I'm always curious how they can project a winner with 0% reporting in.

Since they're calling OK for Hillary they might as well call MO too. http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/allresults.asp?eid=203

Brian @ 2:

I'm always curious how they can project a winner with 0% reporting in.

Because it's all bullshit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brian @ 2:

I'm always curious how they can project a winner with 0% reporting in.

Wow, I didn't notice that little gem. I just saw this but, according to MSNBC, the Georgia primary for the GOP is too close to call, with only 5% of the vote in. How do they come up with this anyways?

HELP! I'm stuck at the library and cannot watch the results on t.v. Does anyone know of any site that is streaming live video coverage of tonight's results.

thanks.

Al Giordano at The Field is doing some of the most astute political reporting around. His six-week-old-blog is getting over 125,000 hits a day and getting raves from Esquire, NYT, Vanity Fair, and The Guardian.

Here's a tidbit he threw up today, which in very interesting.

Will Debate for Food!
I can’t remember a time when the frontrunner in a primary wanted more debates with his or her rival. Or is the Clinton camp’s call for a debate-a-week really just a reflection of what we’ve noted here:
The Clinton campaign is flat out of money after today’s primaries and caucuses. It won’t be able to afford to advertise on TV sufficiently in Louisiana, Washington state, Nebraska, Maine, Virginia, Maryland, Washington DC, Wisconsin or Hawaii with 444 delegates at stake in the next two weeks. The gas tank is empty. So the only way she can get on TV is on the coattails of Obama’s ratings? That’s funny.
My guess: Obama will agree to occasional debates - one, maybe two a month - but, really, meeting up once a week is something that people do when they date. People might begin to talk, y’know?
Memo to Mark Penn: Wouldn’t the candidate’s time be better spent, um, fundraising?

Does this answer Jane Hamscher's question about why Hillary's going on Fox?

hareli @ 12:

Al Giordano at The Field is doing some of the most astute political reporting around. His six-week-old-blog is getting over 125,000 hits a day and getting raves from Esquire, NYT, Vanity Fair, and The Guardian.

Here's a tidbit he threw up today, which in very interesting.

Will Debate for Food!
I can’t remember a time when the frontrunner in a primary wanted more debates with his or her rival. Or is the Clinton camp’s call for a debate-a-week really just a reflection of what we’ve noted here:
The Clinton campaign is flat out of money after today’s primaries and caucuses. It won’t be able to afford to advertise on TV sufficiently in Louisiana, Washington state, Nebraska, Maine, Virginia, Maryland, Washington DC, Wisconsin or Hawaii with 444 delegates at stake in the next two weeks. The gas tank is empty. So the only way she can get on TV is on the coattails of Obama’s ratings? That’s funny.
My guess: Obama will agree to occasional debates - one, maybe two a month - but, really, meeting up once a week is something that people do when they date. People might begin to talk, y’know?
Memo to Mark Penn: Wouldn’t the candidate’s time be better spent, um, fundraising?

Does this answer Jane Hamscher's question about why Hillary's going on Fox?

Wow. Thanks for the link.

I like this layout you have up!! thank you

I can’t watch the coverage live because it’s honestly too difficult to watch the news channels. I feel like the guy in the old ‘MTV’ ads, the blast from the screen lays my hair flat. The crap-o-meter exploded after precisely .0001 nanoseconds of exposure to the broadcast and nearly set the cat on fire. The odor of burning elephant carcass and spray-on tan is still hanging in the air and for some reason the front of the screen is covered in a layer of slime.
I’ll just check back here from time to time.
It’s probably safer. :)

dogeatdogi @ 16:

I like this layout you have up!! thank you

Yeah, great job. Thank you.

[Abusive-Sitemonitor]

Site Owner

Does the check mean Crooks and Liars called the race for that candidate????

Yes, Sherri: Edwards is running in double digits in some states. What happens to the votes cast for him? Does he get delegates? Can he give those delegates away by endorsing somebody? What?

Republicans are stupid. They don't like McCain so they vote for Huckabee???? Voting for Huckabee is a vote for McCain because it makes Romney the third person out.

Kewl, dood.

Great grid.

Sherri @ 25:

If Edwards is out of the race; what's the point in casting a vote in his favor?

I voted for Edwards absentee before he dropped out. Some people may vote for him to show support for his policies, even if he's out of the race.

Looks like the Repug party is breaking up into Huckleberry's religious-right psychos versus McCrazy's warmongering psychos.

The lack of a winner-take-all system really helps Obama. He needs to sweep all three elections next week.

I can't wait to vote in the Wash State caucus this Saturday.

Hey everyone,

I have a question for the Hillary supporters..
I'm trying to understand why anyone would vote for her in the primaries, and I just can't seem to wrap my head around it. Especially when you've got someone like Obama running against her. I'm astounded by her numbers coming in.

Is it a looking for a return of the Clinton years? Is there a large war-hawk segment of the Democratic party? Is it anti-Obamanism (too radical, too young, too black, too male)? Or is it just manufactured support (from non-thinking voters) created by the corporate media machine?

Surely from a political strategy point of view she would be a harder sell to the voters on election day. Wouldn't the horror of a McCain presidency be enough to push for the more pragmatic choice?

Would anyone care to explain why they have voted for her, an also if you are pro-war?

Thanks!
Ed

Sean @ 358:

CoIntelPro @ 351:

Travis @ 336:

CD @ 335:

Short answer: America is doomed

just remember that ahnold won on those machines!

CNN's exit polls showed that Obama got 46% of white voters, Hillary got 43%. Obama got 81% of black voters (but CNN didn't say that black people (not even voters) make up 6% of the state. Hillary has a commanding lead among hispanics, 66%, and also among Asian voters. That might make up for Obama's lead among white and black voters.

thanks for the update. the numbers for hispanics that you cite are unfortunately predictable based on historical voting patterns.

Though my comment will inevitably be lost in the white noise of all the other comments (and man, has this been an active thread), I wanted to reiterate my belief that Bill Maher was right when he opined that anyone who hates Hillary Clinton has a personal problem they need to address. You can build an intelligent, reasoned argument that says she is not the best choice for the President, and you can do it without resorting to Republican talking-points. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, and she will continue to fight for progressive ideals. Yes, she has voted in a controversial fashion before, but there are hundreds and hundreds of votes in the Senate that say she's decidedly liberal.

And while she's my first choice for President (in a nutshell, I believe that she knows how to get things done whereas Barack has untested theories involving appeasing Republicans and 'bringing both parties together,' which to me sounds like code for the sorts of concessions people are afraid Hillary has made or will make), this has been an exciting race and Obama is certainly a decent enough choice simply for his presence and charisma alone. I wish more Democrats could sit back and enjoy this historic event without attempting to (ironically) polarize the event and melodramaticly claim that 'if [so-and-so] wins the nomination, I quit, I won't vote Democrat, the country is finished, God will smite us all, etcetera!' So long as one of these two individuals is sworn in as President of the United States, your country will be in decent hands. And frankly, it's the only hope you have, because should McCain become President, the United States really could be done for.

Ed @ 364:

Hey everyone,

I have a question for the Hillary supporters..
I'm trying to understand why anyone would vote for her in the primaries, and I just can't seem to wrap my head around it. Especially when you've got someone like Obama running against her. I'm astounded by her numbers coming in.

Is it a looking for a return of the Clinton years? Is there a large war-hawk segment of the Democratic party? Is it anti-Obamanism (too radical, too young, too black, too male)? Or is it just manufactured support (from non-thinking voters) created by the corporate media machine?

Surely from a political strategy point of view she would be a harder sell to the voters on election day. Wouldn't the horror of a McCain presidency be enough to push for the more pragmatic choice?

Would anyone care to explain why they have voted for her, an also if you are pro-war?

Thanks!
Ed

Consider your own language, which exposes your hideous bias and prejudice, and then you might find yourself closer to a better understanding of what Hillary Clinton truly offers as the nominee. I appreciate that what I said sounds snarky, but frankly, I don't see why I should bother trying to convince someone who has made up his mind that Clinton is a "war-hawk" and that perhaps her supporters are the same.

Peace.

Hey, CoIntelPro and Symes ... get a room! If that happens to be a chatroom, so be it. But go away.

Pretty please.

mudshark @ 327:

Mister Anderson @ 317:

mudshark @ 311:

so far it looks like 8 for HRC and 11 for Obama.......but it's still early....this will be going on all night long..........we should know by tomorrow......night

Don't focus solely on the wins, but the margin of victory. Even though Hillary blew Obama out in Arkansas and Tennessee, they're saying that Obama may have stood strong in some key districts so he'll only get beat by 8 delegates in each state. Meanwhile, he is hovering at 40% in New York and blew Hillary out in Georgia and Illinois.

I'm aware of that Mr Anderson.....but thank you anyway....I saw a post earlier from you,I too my understanding..you think the repugs will rally to defeat HRC.......can't be done....I've been over at a repug site.....and their miserable about McCain winning.....some are even saying that they'll vote for either HRC or Obama.
While others are saying thay won't vote at all........Either way..Obama or HRC.....as long as McCain wins the Primary.................the repugs will have a low turnout.

It is astounding to me how many people believe that Hillary Clinton will 'unite the right' against her. Barack Obama's crossover appeal is largely manufactured, and frankly, come election day, Republicans will buckle and vote for their candidate against this radical change. Either way, the spin machine will turn on and try to ruin the Democratic nominee. Period. Let's stop trying to use a fear of the Republicans (a Republican tactic, by and by) to tell people how they have to vote to save the nation from the terror-- er, I mean, the Republicans.

Ed @ 364:

Hey everyone,

I have a question for the Hillary supporters..
I'm trying to understand why anyone would vote for her in the primaries, and I just can't seem to wrap my head around it. Especially when you've got someone like Obama running against her. I'm astounded by her numbers coming in.

Is it a looking for a return of the Clinton years? Is there a large war-hawk segment of the Democratic party? Is it anti-Obamanism (too radical, too young, too black, too male)? Or is it just manufactured support (from non-thinking voters) created by the corporate media machine?

Surely from a political strategy point of view she would be a harder sell to the voters on election day. Wouldn't the horror of a McCain presidency be enough to push for the more pragmatic choice?

Would anyone care to explain why they have voted for her, an also if you are pro-war?

Thanks!
Ed

When I review her plans for the nation I find them to be more realistic than Obama. Obama has grand ideas, sadly there is no way to pay for them. Hillary talked early and first about fiscal responsibility and the need to first fix our spending then see what money is available. Once that is done then you look at other areas to pay for the needed programs.

I am also not pro-war but I am pro-defense and for the most part understand there are times when we must use force. I believe Hillary Clinton also understands that.

I was actually more pro-Obama in the beginning but lately have found myself turned off not by him but his rabid hateful supporters both in the media and on blogs such as this. The vile hatred of his opponent and the undying love beyond ability to articulate it shows me he is the divisive candidate in this race. Your comment suggesting non thinking voters would support Clinton is a great example of this. I also notice you brought up race again, something I feel Obama has been very good at using to his advantage, his supporters seem to be good at it as well.

While Obama may in fact be an excellent politician and will do well, I do not feel comfortable leaving this nation in his hands.

I do feel that with Hillary Clinton we know what we get and how she will perform as President.

I am also willing to accept others think differently without making such broad negative assumptions as you have.

C&L will give us the info on what this means as far as delegates to the stupid convention thingy tomorrow, yes?

mo_dems @ 350:

uncle joe mccarthy @ 347:

oh, and to all the cali voters who went with edwards after he dropped out...he has to get 15 percent to even register one delegate

if hilary wins cuz of you people....im gonna find you all and poop in your bushes

Yeah, god forbid people vote for their favorite candidate.

my favorite candidate would be bozo the clown....but voting for him would make me a retard

better guard your bushes tomorrow

Obama was dead tired. That was weak. Lots of stumbles. Just go get some sleep, dude.

(Is anyone else listening to Young Turks while reading? He's a gas. Biased. Brash. Adorable.)

14% reporting in Cali:

Hillary Clinton 591,302 55%
Barack Obama 344,699 32%

uncle joe mccarthy @ 383:

anyone have the turnout numbers in cali?

with 15% in Hillary is 600k and Obama a bit over 300k.

Just pojected Cali goes to Hillary. Shes at 55% and hes at 33%. How they get that with only 15% reporting...Ive no idea.

Who did the other 12% in California vote for? I didn't expect Obama to win California, but the 33% looks kinda bad. Could have done a bit better.

Anyone know how the states give out their delegates? I've heard that NY was a winner take all, where as CA is by county or something.

It would be funny if, despite MSNBC's call that Hillary won CA in a landslide, is invincible, has proven her critics wrong, etc....Obama ends up pulling close in votes, or more importantly, in congressional districts.

NY is not WTA.

Serious question here...as exciting as all the Obama-mania is, does anyone think he has any realistic shot at the nomination here?

Hillary already has a big lead among super-delegates, and the inside track on getting the rest (powerful Clinton machine) unless Obama really pulls away in the voting, which is unlikely to happen. I also don't see too many of them de-pledging Hillary.

I'm wondering if "Obama has a shot" is just a fabrication by the MSM.

Annoyed Canuck @ 35:

Is California 'winner take all'?

No.

MargeAggedon @ 18:

I can’t watch the coverage live because it’s honestly too difficult to watch the news channels. I feel like the guy in the old ‘MTV’ ads, the blast from the screen lays my hair flat. The crap-o-meter exploded after precisely .0001 nanoseconds of exposure to the broadcast and nearly set the cat on fire. The odor of burning elephant carcass and spray-on tan is still hanging in the air and for some reason the front of the screen is covered in a layer of slime.
I’ll just check back here from time to time.
It’s probably safer. :)

Too funny!

As I'm sitting here flipping between the channels hitting refresh on the browsers, is it wrong of me to be feeling as anxious as I am right now? It looks like Clinton is winning by alot in most of the states shown so far. This is going to change right?

Please someone reassure me. I'm not entirely liking what I'm seeing so far.

Brian @ 2:

I'm always curious how they can project a winner with 0% reporting in.

It's all about applying statistical formulae to patterns that emerge from exit polling. It's actually quite fascinating to study how it's done.

There is very little science in political science, but elections projections are actually one of the discipline's highlights that warrants the name.

Sometimes, an overwhelming pattern emerges very early on, which yields accurate predictions about how the rest of the voters will vote. Sometimes, there's no way to make an accurate prediction until it gets very close to the end.

In any case, it's not the amount of precincts that have been counted or reported that matter. It's the patterns that emerge upon conducting exit polls.

By the way -- because of the accuracy of such exit poll projections, Florida's 2000 projections and the Bush family's immediate response to them, do indeed militate in favor of the conclusion that Florida was rigged.

Heh, Arkansas went for Clinton and Huckster, while Illinois went for Obama. You don't say. :)

are they basing projections on the absentee, or on exit polling?

i still believe that if obama makes it close in cali, he can stay in all the way to the convention

if not,.....then fuck this party....cuz hillary vs mccain is no choice at all

hareli @ 375:

CoIntelPro @ 351:

Travis @ 336:

CD @ 335:

Short answer: America is doomed

just remember that ahnold won on those machines!

The absentee and early votes are counted first. CA wont have a result until MUCH MUCH later. CA did away with those fraud machines. Everything has to be counted by hand.

That's good to know.

mo_dems @ 391:

mo_dems @ 359:

mo_dems is projecting Obama wins Missouri.

it's so fucking close. less than 9,000 votes difference out of more than 700,000. 91% reporting.

i'll probably be wrong

T-MACK @ 385:

OBAMA WINS MISSOURI!

HELL YEAH. I called it!

Where are you seeing that Obama won MO?
CNN and MSNBC are still saying it is too close to call yet.
They did call California for Clinton (which may be a mistake, that is a huge state to call so early).

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/primaries/democraticprim...

That link is pretty cool. Updated results of congressional district results.

NY may not have been WTA, but Obama only got one district. Dunno what that means.

Bill @ 395:

It never ceases to amaze me that people don't bother to take the time to educate themselves on the most basic of information before entering a voting booth. The fact that Edwards continues to get votes even though he has dropped out of the race is more an indication of the low political IQ of your typical voter than it is an affirmation of his platform.

What a coincidence. I was just about to say that it never ceases to amaze me that people don't bother to think about why a vote came out the way it did before posting about it.

For example, Edwards dropped out AFTER the date when you could send in a mail-in ballot. There is no evidence (at present) to suggest that a sizable number of people voted for him today. Yes, I'm sure a few did, but not the entire 100k+ that you see on the board.

Clear the way for the H the H the H-illary!
Clear the way for the H the H the H-illary!
Clear the way for the H the H the H-illary!
Clear the way for the H the H the H-illary!

Obama had a decent night, especially with Missouri. BUT, let's face it. Clinton has won the crucial Dem states. (Let us not forget Florida and Michigan, which the Dem braintrust has sent to bed without their supper.) Obama won many states tonight that will never, ever, ever, ever vote Democratic.

Obama has won some delegates, but is Clinton just supposed to give up because the media says so?

The hard call will fall on Obama, who has to figure out an eventual exit.

Orangutan. @ 405:

Edwards should have endorsed Obama. That way some of his followers might have gotten the news that he officially dropped out of the race and wouldn't have voted for him. As far as the absentee ballots or early voting.. well that is just dumb. They should have waited to see who would still be in it.

Hey buddy, I voted for Edwards a week before he dropped out because I had to.

Splendid @ 406:

Clear the way for the H the H the H-illary!
Clear the way for the H the H the H-illary!
Clear the way for the H the H the H-illary!
Clear the way for the H the H the H-illary!

oh shut your mouth.

Despite all the celebrity endorsements, rock-star like adulation, last minute polls by Reuters/Zogby showing Obama leading in California and media fawning over Obama and all the misogynistic and sexist venom spewed out by Hillary haters, Hillary the scrappy fighter pulls out a win, just like the the Giants in the Super Bowl. I guess there really is a God.

Mrbill123 @ 407:

Man, I dont care if either the corporate shills "won", you know who lost? The GOP!!!

The signs show, in the fight against the Neo-cons they are LOSSING BIG!

yeah well, if hillary wins we all lose. NOTHING will be accomplished in the house and senate.

Fuck early voting; wait your turn. Why is no network talking about the early voting or as JTM at 404 says, why Edwards has 100k?

I weep for America should Clinton get the nom. Oh, and Fuck ABC and CBS for cutting away from in the middle and not even showing Obama's speech.

Guy Fawkes @ 414:

Despite all the celebrity endorsements, rock-star like adulation, last minute polls by Reuters/Zogby showing Obama leading in California and media fawning over Obama and all the misogynistic and sexist venom spewed out by Hillary haters, Hillary the scrappy fighter pulls out a win, just like the the Giants in the Super Bowl. I guess there really is a God.

God selected your candidate? You sound like a Republican.

John Fountain @ 409:

08isourYear @ 376:

Ed @ 364:

Hey everyone,

I have a question for the Hillary supporters..
I'm trying to understand why anyone would vote for her in the primaries, and I just can't seem to wrap my head around it. Especially when you've got someone like Obama running against her. I'm astounded by her numbers coming in.

Is it a looking for a return of the Clinton years? Is there a large war-hawk segment of the Democratic party? Is it anti-Obamanism (too radical, too young, too black, too male)? Or is it just manufactured support (from non-thinking voters) created by the corporate media machine?

Surely from a political strategy point of view she would be a harder sell to the voters on election day. Wouldn't the horror of a McCain presidency be enough to push for the more pragmatic choice?

Would anyone care to explain why they have voted for her, an also if you are pro-war?

Thanks!
Ed

When I review her plans for the nation I find them to be more realistic than Obama. Obama has grand ideas, sadly there is no way to pay for them. Hillary talked early and first about fiscal responsibility and the need to first fix our spending then see what money is available. Once that is done then you look at other areas to pay for the needed programs.

I am also not pro-war but I am pro-defense and for the most part understand there are times when we must use force. I believe Hillary Clinton also understands that.

I was actually more pro-Obama in the beginning but lately have found myself turned off not by him but his rabid hateful supporters both in the media and on blogs such as this. The vile hatred of his opponent and the undying love beyond ability to articulate it shows me he is the divisive candidate in this race. Your comment suggesting non thinking voters would support Clinton is a great example of this. I also notice you brought up race again, something I feel Obama has been very good at using to his advantage, his supporters seem to be good at it as well.

While Obama may in fact be an excellent politician and will do well, I do not feel comfortable leaving this nation in his hands.

I do feel that with Hillary Clinton we know what we get and how she will perform as President.

I am also willing to accept others think differently without making such broad negative assumptions as you have.

When Hillary screws up and make no mistake about it, she will screw up[See: her Vote to Support Bush in Iraq, Her vote to begin the process to war with Iran] let's just hope that it's your family and all the other sheep who support Hillarys candidacy's families that will suffer first from her poor judgment and nearsighted outlook. It's on you guys especially when you knew/know going into the booth that there is someone with much better judgment right in front of your eyes that you so arrogantly blow off for whatever selfish reasons you have that project your own narcissism and xenophobic outlook.

You know when I voted today I knew I was voting for the best candidate. Despite your predictions of doom and gloom I think you will prosper regardless of which of the two gets the nomination.

I am just glad I am not as negative as your seem to be. I also wish no harm to you or your family for throwing your vote to Obama. Even if I cannot understand why you would do it, it doesn't mean you did not have the right.

You do prove one thing though. I your eyes only you know what is best, others who differ from you are idiots. Are you sure you haven't been voting republican for your life? You kind of sound like one.

Guy Fawkes @ 414:

Despite all the celebrity endorsements, rock-star like adulation, last minute polls by Reuters/Zogby showing Obama leading in California and media fawning over Obama and all the misogynistic and sexist venom spewed out by Hillary haters, Hillary the scrappy fighter pulls out a win, just like the the Giants in the Super Bowl. I guess there really is a God.

Yup, the Zogby Zombies call all go back to their day jobs and stop being P.R. machines for Obama. They fell on their face in New Hampshire and now California. 13-point lead indeed.

Splendid @ 419:

SR913 @ 392:

It would be funny if, despite MSNBC's call that Hillary won CA in a landslide, is invincible, has proven her critics wrong, etc....Obama ends up pulling close in votes, or more importantly, in congressional districts.

Yeah, that would be funny. Ya know what would be funnier? If you licked the egg off your face.

The Obama talking points have been to lower expectations so make any win seem like an overwhleming victory, which he publically predicted. However,

Oprah couldn't help Obama
Ted Kennedy couldn't help Obama
Maria Shriver Couldn't help Obama
Robert De Niro couldn't help Obama
Ms. Rangel couldn't help Obama
Toni Morrison couldn't help Obama
Dirty tricks couldn't help Obama
Race-baiting couldn't help Obama
Preachifying couldn't help Obama
Wrongly comparing himself to and attempting to emulate MLKJR couldn't help Obama

Clear the way for the H the H the H-illary!
Clear the way for the H the H the H-illary!
Clear the way for the H the H the H-illary!
Clear the way for the H the H the H-illary!

And nothing can help Hillary be electable in the generals
Clear the way for president McCain!

Has Hillary won one Caucus state yet?

08isourYear @ 422:

John Fountain @ 409:

08isourYear @ 376:

Ed @ 364:

When I review her plans for the nation I find them to be more realistic than Obama. Obama has grand ideas, sadly there is no way to pay for them. Hillary talked early and first about fiscal responsibility and the need to first fix our spending then see what money is available. Once that is done then you look at other areas to pay for the needed programs.

I am also not pro-war but I am pro-defense and for the most part understand there are times when we must use force. I believe Hillary Clinton also understands that.

I was actually more pro-Obama in the beginning but lately have found myself turned off not by him but his rabid hateful supporters both in the media and on blogs such as this. The vile hatred of his opponent and the undying love beyond ability to articulate it shows me he is the divisive candidate in this race. Your comment suggesting non thinking voters would support Clinton is a great example of this. I also notice you brought up race again, something I feel Obama has been very good at using to his advantage, his supporters seem to be good at it as well.

While Obama may in fact be an excellent politician and will do well, I do not feel comfortable leaving this nation in his hands.

I do feel that with Hillary Clinton we know what we get and how she will perform as President.

I am also willing to accept others think differently without making such broad negative assumptions as you have.

When Hillary screws up and make no mistake about it, she will screw up[See: her Vote to Support Bush in Iraq, Her vote to begin the process to war with Iran] let's just hope that it's your family and all the other sheep who support Hillarys candidacy's families that will suffer first from her poor judgment and nearsighted outlook. It's on you guys especially when you knew/know going into the booth that there is someone with much better judgment right in front of your eyes that you so arrogantly blow off for whatever selfish reasons you have that project your own narcissism and xenophobic outlook.

You know when I voted today I knew I was voting for the best candidate. Despite your predictions of doom and gloom I think you will prosper regardless of which of the two gets the nomination.

I am just glad I am not as negative as your seem to be. I also wish no harm to you or your family for throwing your vote to Obama. Even if I cannot understand why you would do it, it doesn't mean you did not have the right.

You do prove one thing though. I your eyes only you know what is best, others who differ from you are idiots. Are you sure you haven't been voting republican for your life? You kind of sound like one.

Word. Just...

Word.

Being cynical is not only acidic and toxic, but it's intellectually lazy. Having to categorize every contest by saying your favourite is Good whereas the other is objectively Bad is childish nonsense. It illustrates that everything you've learnt is only what has been convenient to learn - what best supports your position that Obama is our saviour and that Clinton is a monster and her supporters all vicious animals. Frankly, it's scary how easily people can reduce the world to such abstract concepts.

After I voted and was about to leave, I turned around and said to a room of about two dozen people,” I hope you all know you are making history today”. I got a good round of applause! :-)

Unless something drastically changes, it looks like the Exit Polls were once again, WRONG. Looks like Hillary is on her way to being able to accept that nomination. Good luck! Either way, history in the making.

mudshark @ 45:

abarts @ 39:

I don't like seeing all the returns for McCrazy. God, we are SO fucked if he makes it all the way.

not so......I've been over at a repug site watching the misery of McCains success.......they really hate him.They'll stay home.Their only hope is to keep or gain a few seats in the House.

Stranger things have happened...2000 for starters.
I dread hearing..."My dear friends, I hereby take the oath....."

xoites defends Constitution @ 49:

Looks like Hillary shot her wad. Bill must have made her feel left out.

hareli @ 12:

Al Giordano at The Field is doing some of the most astute political reporting around. His six-week-old-blog is getting over 125,000 hits a day and getting raves from Esquire, NYT, Vanity Fair, and The Guardian.

Here's a tidbit he threw up today, which in very interesting.

... So the only way she can get on TV is on the coattails of Obama’s ratings? That’s funny.
My guess: Obama will agree to occasional debates - one, maybe two a month - but, really, meeting up once a week is something that people do when they date. People might begin to talk, y’know?
Memo to Mark Penn: Wouldn’t the candidate’s time be better spent, um, fundraising?

Does this answer Jane Hamscher's question about why Hillary's going on Fox?

Maybe not. After all, she has Bill to fundraise for her, and he's pretty damned good at it.

ConcernedCanuck @ 50:

Unless something drastically changes, it looks like the Exit Polls were once again, WRONG. Looks like Hillary is on her way to being able to accept that nomination. Good luck! Either way, history in the making.

Yep. Obama can't be mathematically eliminated tonight, but if Hillary finishes stronger than expected, the conversation could change in as little as 12 hours towards "Should Obama call off the dogs and start sucking up to Hillary to get that VP spot?" Gag.

abarts @ 39:

I don't like seeing all the returns for McCrazy. God, we are SO fucked if he makes it all the way.

Yeah, but he's pretty old and decrepit. Older than his years.

If he picks Huckabee for VP . . .

:o(

It looks bad for Arizona.

The largest generation in US history (14 to 24) was missing at my polling place. Just people like me - boomers - and one under 24.

If this subjective observation is 'real', then O'Bama may not get the push he needs from that demographic in a general election.

As a note - look at how quickly the Paul hysteria died out.

SR913 @ 56:

ConcernedCanuck @ 50:

Unless something drastically changes, it looks like the Exit Polls were once again, WRONG. Looks like Hillary is on her way to being able to accept that nomination. Good luck! Either way, history in the making.

Yep. Obama can't be mathematically eliminated tonight, but if Hillary finishes stronger than expected, the conversation could change in as little as 12 hours towards "Should Obama call off the dogs and start sucking up to Hillary to get that VP spot?" Gag.

uncle joe mccarthy @ 53:

ConcernedCanuck @ 50:

Unless something drastically changes, it looks like the Exit Polls were once again, WRONG. Looks like Hillary is on her way to being able to accept that nomination. Good luck! Either way, history in the making.

not really....delegates are proportional....its a fight to the finish

I'm just looking at the real deciding factor here, and that appears to be the Super Delegates. If that is what it comes down to, the Clintons have way to much power to compete against.

Lynda from Australia @ 57:

I can't see Hillary running this race and winning and staying on track. She has far too many ominous portents in her astrology chart (ok, for those who think astrology's bunk have you ever checked it out?)... anyways, she has enormous, *enormous* Neptune transits to her Mercury and Saturn square which cause confusion, high emotions, not being listened to, scandals, things being unearthed (that one wouldn't want unearthed) and all kinds of nebulousness that would preclude on from success when one has to be on board, upfront, straight shooting and straight thinking. She will be undermined by others or by her own lack of staying power. Neptune transits can enervate and cause one to want to collapse in a heap... can't see her surviving this in one piece... that is unless she has such enormous support from an amazing support base (with no stones being cast)- nah, even then I can't see it.

Yes, astrology is bunk. There is no scientific evidence that any of it is anything but gibberish. Yes, I've checked it out. The scientific method demands being open to any hypothesis. But astrology has never passed any scientific tests.

Peddle this garbage elsewhere.

For those of us without access to a TV, this is great!
Thanks a ton!

The Clinton supporters on these boards I view are hiliarious. I was a Clinton supporter up a month ago where she started turning me off by how she got negative once the race tightened up, and her supporters have done everything in their power to keep me away. She's owned the MSM since 2002 and was projected to beat Obama by at least 20 points in most states. This race was supposed to be over after Iowa.

Now that it's a race, the Clinton supporters are blaming the MSM? Wow, if she does win, I'm not sure if I could vote for her in the national.

I voted Kucinich in Az - and to repear, the O'Bama kids didnt show to my polling place.

08isourYear @ 429:

FreedomOfInformationAct @ 425:

I've been hearing that electoral offices in Santa Clara and Alameda counties have requested and been given permission to keep their doors open until 10pm, because so many voters demanded democratic ballots that they ran out of them in several precints. Obamas staff made the request and Clintons staff agreed, ALL the votes must be counted. If you are in line at 10pm, you are guaranteed to get to submit your ballot.

This is big for Obama!!!

While it is good to count every vote, why do you assume it is big for Obama? I am amazed at the psychic abilities of Obama supporters.

The sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow, this is big for Obama!

Does anyone know where to see the splits for the early voting in California?

mo_dems @ 427:

Splendid @ 419:

SR913 @ 392:

You're full of Crap!

And second of all, what happened to Hillary's well-oiled machine? She's been the frontrunner for how long? She lost Missouri for goodness' sake!

You're just making other Dems dislike Hillary more and more....

I love it, Missouri by 1%. That is what you and Clare McCaskill are trying to push but honestly, it will vote republican in Nov anyway and again let me spell it out one percent. Now had it been 20% maybe I would have been impressed.

I've watching Missouri closely now for about an hour. The last half hour it has been stuck at 98% with an Obama lead of just about 5,000 votes. Why all of a sudden the percentage just got stuck at 98% is beyond me, when it was moving proportionally smooth for the longest time.

And just because the MSM called it early for Hillary doesn't mean she is a runaway winner. She was ahead in Missouri until late, and the same could be said of California. Plus the dividing up of delegates in California could give Barak enough help to him as he goes forward to the next set of primary states.