Redstate

were on a perenial moral crusade to count every vote in FLorida...

Oh, I'm sorry, they mean the ones cast in 2000. The one's in 2008 are different.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

I'm actually getting kind of excited about the Dem race.

It looks like it might actually last a long time, and it could get really ugly over the technical stuff of what delegates get to count.

Hopefully we see more of last night. If Hillary could win VA or MD while Obama wins MD or VA and DC, that'd be a good start.

"Livin' the dream. I'm going to Disney World." Super Bowl XLII MVP, Elisha Nelson Manning

...Superdelegates are in hand to ensure that the winner of the elected delegates is the nominee.

You seem to be implying that the super-delegates have no opinions of their own. They do. They are elected officials or Party officials. They may jump on board for a clear winner, if anyone wins a majority of the Convention from pledged delegates.

By my maths, to sew up the nomination from elected delegates one of the candidates needs to win 1400 (70%) of the remaining 2,000 or so delegates. That's a little more likely than the remaining 2,000 going to John Edwards, giving him a pretty much unassailable lead, but not by much. Someone needs to win ALL the remaining states by bigger margins than Obama got in Illinois or Clinton got in Arkansas.

Short of that sort of landslide, neither Clinton nor Obama will have 2,000 pledged delegates when South Dakota votes.

If the result is still in doubt, Obama's people will not want to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. A last minute change of the rules to fix it for the white woman against the black man is not going to go down well.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I've been worried about the prospect of Obama as the dem nominee since 2004, and blogged about it at that time. Just not here. :)
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

like I said, figuring out the charismatic, charming and likeable one is the more difficult to beat is not all that intuitive.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Last time I checked, not every post was required to be a pool of enlightenment.

I just thought we might want to discuss something other than how much we dislike our candidates.
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

I take umbrage at your description of African Americans as unreliable. I will assume you mean in relation to voting patterns there, and black Americans are about as reliable as it gets for voting Democratic.

What's the turnout rate then, and how is it when compared with other Democratic groups?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...and, in some areas (parts of Detroit come to mind), it exceeds 100% :)

"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk

It's proportional by CD... only they apparently roll 3d2 to determine delegates per CD.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...because even districts will be tied most often, and only the odd districts will count.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I was wrong: Obama *could* get these anomalies everywhere. It's an insane system.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...so I can put it up on my wall.

Yeah, you were right: it was possible for Obama to do better than we expected.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...that the Obama campaign was waving around?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I think WITHOUT superdelgates he's up like 15.

(And, about the superdelgates, remember that there are still 400+ that are uncommitted and won't commit until the Orcs in the Great Chamber have been killed by my 5th level druid.)

...are currently designed under the assumption that it won't really matter by the time of the convention anyway. This has the potential for Maximum Fun this summer.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

absentee

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Did ya catch a load of the twenty-something woman standing just behind Obama's left shoulder? She looked like she was in the midst of an orgasmic swoon every time he opened his mouth. I thought she was at a Beatles concert there for a while. (Yeah, I know, showing my age)

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Carter ran on "I'm not Nixon's crony" and Dole ran "I'm not as bad as you think, besides, it's my turn."

Scary part is the first one got elected.

that Slick Willy won two terms in the White House, despite being a lying sack o' poo.

Obama is dangerous. And he's young. Even if he gets taken out by Billary in 2008, he'll be someone we will have to confront in 2012, 2016, possibly even 2020.

Who do we have with his charisma in the GOP side? We need to be fostering those leaders for the showdown.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

If Hillary wins the nomination, barring a miracle, she'll probably win the general election. The incumbent party ALWAYS loses when the economy is in bad shape. That means Obama can't run in 2012, and arguably in 2016 if Hillary picks a young running mate. I doubt she'd pick Obama as there seems real bad blood between the two, and with many voters, his star outshines hers.

Supposing Clinton doesn't win, you really think he can generate this kind of enthusiasm with such positive press again? He'll have at least four more years of Senate votes to run against. Also, people hate giving money to losers, and the Democrats always find new "inspiring" politicians from hope and change to market to the country.

On another matter, I cannot agree more with everyone here who sees Obama's rhetoric for what it is: the same jargon American politicians throw out at the people in every stump speech. As Aristotle noted, a person's reputation goes a long way in determining how effective an orator he is. Obama is a Rorschach ink blot test on whom naive (read: YOUNG) voters can see whatever hopeful leader they like.

My generation, I'm 22, came of age during the partisan fighting of the Clinton/Bush years. The general impression is that partisan politics pollutes American institutions, cripples meaningful action, and spawns war and witch-hunts. Few realize the republic has ALWAYS behaved this way, and Obama cannot end faction without removing its causes which are rooted in the heart of man, as Madison might say.

Clausewitz's logic behind total war remains true for politics. Ends justify means. Once the duelists enter the arena, there is no reason to hold back anything which might yield an advantage to the other side when so much is riding on the outcome of the election.

Obama's administration would be just as nasty as all the others in terms of partisan fighting. Unless men and women in this country all agree to think alike on all issues and throw their support behind Obama. I fear my generation, reared in political correctness and caring more about form than substance, might create, or even desire, such an America.

And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill

1. Obama can run in 2012 if Hillary is ensconced in the White House. Eugene McCarthy brought down arguably the most powerful Democrat of the latter 20th century, who was a sitting president. Given Obamania happening over on the other side of the trench, I don't think it's unthinkable that Billary will face a primary challenge in 2012, especially if she ends up governing from the center as co-President, as opposed from the radical left as many Dem activists want. And double especially if Hillary wins the nomination through things like superdelegates, brokered conventions, and other procedural shenanigans.

2. Democrats do not always find inspiring new politicians. Between Bill Clinton and Obama, we've had Al Gore -- who makes Hillary look lively -- and John Kerry -- who makes Optimus Prime seem warm and human. It's too far a stretch to think that the Dem bench is just stacked with eloquent, good-looking candidates.

3. People don't like giving money to losers, that's true. This is my hope as well - that Billary will crush Obama, then have him fade away into obscurity as the junior senator from Illinois. I just don't think it's wise for us to count on the inclinations of our opponents.

Besides, if we prepare for who we think is a charismatic threat, but we end up facing some John Kerry clone, why wouldn't that help us?

4. Of course Obama administration would be just as nasty -- if not worse -- than all the others. Ideologues tend to make tyrants, not warm and fuzzy democracy types. See, Revolution, French. (I hope you don't think I've bought into Obama's "Yes We Can" tripe.) I'm merely pointing out that someone who has his public speaking skills, his charisma on the stump, and his eloquence is very dangerous in an electoral contest where soundbites, and not deep policy, rule.

Combine that with the fact that we live in a country where the Daily Show is considered a source of news, and a slick product goes a looooong way.

After the Fred experience, I am looking for the conservative equivalent of Obama. Not just someone who is right on the issues, but can present them with charisma, charm, and poise. Image trumps substance in today's America -- I'm sorry, but it does. We would be well-served to think about that going forward.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

A terrible Hillary administration might bring a primary challenge, but Obama might not be the best one to do it. He'd presumably go to the left of Clinton, which would destroy his chances in a general election.

Al Gore ran as the incumbent in 2000 with peace and prosperity at his back. No one was touching him. Ever since the Kennedys, the Democrats look for the next one of their ilk. John Kerry beat out Edwards and Dean on issues of electability: the Dems wanted to run on the war, and wanted the best spokesperson. Note how the Bidens, Gephardts, Dodds, and Richardsons of the world get ignored. Can Obama, banking on how his inexperience makes him an agent of change, really count on voters beleiving that after (at least) eight years in Washington? Sure enough, someone will emerge and take that mantle away, and Obama will, like you predicted, fade away in the halls of the Senate.

My later points addressed an issue not contained in your post, but I see we both agree that the roots of Obamania are deep and do not bode well for the future of our party or government. I agree, we must (re)learn them. A great man who would have turned 97 today mastered them.

And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill

It's already in high gear. This is the 'machine' that beat GHW Bush, Bob Dole, and Newt Gingrich.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

You really need to cut the attitude whenever this topic comes up.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...and nobody ever gives a good answer.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

why do you think that might be?

My suspicion is because there isn't one.

it's not ours to give in the primaries, anyway. My Republican dad crossed over in the SC primary to vote for Obama because he hates Hillary and Edwards so much, and Fred dropped out. No way he's voting for Obama in November, though. That's one way to answer, I guess.

If the Obama phenom is real, and people like he idea of electing a blank slate, then campaigning on concrete issues and solutions becomes a vain exercise. At that point, Obama is the only one who could hurt his campaign enough to lose, and he would have to really screw up to do that. That's another possible answer.

We need to tone down the Republican Awebama and stop contributing to the hype. Let the Dems pick their poison, and us ours. We can answer the question of Obama then, if we still need to.

I've been worried about this for some. I just thought it would make an interesting topic for discussion.

I've grown a little tired of all the diaries and comments bashing McCain, Huckabee, and Romney. I thought we could use an open thread of sorts to take some shots at Obama and HRC. :)
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

And I'm downright embarrassed as to why. God help us all, there really is a Bradley Effect over there.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I'm not really interested in playing the predictions game; whatever will happen will happen.
I don't think you can deny that I'm right about the long-term effect an Obama nomination and win would have, though.

But also some "ageism" working against Obama.

I agree that he will be a force to reckon with in the future, even if he loses the nomination. However, the adulation he is enjoying has a short half-life, and if he loses, he needs to start applying himself to his job in thr Senate. He'll need a little walk to go with the talk next time.

I think the "Bradley Effect" is too quick of a characterization.

The bad news for Obama is that the D nomination is inherently skewed infavor of Hillary, because her support is strongest among women and older voters, who make up a disproportionate share of the D primary voters. These voters would favor Hillary regardless of who she is running against.

So while he's got an uphill battle to start with, regardless of skin color, what further compounds the problem for Obama is that Hispanic voters (and in CA last night apparently Asian) voters simply refuse to vote for him at any kind of meaningful level. IIRC, he actually won the white vote in CA. It is the states with significant Hispanic populations that he seems to have the most trouble with- NV, CA, AZ for example. I'd be worried about TX as well if I'm him.

But it is an interesting race, in many ways more interesting than what's going on with our side (who do the moderates support, who do the conservatives support, who do the evangelicals support, etc).

but I think he lost the white female vote. I think the numbers were 60/40 which wouldn't be bad if it weren't for the fact that in recent years the white male vote has broken something like 70/30 Republican/Democrat. Winning the majority of a minority doesn't win an election.

He won in Connecticut.
He win in Deleware.
He won in New Mexico.
He won in Missouri.

Where's the Bradley effect?

This is about underperforming expectations, not about winning or losing.

Remember how he was supposed to be ahead in California? Uh huh.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

....not SUSA, who got it actually right on the numbers.

And what you said is that he won't WIN due to the Bradley effect, so I was just riffing off that.

2. Cherry picking a few states doesn't disprove Moe's point.

3. Obama and Romney have two things in common. One of them is that they overperform in Caucuses.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

(smile)

1) The issue of Obama underperforming his exit polls has also to do with the enthusiasm of his supporters and their willingness to be interviewed by pollsters after votes. maybe.

b) There are caucuses and there are caucuses. Having caucused in Iowa before, it's a very hand-holdy, conversational, cerebral affair where anyone harboring latent racist sentiment would pretty much have to give it up. Minnesota, last night, however, was a "caucus" in which people simply filed in and deposited paper slips in a taped-up shoebox with a slit cut in the cover. After that they had a conversation about senate candidates.

Issues of vote security aside, it doesn't structurally prevent you from being as racist as you want to be.

"In my youth, it was said that what was too silly to be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into mathematics." -- Ronald Coase

...but that may or may not translate against the Republican nominee.

What's interesting is that its Obama v. McCain, which version of immigration McCain does he highlight. The one that wins hispanic votes against Obama or the one that brings the base home on his right.

He's still pro-legalization. His only shift has been from anti-fence to pro-fence.

But he still wants to hand out visas like candy.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Its apparent that the Bradley Effect only applies in a "good/bad", "right/wrong", "with us/against us" or even a "black/white" world view. In the real world of shades of gray (aka. a loving Liberal forward thinking view) the Bradley Effect does no apply.

...to lie about who they're voting for on us without even down-shifting first. Skillful, in its way.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

As far as I know, only to liberals. Bradley was a Democrat. The people who said they were voting for Bradley, but deserted their normal party by staying at home or voting Republican, were Democrats.

It is sometimes called the Bradley-Wilder Effect, as the same thing happened to Douglas Wilder in Virginia, another Democrat. (Wilder still won, by the way, but by a much smaller margin than polls had shown).

I am not aware that this has ever happened to credible African-American Republicans. Michael Steele, for example, performed slightly better than opinion polls implied, iirc, and as well as any Republican could have been expected to in that election. The same goes for Lynn Swann and Ken Blackwell.

The interesting question is, why does the Effect seem to apply to Obama in primaries but not in caucuses? One possibility is it only affects marginal voters, who don't attend caucuses. Another is that people don't mind casting Bradley Effect racist votes in private, but not in public. Liberals can be racist, as long as no-one knows.

Today's Democrats only wear white sheets when no-one is looking

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

"Today's Democrats only wear white sheets when no-one is looking."

I love it.

...other than Zogby were pretty accurate, predicting about a 10 point win for HRC, which is what she ended up with.

Gallup Jan. 28: C 47, O 35
ARG Feb. 3: C 47, O 39
Mason-Dixon Feb. 3: C 45, O 36
Survey USA Feb. 4: C 52, O 42

SUSA Feb. 4 was dead-on. The Zogby polls that showed Obama with a lead were outliers. I don't think you can use the poor performance of Zogby to assume a huge, party-defining Bradley effect. Most polls reflected what actually happened.

"In my youth, it was said that what was too silly to be said may be sung. In modern economics it may be put into mathematics." -- Ronald Coase

if our economy is about to go into a recession why are you in favor of across the board tax increases?

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

Never seen any speech/policy paper/news article suggesting that he favors "across the board tax increases." If there's credible documentation that he has said he supports "across the board tax increases," I encourage you to post it.*

So asking a question like that gets an easy answer. "I'm not in favor of them. I have a ?tax plan that cuts taxes for most people. Next."

*Of course, you could say that he's actually lying, which you're entitled to do. But my point stands - asking that question in that way isn't difficult for him to field at all.

By the way? "Tax credits" do not equal "tax cuts." Tax cuts are when the government stops taking away as much of your money. Tax credits are when the government deigns to give you back some of the money that they've taken from you.

You may say that this is a distinction without a difference - but then, you may also say that Barack Obama is trying to reach out to people like us, which would then be a puzzler, because it's not a distinction without a difference to us. Obama could score big-time by the simple statement "When I'm elected, I'll lower marginal tax rates across the board." The fact that every Republican and conservative reading this just started howling with laughter at the absurdity of any Democratic politician ever saying that should tell you something.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Which is "why do you support across the board tax increases," which was pitched as a challenging question for Obama to answer. In its present formulation, it is not a challenging question to answer, because Obama does not support "across the board" tax increases.

I realize that tax cuts and tax credits are very different, both philosophically and in effect. I also acknowledge that Obama wouldn't renew the top handful of Bush tax cuts, which amounts to a tax increases on some taxpayers. I'll go further and grant that you don't believe he wouldn't eventually push for some "across-the-board" tax hike that he's keeping up his sleeve. All granted; I was just saying that Obama can easily answer the question as it was phrased.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

He said he would cut the legs out from under our purported ally in the region. I don't think he said he would invade.

...on a woman standing behind Obama's left shoulder during his Super Tuesday American Idol speech. She was enraptured, sobbing, in an absolute trance . . . minutes away from being institutionalized. What Obama was saying lacked even the slightest hint of substance, but it sure was purdy.

While I suspect that Democrats are naturally more susceptible to emotional manipulation, it does make me yearn for someone on our side who had a vision based on actual principles, policies, and practicality.

None of our Republican candidates had a vision. Not only did no one measure up to the Reagan Revolution's vision of political and economic freedom, no one even came up with anything as compelling as GWB's "compassionate conservatism" - and that's not saying much.

John McCain lacks a vision beyond his own quirky persona. He has been so focused on living up to his maverickness, that he doesn't have a consistent narrative. His best hope for a mini-vision seems to be earmarks. If he can focus on crusading against government waste and expand that message to something more aspirational, perhaps he can leave CPAC with a glimmer of hope.

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

Ancient prophecy (and history) has spoken of such charmers. What frightens me most is that even his followers don't seem to know what he stands for. To them, he's just a young, good looking black guy that Oprah likes and he says "change" and "hope" a lot. So therefore he should be President?!

Imagine if we had a candidate with charm AND substance? Now THAT would be a ticket to get excited about.

www.scottbomb.com

Those guys have already packed it in.

I was talking on the phone with a friend yesterday who supports Obama and I asked him the same question. I told him that I think Obama makes a great speech & he's a likeable guy, but he's an empty suit. All he does is say "change" and "hope". The man speaks in platitudes about "bringing us all together". Just what exactly has he said that he will do as President that makes people want to vote for him?

My friend didn't have an answer. He suddenly had to go! I can't wait for the debates during the general.

www.scottbomb.com

As a Democrat, that word still brings shudders after 2004. If there's anything more aggravating than choosing a bland "electable" candidate, it's having the electable candidate LOSE.

McCain is well-liked by independents and 'moderates.' Kerry's electability was speculated on the basis of his biography.

Hint: McCain isn't going to be Reporting for Duty.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I hope YOU (and the rest of the GOP) like McCain, because compromising on the altar of electability (as we did) is pretty lame and I believe ultimately self-defeating. Although I think McCain is your strongest candidate, I doubt his image will survive the summer and we'll see a rerun of 1996.

And I hope you do think he's another Bob Dole, heh. We have a war to win.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Kerry did enter the general needing to win the support of his base. McCain will.

Rest assured, it is in the works.
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

I'm not sure I see it. What part of the electorate does Huck add to the equation that McCain won't already win? McCain is solid pro-life except for stem cells. Are there enough one-issue stem cell voters to push McCain over the top in the general election? Yesterday's results show pretty clearly that McCain sweeps the South if Huck isn't in. To me, Huck is a better HHS Secretary.

For VP, I think McCain goes with a popular governor from a state that's tilting on the precipice, one way or another. Some have proposed Crist from Florida which would at least make some degree of sense.

You can't afford the price of free corn.

What part of the electorate does Huck add to the equation that McCain won't already win?

I think we could run Bert and Ernie and sweep the South, personally. No offense. I'd vote for Bert and Ernie, too, if they were our nominees.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Huckabee would solidify the South in a close election. He might even be right, if the opponent was Obama, and you are not a believer in The Bradley Effect.

That being said, he could do the same with Fred D. THompson, and have a WAY better VP.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

If I told him Ernie was running for President and I didn't vote for him, he might not ever speak to me again-and he's only two, so i don't think I would take that risk. Although Bert seems kind of liberal...

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
Mitthead for McCain/insert conservative not named Huckabee here in 08

If you believe the conventional wisdom that high turnout by conservative Christian voters was the key to Pres. Bush's victory in 2004, you have to ask- are they as enthused by Nominee McCain and would they turnout as high for him in '08. Since McCain is more of a moderate, I'm not sure their excitement would be there. Maybe anti-Hillary motivation would be enough.

But if you view high Christian conservative voter turnout as the lynchpin for the GOP, then Huck is probably the guy for VP.

On the other hand, too bad we don't really have anybody in Ohio that we could look to, it will be Hillary's prime target.

than I really believe Obama will win the nomination.

"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.

...with its high population of asian Americans and white union workers. Who knows, Obama could still win it. Other than that, I don't see another state that Hillary wins from here on out. She'll probably get destroyed in Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. (she might as well not even show up in D.C.).

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I think Obama has to be favored in Washington. As we saw last night, Obama cleans up in caucuses. The Seattle area has alot of highly educated professionals, and if the eastern part of the state behaves anything like Idaho, Obama will dominate there. Clinton's best shots in the coming week are probably Louisiana and Virginia.

Obama has cleaned up in red states. Plus, both of those places have large black populations which favor Obama.

Basically, the only states remaining that seem to favor Hill are Pennsylvania and perhaps Ohio.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

It's anybody's guess what percentage of primary voters in Louisiana will be African-American this time. Pre-Katrina, Obama certainly would have been heavily favored. Virginia has 3% more African-American population than Tennessee and DC suburbs which I presume would be favorable to Clinton.

Clinton is probably favored in Texas unless Obama figures out how to put a dent in her Latino support. I agree about Ohio and Pennsylvania.

I think she needs at least two out of those three, and probably all three to win now, given that Obama is likely to clean up everywhere else from here on out.

I think she will be heavily favored to win PA, somewhat favored in TX because of Hispanics, and it's probably a toss-up in OH.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

I think he is an exceptional orator, and his overall message (however superficial it may be) is a good one: We are one America.

His narrative is the exact opposite of John Edwards (i.e., One America v. Two Americas), and I find that appealing.

Look, I realize that there isn't much substance there, but you don't have to agree with someone to recognize his talent. And Senator Obama is an extremely talented pol. One of the best I've seen in a long time. Indeed, since Reagan.
___________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: I am a member of a state-wide executive committee that is affiliated with Governor Mike Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination

about politics. It is like jujitsu (if I spelled it wrong bite me). A good politician can use all of their opponents positives against them.

His message is unity, and so his opponent needs to point out that his message and his substance isn't unified.

First, while he has a message of unity he attacks Republicans every chance he gets. He calls the tax cuts for the rich and thus plays class warfare.

He has an extreme and divisive position on abortion. He wants the rich to pay for the poor's health care, how is that unified? There are plenty of opportunities for his opponent to use that to his advantage.

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

The Provocateur

I don't necessarily mind listening to someone I disagree with as long as they aren't suggesting those who disagree with them aren't taking the coats away from millworkers children or trying to throw uninsured patients out into the street.

Obama does have exceptional oratory skills and a political awareness for how to draw people together.

However much he may be an empty suit, to just dismiss him (and his chances) as such underestimates the capacity of the American public to simply vote for the person they find most likable.

I would not want to run against him.