Who is Voting For Clinton & Obama

Flowing Data has made a superb graphic showing who are Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's voters. Hillary is winning counties poorly educated that went for Bush in 2004. That is a horrible base for a Democratic candidate in the general election.

Counties Over 20 Percent Black

Obama wins 383 to 70

Counties Less Than 20 Black and Graduation Rate Below 78 Percent

Hillary wins 704 to 89

Counties Less Than 20 Black With An Above 87 Percent Graduation Rate

Obama wins 185 to 36

Counties Where Bush Beat Kerry Badly

Hillary wins 48 to 13

Wow. Hillary really is running a Karl Rove style campaign.

Worst Pep Talk Ever

I couldn't make up shit like this. Factory workers in Youngstown, Ohio were given this pep talk by John McCain.

"A person learns along the way that if you hold on — if you don't quit no matter what the odds — sometimes life will surprise you," McCain said in a speech at Youngstown State University after meeting the five remaining workers at Fabart, a steel-fabricating factory that had more than 100 employees a few years ago.

Who the fuck on McCain's staff pick this campaign stop. It's obvious that the Maverick is clueless on economic matters. Sadly, I'm not shocked that McCain would lecture five factory workers, about to get laid off, to pick themselves up by their bootstraps.

McCain went on to preach how wonderful free trade is. I'm not anti-free trade, but I am politically astute enough to understand that no presidential candidate should preach the virtues of free trade to a town that lost 40,000 jobs. Obama's people need to use McCain's Youngstown visit in the general election. McCain will lose Ohio if he keeps telling the state's voters how great NAFTA is.

McCain jokingly pointed out that NAFTA in fact is composed of five letters, though O'Connell seemed to be equating it to a "four-letter word," as in a curse word.

In response, McCain said again that those jobs were gone forever and he defended NAFTA as an overall plus for the U.S. economy, even as he conceded that wage discrepancies and product dumping have hurt U.S. workers.

"I've met too many people who've been displaced as a result of free trade to say, 'Aww, it's all been good for our economy, don't worry about it,' " McCain said. "But I think the adjustment is not to erect barriers and protectionism. I think the answer is to understand that free trade or not, we are in an information technology revolution. ... We've got to be part of that new economy rather than trying to cling to an old economy."

McCain's message to Ohio voters, 'Your jobs are gone.' Not that he has to worry. The Straight Talker is one of the richest members of the Senate.

Pelosi Pushing Super-Delegates to Decide

I getting tired of the Democratic primary. It is good to see that Nancy Pelosi is attempting to end this before the convention.

Nevertheless, some party leaders are quietly planning to try to end the clash, said people familiar with the matter. After the primaries end in June, these influential Democrats -- led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- plan to push the last uncommitted party leaders to endorse a candidate, in hopes of preventing a fight at the August presidential convention, party insiders say.

These "superdelegates" -- governors, members of Congress and others who can vote for any candidate at the convention -- would likely tip the balance to Sen. Obama, who holds a sizable and likely insurmountable delegate lead. Sen. Clinton is hoping that a win in Pennsylvania, where she is favored, would lift her campaign and give party officials pause about Sen. Obama as the nominee.

How much more time do the super-delegates need to decide which candidate they prefer? These delegates are posturing for political favors. It is fairly obvious that Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee. These super-delegates are so scared and such panderers that they refuse to come to a decision that might piss off either candidate.

My hope is that this election will end the practice of super-delegates. It subverts the will of voters and is part of the backroom peddling of the old Democratic Party days. There is no good reason Bill Nelson and Ed Rendell should have such powerful votes.

Another annoying note: the media have elevated super-delegates to what the undecided voters in 2000. A group of voters that hold sway and have nothing interesting to say to the media about the candidates.

Compare and Contrast Latest Hillary and Obama Campaign Videos

The Barack Obama video presnt optimism. The Hillary Clinton video tells voters the apocalypse will come if we don't vote for Hillary.





Political campaigns go negative when faced with the possibility of defeat. Super-delegates are defecting from Hillary and announcing their support for Obama. Hillary has less delegates, votes and her fundraising is lagging. Hillary's insistence on remaining in the race borders on delusional.

Robert Reich Endorses Barack Obama

Former Clinton administration Sec. of Labor Robert Reich will endorse Barack Obama. That is embarrassing to the Clintons, but not that surprising. Reich was one of the most addently liberal members of the Clinton administration and hated the deficit reduction advocates that made up Bill Clinton's circle of economic advisors. Reich was going to stay neutral. The Clinton campaign's attack ads got him off the fence.

"I saw the ads" — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago — "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past twenty years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."

Reich believes Obama represents a "chance of creating a new politics." Endorsing Obama is rather a safe move. Hillary is not going to get the nomination. The Clintons can't intimidate from a position of weakness. The dynasty is crumbling down before our eyes.

Hillary's Security Umbrella

The Bush administration and neoconservatives mad hard-on for war with Iraq has degraded America's national security debate. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate stated that Iran ended their quest for nuclear weapons in 2003.

We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uraniumenrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.

The ABC News debate sent Israel the signal that the next Democratic president will go to war if Iran attack Israel with their nonexistent nuclear arsenal. The Jerusalem Post article portrayed two presidential candidates ready to go to war for Israel.

Both Democratic presidential candidates threatened a tough response to Iran should it attack Israel, while sparring over the role of faith in American life and the validity of judging their candidacies by those with whom they associate during a debate Wednesday night.

"An attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation from the United States," said New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who proposed that the US create a security umbrella for Israel and other allies in the region to protect them from a nuclear Iran. "So would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under the security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions."

How exactly is the United States going to provide a nuclear umbrella for Isael and other Middle East countries. Excuse me, but Iran isn't the major security threat the neoconservatives would have us believe. This is scary talk and gives a glimpse into how Hillary views the world.

Obama used the vague "take no option off the table." That is political shorthand for attempting to sound tough and not commiting to any form of action. No candidate wants to look weak on national security. Hillary came off as Barry Bonds after a fix.

I Get Mail

I'm not an A-list blogger, but I make the B+ list. I am now getting spammed by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Phil Singer used to work for Harry Reid's office. I used to get emails from Singer updating me on Reid's agenda. Some of the emails were useful. Singer's missive is that John McCain will trounce Barack Obama in the general election.

Monday, April 14, 2008

The battle over Florida’s convention delegates may be taking its toll on Barack Obama’s prospects in the Sunshine State. For the second time in three months, John McCain enjoys a double digit lead over the Democratic frontrunner.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Florida shows McCain attracting 53% of the vote while Obama earns 38%. Last month, amidst talk of a possible Florida revote, Obama had closed to within single digits of McCain. In February, however, Obama trailed McCain by sixteen points.

If McCain is matched against Hillary Clinton, the race is a toss-up—Clinton 45% McCain 44%.

McCain is viewed favorably by 62% of the state’s voters, Clinton by 49%, and Obama by 42%.

If Florida Governor Charlie Crist is selected as McCain’s running mate, 30% say they’re more likely to vote for McCain, 31% say less likely, and 31% say it would have no impact on their decision. By a 38% to 28% margin, Republicans are more likely to vote for a ticket with Crist. By a 40% to 22%, the state’s Democrats take the opposite view. Among unaffiliated voters, 30% are more likely to vote for a ticket with Crist, 22% are less likely to do so.

Now that Fidel Castro has turned over power in Cuba to his brother, 37% of Florida voters believe it’s time to lift the economic embargo against Cuba. Thirty-seven percent (37%) disagree and 26% are not sure.

Rasmussen Markets shows that Republicans are currently given a 73.1 % chance of winning Florida’s twenty-seven Electoral College Votes this fall. As this poll is released, Florida is rated “Leans Republican” in the Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator. Balance of Power projections indicate that the Electoral College scoreboard is a toss-up at this time.

Even without the delegate seating controversy, I fail to see how Democrats fail to pick up Florida. Michigan is actually more important. That is a ble state that the Democrats can't afford to lose. The DNC needs to seat the Michigan delegates. Bill Nelson and the Florida Democratic Party can bitch all they want. They created this mess and need to reap the harvest they sown.

Don't you wish you can get spammed by presidential campaigns? And yes, I'm being sarcastic. I also get spammed to death by Jane Hamsher. How the hell I get on her email list?

Quote of the Day

"I think the Clintons have a feeling of entitlement . . . that the presidency was theirs."

Bill Richardson, former presidential candidate and cabinet member in the Clinton administration.

Hatelary

Hate being channeled by Hillary’s rabid supporters is one thing. While reprehensible, the national campaign still can’t be fingered since this invective has been spewed on websites independent of the campaign. But when the Hillary campaign starts promoting hate directly from an author on No Quarter, that’s different — and a lot worse.

And it’s one thing to have a No Quarter author link to and promote another hateful author, but when one of their own author’s is caught calling Michelle Obama a “blowjob queen” and a skank, that’s different — and a lot worse.

Over at Rumproast, Kevin K’s got the goods on No Quarter author Truthteller posting hated filled comments about Michelle Obama on different sites, and having one of his posts promoted by the Hillary campaign. It’s detailed and you should read the whole thing. And I suppose some will say that the particular post by Turthteller that the Hillary campaign linked to doesn’t have any overt hate in it, so what’s the problem? Well, if David Duke said something mundane and I linked to it, wouldn’t — nay, shouldn’t – you have a problem with that? Same thing here. If the source is this hateful then it discredits everything else they’ve said.

And let’s make sure we have “hateful” clearly defined here. Using profane language to express feelings of anger is simply that, but making misogynist comments about Obama’s wife, calling her a “blowjob queen” and a “skank” — that’s just hate, pure and simple.

When the Hillary campaign is promoting an article from an author like this, they’ve stepped over the line. They’ve become connected to No Quarter. And now the campaign has something we deserve an answer for.

[Crossposted from Comments From Left Field]

Quote of the Day

"I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."

Hillary Clinton, speaking about her opponent Barack Obama.

The Hillary Clinton campaign bullshit is getting thicker. Clinton says that Obama's stance on the Iraq war, before entering the Senate, doesn't count as him being against the war before her. My mind spins at her spin. The best the Clinton campaign could do to back their claim was a letter Clinton sent to President Bush notifying him that she would confirm Condoleezza Rice. Talk about taking a hard stance. If Clinton wants to start the clock at January 2005 then let us examine the record.

February 19, 2005

Today, security is so bad that none of the senators dared drive through Baghdad's streets, even in armored cars. Aside from the Green Zone, their only glimpse of the capital came from the relative safety of U.S. military helicopters that ferried them from the airport.

"It's regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well," Clinton said.

The irony is Clinton toured Baghdad with fellow Iraq war optimist John McCain. These two have a history of looking at the war through rose-colored glasses. Those glasses are very fashionable touring the Green Zone with an armed escort. What I hate about Hillary is she talks to voters as they are stupid. It is insulting and illustrates she should not answer that phone at 3:00AM.

You know, these Clintonistas are really unfuckingbelievable

Larry Johnson, 3/30/08: "No other pundit has done more to inject the poison of race baiting and play the race card than the inimitable Frank Rich of the New York Times."

Larry Johnson, only a day earlier: "The 'Wrong Nigga to Fuck Wit' Dilemma for Barack."

What were you mentioning about race baiting again, Larry? Somebody call the irony police.

My VP Pick

Kos posted his top Democratic Vice-President picks. I decided it would be fun to say who I want for Vice-President. I like to throw Nancy Pelosi's name out there.

Barack Obama should be able to win California. Despite John McCain's efforts to win the state. Would Obama feel comfortable having a pol as skillful as Pelosi as VP? It's easy to see a Vice-President Pelosi as powerful as Dick Cheney.

The advantage to Pelosi on the ticket is she has name-recognition and is fantastic with the media. She is also a skilled political tactician. The negative is a Democratic victory makes Steny Hoyer House Speaker.

The only Kos pick that intrigues me is Kansa Governor Kathleen Sebelius. She is from a Southern state and good on the stump. Bill Richardson is a horrible public speaker. I admire Chris Dodd, but don't see him as Vice-President.

Hillary Clinton: First Lady Action Hero

Hillary Clinton's version of her Bosnia trip, as First Lady, differs from Sinbad's version.

Good morning. I want to thank Secretary West for his years of service, not only as Secretary of the Army, but also to the Veteran’s Administration, to our men and women in uniform, to our country. I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went.

I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base. But it was a moment of great pride for me to visit our troops, not only in our main base as Tuzla, but also at two outposts where they were serving in so many capacities to deactivate and remove landmines, to hunt and seek out those who had not complied with the Dayton Accords and put down their arms, and to build relationships with the people that might lead to a peace for them and their children.

The video shows action straight out of a Die Hard movie. The risks Hillary took to do a photo-op with a child is beyond comprehension. We salute Hillary's courage under the fire of media cameras.

Silly talk

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

That's what this question to Obama from Lanny Davis is.

If a white minister preached sermons to his congregation and had used the "N" word and used rhetoric and words similar to members of the KKK, would you support a Democratic presidential candidate who decided to continue to be a member of that congregation?

This would be a legit question to Obama if the rhetoric in Pastor Wright's sermons included racial slurs against white people. For all his egregious quotes in the media lately, I haven't seen anything where Pastor Wright refers to white people as "honkies" or any sort of white equivalent of the word "nigger". And I've looked -- particularly at that recent, infamous Newsmax article. I figure that if Pastor Wright said any racial slurs, surely Newsmax would print it. Here's the worst I could find from him:

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in the church-affiliated magazine Trumpet four years after the attacks. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

Is that kind of rhetoric offensive? Certainly. But does it contain any racial slurs against whites equivalent to the word "nigger"? Not that I can see.

As Obama discussed yesterday, while palpable anger shouldn't be looked upon as any sort of solution, recent American history does give reasons why this anger exists -- and that history must be reconciled. It's hard to forget slavery and segregation. But with the question that Davis poses to Obama about white ministers preaching KKK-styled hatred and whether he would support that, I think such a question is out of line because it mischaracterizes Obama's speech. Obama discussed historical precedents for anger in the Afro-American and white communities -- but there's no historical precedent for the hate foisted upon society by the KKK. Those people are just plain prejudiced, period. Now if somebody can find examples of Pastor Wright preaching the equivalent of KKK style hate then we have a different story; but, like I said, I looked at the worst of Wright's statements and couldn't find it. Only then would Davis's question be legit -- but as is, I think the question is out of line.

You've got to be.. [Update at bottom]

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

A) Kidding me;
B) Fucking kidding me; or
C) Shitting me

Either way, queries like this are nothing short of asinine:

Mr. Obama, We Have a Question

Why won’t you release your schedule that notes the dates when you attended church and heard the sermons of Rev. Jeremiah Wright?

We want the facts, sir. Just the facts. You deny being at the July 22 service — as is asserted by NewsMax — but you provide no verification that your claim is accurate. You can deny from now until the end of time, but you need to provide proof, sir. [Emphasis there's.]

You know, I'm sure that Obama keeps a record of every time he goes to certain churches just so he can answer these questions. After all, Obama certainly can't be like any other normal person who doesn't keep such records. Obama's special! We know that evil keeps records and then hides them! We want verification from that evil, America hating Obama! Watch me froth at the mouth! AARRRHHHWAWAWGGHHHAAA! Oh, btw, vote Hillary! -- since the post I'm attacking came from a pro-Hillary "progressive" [huuyyyk! - spit] blog.

And have I mentioned before that the pro-Hillary bloggers are emulating wingnuts? Looks like my past assertions have been right if they're stooping low enough to use an article from Newsmax.com to attack Obama. As if Newsmax is some beacon of accuracy in journalism. Jesus Christ, this website got famous on the Right in 2000 when it disseminated disinformation in support of Bush's bid to steal the vote in Florida -- which all of these morons still blame on Nader. And now they are quoting Newsmax like it's actually journalism. Hey guys, while you're at it, if you can't get enough of sucking off the Right's media outlets why don't you go suck Bush's herpes infested cock too?

Makes me wonder what's next... Hey, maybe I can read No Quarter to find out about Rush Limbaugh's latest scoop. Maybe Lambert at Corrente will tell me the next journalistic breakthrough from World Net Daily! Because as long as they agree with you in the short term, then those sources must be accurate! ...right?

[Update] Newsmax, and their neo-wingnut Clintonista backers like No Quarter, have a lot to answer for with this anti-Obama propaganda. They're wrong and I have proof.

Newsmax claims that they sermon Obama attended was on July 22, 2007. In fact, Newsmax claims that Obama was bowing his head in agreement with Pastor Wright's words -- yet they have not a shred of photographic evidence to show for this. In the day and age of cell phone video cameras where even Saddam Hussein's execution can get taped and put on Youtube, if a website like Newsmax claims that Obama was in attendance somewhere and did something, I want to see visual evidence. Otherwise, I'll consider a story highly suspect -- especially considering the source in this case.

Turns out that holding Newsmax suspect is the correct assumption to make. Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic provides video of an NCLR Conference in Miami that Obama attended on July 22, 2007.

I did some further digging and, through this comment on another site, I found the NCLR Conference agenda for that day. Obama was scheduled to speak around 1:30pm. Now I know that people can be on two different coasts during the same day thanks to the magic of airplanes, but church services take place in the morning. Pastor Wright's church is in Chicago. For Obama to have attended a service that gets out around 11:00am or noon, he would have had to have hopped on a super fast jet to make it to Miami in time for the NCLR Conference which we knew he was at.

In short, it was impossible to Obama to have been in attendance at Wright's church on July 22, 2007 -- contrary to Newsmax's claims.

All it takes is a half hour with Google to find this shit out, people. Now I expect this level of propaganda from Newsmax since that's the only reason why that piece of crap website is around, but for supposedly "progressive" [huyyykk! - spit] bloggers to advertise a Newsmax "scoop" verbatim -- without double-checking any of the "facts" -- is despicable. So callous, in fact, it's enough to accuse them of just plain lying.

Shame. Anyone peddling this bogus story should be ashamed of themselves.

"Bobo's World invades my own", b/w "How Obama can win"

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

In today's New York Times, David Brooks has a column about what he perceives as the failure of Obama's campaign, and hence his message in general:

Barack Obama had a theory. It was that the voters are tired of the partisan paralysis of the past 20 years. The theory was that if Obama could inspire a grass-roots movement with a new kind of leadership, he could ride it to the White House and end gridlock in Washington.

Obama has built his entire campaign on this theory. He’s run against negativity and cheap-shot campaigning. He’s claimed that there’s an “awakening” in this country — people “hungry for a different kind of politics.” [...]

Now, the Obama campaign is facing another test. There are a few ways to interpret the losses in Texas and Ohio. One is demographic. He didn’t carry the groups he often has trouble with — white women, Latinos, the less educated. The other is tactical. Clinton attacked him, and the attacks worked. [...]

Beneath the euphemisms, what the advice really means is that Obama has to start accusing Clinton of things. [...]

These attacks are supposed to show that Obama can’t be pushed around. But, of course, what it really suggests is that Obama’s big theory is bankrupt. You can’t really win with the new style of politics. Sooner or later, you have to play by the conventional rules. [emphasis mine]

Oddly enough, the conservative Brooks is seemingly channeling yours truly, circa Janruary 22, 2008:

In fact, the lack of content (or any palpable energy) on Obama's blog, to me, highlights one missing entity that's sorely needed in his campaign: Guns. Big fucking guns that are manned, trained on the Hillary campaign, and ready to fire at any time. [...]

How can one successfully defend themselves against the attacks coming from Hillary and still try to raise themselves above the political fray? I'm not sure if Hillary's strategy is to lower Obama into an all out brawl, but if so, she certainly succeed[ed]... What she's offering is shit from all sides.

Obama is on the defensive right now. He started in this position around a week before last Tuesday's primaries when he let Hillary control the messages of the campaign, and Obama will continue to be in this position if he allows Hillary to keep attacking him. But Brooks is right -- Obama will lose if he goes negative. And there lies the conundrum: How can Obama get off the defensive without attacking Hillary? So in either position Hillary wins, right? That's the conventional political wisdom.

I think I have a solution.

To win, Obama has to raise himself above the fray of normal politics. After all, this has been the point of his campaign. Do keep on his campaign's message at this point, and to stay off the defensive, he has to bend the rules and attack Hillary in a way that's not negative, but will force Hillary to reply on his level. What Obama needs to do is propose that he and Hillary have two to three debates under this specific format:

* Each debate will be two hours in length
* Only specific issues will be debate (have the "Foreign Policy" debate and the "Domestic Policy" debate, for example)
* No moderator
* No commercials

With no moderator and no commercials, the candidates pose specific questions to each other about the issues.

It's risky (and some of these debates may not make it into television, save for CSPAN), but if Obama proposed such debates, it would successfully place Hillary on the defensive without having to hurl negative attacks at her. And Hillary can't decline an invitation for such debates -- if she does, then Obama could attack her with it, hanging it over her head while stipulating that all Hillary has to run her campaign on is negativity. And since it's the Hillary camp that wants to draw Obama into a fight, they can't be seen as backing down.

At this point, Hillary has checked Obama. It's upto him to make the right move... Otherwise, it's checkmate.

Hillary: The Rural Candidate (Updated)

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

I've been looking over the voting and exit poll results for yesterday's primaries, and a couple maps have kinda shocked me. In Ohio, only 10 percentage points separated the total votes received by Hillary (54%) and Obama (44%), but looking at this map of voting by county that I found on CNN, Ohio looks like a complete blowout:


While Hillary won the state soundly, it wasn't as totally soundly as this map would indicate. But the fact stands that Obama only got the majority of votes in five Ohio counties -- the ones containing the three C's (Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati), Delaware County right next to Columbus, and Montgomery County which included the decently sized city of Dayton.

Now most Ohio cities are working class, but Hillary got the uber-working class smaller cities: Canton, Lima, Toledo, Sandusky, Youngstown, Akron, and some others that I can't remember at this moment. The Ohio cities that Obama got, the three C's, are the largest and the most metropolitan in Ohio, but they also are the cities with the most students. Cincinnati has Xaiver and Uniiversity of Cincinnati; Columbus has Ohio State University; Cleveland doesn't have as many schools as the other two, but it still has Case Western Reserve University; and Dayton is home to the University of Dayton.

So Obama got votes in the cities with the largest population of young people, and that's it. Hillary got the working class, poorer cities, and -- maybe most importantly -- the rural counties. (I've resided in and spent a lot of time driving through Ohio. If a county doesn't have or isn't close to a major city, then it's rural.)

I've never lived in Texas, so I don't know as much about the demographics of the state, but I think they had a similar experience to Ohio yesterday:


This county-by-county results match the statistics I've seen in exit polls from yesterday: Hillary carried the poor vote, and Obama carried the vote for the more affluent.

I have two observations on this. First off: Why is this? Why is Hillary seen as a populist and Obama is the latte liberal?

Secondly: These rural support statistics for Hillary are very, dare I say... Republican? I like examining county-by-county votes in elections, and I've done so for our past recent presidential elections. So I can tell you that in 2000 and 2004, if a country was rural, Bush most likely won it. But in 1992 and 1996, the rural counties were more of a tossup... Bill Clinton didn't win all of them -- he probably didn't even win half of them. But he did win some, and those votes helped fed his meager popular votes totals and helped propel him into two terms.

What's the moral of the story? A presidential candidate can't win without getting at least some rural support.

If Obama can't win over rural counties, then I seriously have to question his electability. In 2000 and 2004, Gore (who actually won by a hair, but that's a whole 'nother story) and Kerry did not receive support from rural counties. Subsequently, both candidates lost. This is not a coincidence.

[Update] Like a good little blogger, I'm searching for information that would prove me wrong in this post. Some questions should arise from it, like if Hillary is really the "rural", non-metropolitan candidate, how come Obama won states like Utah and Nebraska? And how come Hillary got the majority of the vote in Los Angeles and New York City?

My answer -- and I'm sure you'll all love how scientific this is -- is that other states are just whacky. There are individual reasons, obviously... Hillary got NYC because she's their senator; Obama got Vermont despite its ruralness because there's something in the water there that makes Vermont residents lean heavily to the left (so much so that they have an unabashed socialist senator), etc. Every state has its characteristics, and I think for Ohio it's important characteristic to presidential elections is just how neutral the state is, leading it to often be an accurate reflection of America at large. Just like the United States itself, demographically Ohio has a decent mix of people from all political backgrounds mixed into large cities, small cities, suburbs, and rural counties. If one were to shrink America to the size of a European country, you would get Ohio. That's why I place a great amount of value on the way Ohio votes -- it's the quintessential bellwether state. So what happens in Vermont or Utah matters less because those states doesn't matter as much in November; and besides that, we already know how they will vote anyways. We never know which way Ohio will go, though.

For those still doubting the importance of these rural Ohio counties, here's some links for Ohio's general election county-by-county voting results for 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 -- check'em out. The differences between the years Clinton won and those that Bush won are stark. And these patterns are repeated in Carter's victory in 1976, and the Republican victories in 1988, 1984, 1980... Hell, the last time this cycle was broken was in 1960, and that was a long time ago.

For nearly five decades, the story has been the same: Win Ohio and you win the White House. Other states don't have this kind of electoral history, which is why I'm not analyzing rural areas of Vermont, Utah, Nebraska, etc. Ohio is a reflection of the country, and if a candidate has trouble winning rural areas there then they will be hard pressed to win the state, and hence the White House. That's my belief and I'm sticking to it... Until somebody smacks me down, that is.

Mouth, meet foot

Gloria Steinem steps in it: "Stumping for Clinton, Steinem Says McCain's P.O.W. Cred Is Overrated."

That's one of those headlines which really, really requires you to read the article its attached too. Editors write the headlines, and you want to see if the editor is nuts or correct. In this case, it's the latter:

From the stage, the 73-year-old seemed to denigrate the importance of John McCain’s time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. In an interview with the Observer afterward, she suggested that Barack Obama benefits—and Clinton suffers—because Americans view racism more seriously than sexism. [...]

“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.

Wow. Just wow.

McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five-and-a-half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”

With all due respect, Gloria (and by "all due respect," I mean to say that you're being an asshole), I don't think anyone has pitched McCain's time as a POW as the sort of experience one needs to become president. But it's a huge part of his life story, and it shows his commitment to his country, so yes it's going to get advertised.

This kind of criticism is really just beyond the pale. Anytime somebody gets me to defend McCain, then they have gone too far. The article goes on to note "Steinem’s broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises," and this is a valid argument. However, you don't make this argument by making fun of someone who was subjected to 5-6 years of torture. That is just disrespectful.

I'm also sick of opposition to Hillary being equated with sexism, and people like Steinem trying to making me feel shame if I don't vote for Hillary because "she suggested that ... Americans view racism more seriously than sexism." Oh fucking please. While this also might be a valid point, it has nothing to do with Hillary's current woes.

The Clinton campaign and her supporters can make whatever excuses they want about her upcoming defeat in the presidential primaries, but this all comes down to her personality. The tone of her campaign is colored with enough meanness and pettiness to choke a donkey - and that's why Obama is winning. And I pointed this out before he was in the race, and long before 2008 -- or even 2006, for the matter: Hillary doesn't have any charisma. Her husband has charm but he wouldn't have won in 1992 if Perot hadn't played spoiler, since he only got 42% of the popular vote; and in 1996, he barely managed to get 50% running against an uber-weak candidate in Dole. So, as I reasoned way back when, if the Clinton with a personality could barely win, what makes the Clinton without a personality think she can win?

Excuses don't even count in hand grenades. Hillary's campaign would do well to cut the bitterness and stop making fun of torture victims. Of course it's too late for her now, but would it be too much to ask for her to lose gracefully?

TaylorMarsh.com: Continuing to lose all credibility whatsoever

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

Hillary supporters should know that it would help their candidate's cause if they didn't spread outright lies about the election. And while the parade of attacks against Obama, stemming from their uncritical support for Hillary, are often hilarious because they are so one-sided, the lying needs to be corrected with facts.

One of the latest lies comes from Taylor Marsh's guest blogger, Paul Lukasiak, who claims that Hillary has more votes than Obama:

Based on exit polls, among the approximately 16.3 million people who identified themselves as Democrats, over 678,000 more voted for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. If we’re going to “let the people decide" who the Democratic nominee would be, shouldn’t we be basing that on the will of Democrats themselves?

Actually Paul, exit polls aren't actual votes, though I see you touch upon those, as well:

But, since this is actually the Democratic primary, perhaps we should look at how Democrats have actually voted. Based on the available exit polling data, we find that Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead over Barack Obama in the number of votes – As of February 16, 2008, 391,992 more Democrats voted for Clinton than Obama. [...]

But that number also doesn’t include Florida. Add in Florida’s Democrats, and Clinton’s lead advantage increases to 565,684. Nor does it include Michigan; and even if we assign all the Democrats who voted “uncommitted” to Obama, Clinton’s lead among Democratic voters grows to 678,276.

Actually, by my count, it does include Florida and Michigan -- and Obama's still in the lead. My count comes from Dave Leip's Political Atlas, which shows these vote totals:

Hillary: 9,665,101
Obama: 9,545,184

Many people will say, "Aha! Hillary's lead might not be as much as Paul said, but it's still there!" But this is the primary vote count, the caucuses are not included -- something Paul also forgot to include. Let's look at those numbers, shall we?

Obama: 344,402
Hillary: 162,982

Adding both primary and caucus totals together, here are the results:

Obama: 9,889.586
Hillary: 9.828,083

It's slim, but that's advantage Obama. One must also note, though, that the vote totals from Michigan are being counted and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. The vote totals from Florida are included as well, but Michigan and Florida are two states that the Democrats didn't campaign in this year. Given that Hillary has more of a national presence than Obama, her familiarity with voters would garner her more votes. So if Michigan and Florida were contested states, it can be reasoned that Obama would have an even larger lead over Hillary right now.

Those are the facts. The exclusion of such by Taylor Marsh and her guest bloggers, in their unflinching support for Hillary, places their credibility into question. Supporting your candidate is one thing, but spreading lies about the other ones is reprehensible. People are sick of witnessing dirty politics -- which might explain why most of them have voted for Obama.

[Update] A comment I posted in the thread for Paul's post, linking to this post and not using any naughty words, never made it out of Marsh's comment moderation queue. Censorship is awesome! She left my trackback, though -- or maybe she hasn't noticed it yet? The fact that Marsh has complained about censorship of Hillary supports on other blogs just makes my censorship all the more ironic.

Wouldn't want any of those pesky facts to get in the way of your lies, eh Taylor?

Identity politics? Welcome to the Dark Side.

[Crossposted from Sugar Land is Dreaming]

Here's a snippet of data from last night's exit polls in South Carolina:


And would you look at that -- John Edwards is the candidate for whitey crackers! In fact, if that other white person weren't in the race, Edwards might have taken more than 70% of the white vote!

Of course, this isn't the narrative I heard last night after Obama's crushing victory in South Carolina. I heard it was a black thing. I was at work last night, then I went to a friends house for some beers and viewing of late night nutty shit on History channel afterwards. The first news reports I observed about Obama's victory was rudimentary, mainstream stuff -- the stuff that any normal American is subjected to. And with today's busy lifestyles, many Americans don't get to see beyond the mainstream narrative.

So as I drove home around 1am, I had the radio on and the news anchor was quick to point out that, while Obama achieved a resounding victory, half of the SC primary voters were black and Obama netted most of them. And when I woke up (late) this morning, the Sunday paper of my local rag had this AP story on its front page, which described Obama's SC victory as such:

"The choice in this election is not about regions or religions or genders," Obama said at a boisterous victory rally. "It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old and it's not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."

The audience chanted "Race doesn't matter" as it awaited Obama to make his appearance after rolling up 55 percent of the vote in a three-way race.

But it did, in a primary that shattered turnout records.

About half the voters were black, according to polling place interviews, and four out of five of them supported Obama. Black women turned out in particularly large numbers. Obama, the first-term Illinois senator, got about a quarter of the white vote while Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina split the rest.

And so it goes. For the national media, the narrative is in: Obama rode a black wave to victory. But when I look at the same raw exit poll numbers that the reporters have, I see that white voters in SC gave the white candidates 76% of their vote. If Obama getting 78% of the black vote is a big story, then why isn't this pale 76% for Clinton and Edwards just as big? Why is the national narrative a black thing? I mean, as we all know, nobody is trying to inject race into this election by claiming that only black people can win in SC.


Really!