her loved, even by the Democratic party base.

Comment by catalina vel-duray

catalina vel-duray — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:20:11 -0800

I agree with you, Napolean. I'm just stating the obvious about her, aside from recent developments (I feel it my duty to always state the obvious - especially since it seems like no one is facing up to it in her case.)

There's been an entire anti-Clinton industry alive and well for 20 years, and it's been very successful in its message. If the ladies want a lady president, they're going to have to find another candidate.

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:21:54 -0800

I'm beginning to see the Anti-Clinton industry's point.

I won't vote for her.

Comment by Matt

Matt — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:45:19 -0800

Obama had a net gain of 8 delegates in CA after the final results compared to the earlier projections. That wipes out Clinton's gains in Ohio.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/confirmed_obama_did_gain_deleg.php

Comment by infrequent

infrequent — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:42:16 -0800

@24 i tend to agree. clinton does better on the defensive. by ignoring mississippi (as she was going to lose anyways) she doesn't lose that much ground and gets to play the scrappy underdog in penn. the ferraro comments are trying to get obama's camp to go on the offensive, to build white and female support in penn.

is is a very shrewd strategy -- and my prove effective. even if some find this detestable, clinton is proving she calculates how to get the job done, which would be a benefit if she is elected.

Comment by tco

tco — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:47:01 -0800

Hillary's campaiging tactics are alienating legions of Dems. Plus she already has huge negatives from Independents and Republicans. Hillary will most certainly lose if she wins the nomination. You can take that to the bank

Comment by max solomon

max solomon — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:43:19 -0800

her camp can't possibly expect to go to the convention with anything better than a 52-48 split of delegates in BHO's favor. the superdelegates are not going to award her behavior en masse. therefore, she's hoping to win on the 4th, 5th, 6th vote.

and then eke out a 50.01-49.99 victory over Grampa PTSD?

dear DLC, its BEEN over. someone slap terry macauliffe upside the head.

Comment by zblmb

zblmb — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:19:22 -0800

http://ezgwa.com/ugtytgty.html >Google

Comment by zblmb

zblmb — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:19:29 -0800

http://ezgwa.com/ugtytgty.html >Google

Comment by zblmb

zblmb — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:19:37 -0800

http://ezgwa.com/ugtytgty.html >Google