Indiana and North Carolina Results

Use this thread for an open discussion on Indiana and North Carolina results.

Post comments below ... in the news ... whatever ...

Comments

  • (Show?)

    NC has been called --- Obama is killing Clinton, looks like a win by greater than 10 points.

    I'm going to stick my neck out and say that Clinton will win Indiana by 5 points. Indianapolis is 20% in and Obama he's up by 18 points. Clinton is rocking in the suburbs and rural counties. The NW corner of the state (Gary area) has not yet reported. Obama should win that big.

    It will be close. A split result is good for the Clinton forces.

    Maybe we'll see a candidate debate in Oregon after all...

  • (Show?)

    I for one am too elite for a debate Paul.

  • (Show?)

    Hey Paul - I converted this into an "open discussion" item.

  • (Show?)

    Hot damn. Check out the Indy Star's home page and election tracker. Why can't the Oregonian have election results like that?

  • Wesley Mahan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Check out the roll-over election maps on NY Times front page. Pretty amazing stuff!

  • Lou (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Although I appreciate the possibility of the candidates spending some time focusing on Oregon, I am not holding out for a debate. In part because I no longer feel certain that the media and the candidates are capable of even conducting a true debate. Somewhere along the line, Lincoln Douglas turned into CNN's Crossfire with a taste of Jerry Springer and it all became a waste of time.

    I must say, though, that part of me loves the idea of watching Hillary in a Pendleton shirt trying to start a chainsaw and woo voters in Sweet Home while Barack struggles to peddle a bicycle and talk with his hands while he "greens" it up in Portland.

  • (Show?)

    Kari, no problem.

    Looks like it continues to tighten in Indiana. Gary still not in ...

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    How's this for a debate? SJ (I think) suggested a Chemeketa Comm. College debate with students asking questions.

    That would get rid of the "media as debate questioners" problem.

  • Scott K (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Marc Ambinder from TheAtlantic.com is saying that the Obama campaign expects to "clinch" the nomination by having a majority of the pledged delegates...on MAY 20.

    Cool that Oregon could be the state that puts him over!

  • (Show?)

    Kari, why can't the Big O have anything decent online? when it comes to web editions, they are at the bottom. it's embarrassing. compare them to the KC Star, my brother's newspaper. equivalent markets, not even close to equivalent websites. (plus: they have my brother! and it's his birthday!!)

  • A. Rab. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Paul, how is a split good for Clinton? A split basically keeps the status quo, and that favors Obama since he is up in delegates and the popular vote. Additionally, NC has significantly more delegates compared to Indiana, and Obama won NC by a much large margin than Clinton won Indiana (I am assuming that she still wins Indiana).

  • Lani (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary is ahead by 3.2% in Indiana. It is now officially too close to call. I believe that she will win it, but it will be very close.

    With pledged delegates of 115 in North Carolina and 72 in Indiana, it appears that Obama will add to his lead.

  • Lani (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary is ahead by 3.2% in Indiana. It is now officially too close to call. I believe that she will win it, but it will be very close.

    With pledged delegates of 115 in North Carolina and 72 in Indiana, it appears that Obama will add to his lead.

  • Lani (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Clinton leads by 3.2% and Indiana is officially too close to call.

    There's a huge difference in pledged delegates between the two states - 115 in North Carolina and 72 in Indiana. Obama will continue to increase his lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote.

    I don't see how this can be seen as a good result for Clinton, although I think she'll win in Indiana.

  • Lani (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Curses, Blue Oregon

    I didn't mean to double-post.

  • (Show?)

    Nights like tonight are so exciting ! Even if Clinton pulls out Indiana, which she probably will, her momentum is fading fast and the wind is no longer beneath her wings. It is a tall order for her to come out and rally the troops in Indiana or elsewhere. Money is already a struggle for her campaign and people don't like to give to a losing candidate. I would be thrilled to see this end with Obama's acceptance speech on May 20th but I would be even more thrilled for this to end sooner for the good of the party and the good of the general.Superdelegates should have their questions sufficiently answered. Time to get off the sidelines. Please Clinton campaign. We have enough scorched earth. Call it a day and end on a more dignified note.

  • (Show?)

    the polls had her up by around 8 points this morning, and she's winning by 4 or less. that shows a strong recovery for Obama. meanwhile, in NC, he's doubled where he was in the polls there. so it seems that on the day, voters are doing what they've not done for a while: turning to Obama at the last minute. of course that's guessing before the polls are closed in IN and before the quality exit poll info is done. but it looks a lot better now than it has for a long time.

    if this holds up, the campaign is effectively over. the SDs will begin the move to end it soon. even if they wait until after all the primaries are done, i think by then they'll simply be underscoring the reality: Obama has won.

  • red (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The polls you're talking about, T.A., probably have a 3 to 4 point margin of error. Which means (if she wins by 4 points) then her victory was statistically probably.

  • (Show?)

    kos:

    "If Clinton were to drop out this week, we'd face an uncomfortable situation in West Virginia, with Clinton likely crushing Obama. That would look terrible for the presumptive nominee.

    Better than that would be to garner enough superdelegate commitments this week, so that Oregon can push Obama past 2,024. That way, it isn't the supers who clinch it for Obama, but actual voters."

  • Bill McDonald (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I heard Obama's quotes live about North Carolina being a game-changer and John McCain serving out President Bush's 3rd term. Great lines. Then later I heard the game-changer quote again and it already resonates with the full weight of history. This guy is a political superstar. Maybe in honor of our soon to be ex-President Bush I should say the line really resignated with me. George said many screwy things as president, but I always had a fondness for that one as he dropped it right here in Portland.

  • (Show?)

    i just noticed this about that very cool county-by-county tracker at the Indy Star: "This feature works only in Safari and Firefox browsers."

    w00t. IE is toast, babies, but we knew that long ago.

    and just to get really silly, there've been posts in various places about Obama being a Mac & Hillary a PC; i think Obama as Firefox & Hillary as IE is more like it. (more accurately, and this is probably too geeky, Obama is Safari and Howard Dean was & is Firefox.)

  • (Show?)

    The Obama campaign says that Oregon will put him over the top on pledged delegates, greater than 50% of the total. This will end the contest. It is now all up to Oregon.

  • (Show?)

    WOW. Hillary just wrote off Oregon.

    "These next primaries are another test. I intend to work my heart out in West Virginia and Kentucky this month. And I intend to win them in November."

    WTF?

  • (Show?)

    Matthews just mentioned OR being the endgame day again.

    I should say, pretty classy speech by Clinton. It was a give-up speech in tone, with strong healing notes, which tonight I think was appropriate.

  • wes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    For graphics people:

    Obama is InDesign Clinton is Quark Xpress McCain is MS Publisher

  • (Show?)

    I just rewound that clip and watched it a few times. I'm pretty sure that Bill Clinton leaned over to Chelsea and said, "She didn't say anything about Oregon. ... She left out Oregon."

    Chelsea kind of raised her eyebrows.

  • (Show?)

    Yea, all the Advance Internet newspaper sites are awful. They're hard to navigate, especially since their drop down menus don't work on most browsers. You get lost between the Oregonian page and the Oregon Live page on the same topic. Most of the time I'm trying to find the stuff that was in the print edition so I can link to it, and it gets impossible to find things. They run you around and around in circles trying to find things.

    Back when I worked for the company a few years back, we made a lot of suggestions about how things could be improved. We used the site a lot every day, and we learned what the problems were, where things could be changed, etc. They weren't interested in change - the sites all run off a set template and they didn't want to change. It didn't matter how terrible the site was, they weren't willing to change. Now I cringe every time I need to use their site.

  • wes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    People have been saying how divisive this campaign is, how it's destroying their chances in November.

    I don't believe a bit of it. I believe that once one candidate (graciously) concedes, the wounds will heal quickly and people will once again remember how early on we all were saying how similarly progressive both these candidates were, and they still are, and we all will be united in the cause of preventing a third McBush term.

  • (Show?)

    Wes, As my friends would say, Obama is Dot Org and Clinton is Dot Com.

  • (Show?)

    Obama won 39% of white women in Indiana...awesome. Who only attracts black now? WOOT!

  • (Show?)

    of course the polls had "margins of error". i guess i should have said, the composites, which is what i was referring to (and off the top of my head, which may have beautiful silver hair but the memory power at times is iffy). with the composites, you kind of wash out the MoE, compared to a single poll. the main point is that Obama has outperformed expectations strongly today. that is the bottom line of the day. and after all the distractions -- and btw, kudos to Steve Duin for his words this morning -- it shows the voters were able to set the junk aside and vote based both on issues and the need for real change.

    Hillary may win IN, but she's lost the nomination today.

  • (Show?)

    OK Gang, I don't want to toot my own horn, but if you hop over to WashcoDems.org and click on the red Politi-Poll button, you can weigh in on our latest highly scientific poll about the Dem primary battles, and how best to put it to bed. Cheers, Glen

  • (Show?)

    What makes Obama's decisive victory in North Carolina so devastating -- besides the loss of more delegates and any hopes of catching Obama's popular vote total -- is that Clinton invested considerable campaign resources there. Those are field organizers and media dollars that could have been spent in Oregon but weren't.

    Closer to home, tonight's results have to be considered good news for Novick and other Oregon down-ticket races counting on the 30,000 new dems registered by the Obama campaign. If the race ended tonight, turnout here in Oregon would look much different May 20.

  • Mavrik (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Better than that would be to garner enough superdelegate commitments this week, so that Oregon can push Obama past 2,024. That way, it isn't the supers who clinch it for Obama, but actual voters."

    What? That doesn't even make sense.

    The SD's will be deciding the nominee no matter how you "spin" it. So much for "democracy". What an archaic, self-serving way to chose a nominee.

  • (Show?)

    Man! I'm so conflicted! 1) I want Hillary to wake up to reality and go back to New York but 2) It's gonna come down to Oregon. How flippin' cool is that!! Can't stand it!

  • (Show?)

    Oh, and Karol, if it wasn't so late in the campaign, I'd suggest you make T-shirts off of the dot.com vs. dot.org thang...you'd be rich.

  • KimberlyG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Karol,

    Obama won 39% of white women in Indiana...awesome. Who only attracts black now? WOOT!

    Good Lord! Are you for real? Obama wins 92% of the black vote in North Carolina and it is not news that the "black vote" (CNN's term, not mine) just seems sewn up for him? What does that statistic say about Obama?

    This race HAS been about race in America and yes, Barack Obama knows it. I can not understand for the life of me how in the world this is not a discussion! What is going on?

    America is sick. She has TV channels dedicated to dissecting our voters and the Democrats have been complicit in it. I watch the returns tonight, I saw the exit polls and to be honest I wept that it has come to such a sorry state of affairs. To have an entire group move to support a candidate based upon the color of skin and the country does not become deeply concerned is concerning.

    I also felt the tone change for Hillary in her speech tonight. I'm sure she's feeling the same way John Edwards must have felt. Having the nomination stolen by three demographics: youth, African Americans and college educated (making over $100,000). Welcome to the new Democratic Party; it should be awful.

  • (Show?)

    KimberlyG, I would tried to hang in for your argument if you didn't say this: "Having the nomination stolen by three demographics: youth, African Americans and college educated (making over $100,000). Welcome to the new Democratic Party; it should be awful." Since I fit all three - minus the 100k - I don't think I "stole" it, I vote. I'm an American and its too bad you don't see that. I'm absolutely for real and I know for a fact you would dish out your shit about blacks stealing elections if you had to look me in the eye. Go somewhere else. Only adult, non-racist discourse allowed.

  • (Show?)

    Ok, not done with you, KimberlyG - if that's your real name.

    You are patently insulting. While I become exhausted defending my people all the time from asses like you, I will give this time because you are not the only one. Black people don't only vote other Black people based on skin color. Just like women don't like to vote for women just because they have the corresponding body parts. Obama is smart, well-spoken, experienced, passionate and has awakened sleeping Americans to the promise of tomorrow. And yes, friend, he happens to be half-white with black skin. His skin isn't his sin, sister.

    And guess what? White people rule this country. We aren't stealing your jobs, taking over, or any such nonsense that worries people like you. Oh wait, we are having sex with your daughters and sons, tainting the blood line (hence, Mr. Obama). We are still poor in higher numbers, still dropping out of school in higher numbers and still in jail in higher numbers disporpotionately to the country. Why is that? Many, many reasons, but I tell you what: We aren't stupid. We are recovering from African diaspora, slavery, and segregation. And, now, finally, someone of color that all Americans can follow and the best you can come up with is that Blacks "steal" the party?

    KimberlyG, your assanine comments are the precise reason Obama continues to be the underdog. Unfortuntatly for me, you aren't the only one with thought patterns similar to the 18th century.

  • (Show?)

    Kimberyly, go get some facts. Obama is winning white voters of all kinds across the country. he's obviously doing that in Indiana (where it's now down to under 2% with Lake County, next door to Chicago, starting to report at last). he did it in Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Nebraska... Charlie, can you add the other states he's won more than a few white guys like you & me? he won big in Wisconsin, yes more liberal than PA or OH but pretty damn white & working class.

    you don't win a nomination that Obama is doing by getting only a few demographics. no group is big enough. Obama is winning across the board -- big in some groups, and strong enough in others. it's called a coalition, and Obama has it like no candidate has done in a very long time. he's getting a near unanimous black vote not because he's black but because the racist undertones of the Clinton campaign have simply gotten more and more blatant. if women rallied to Hillary in NH, you're seeing that replayed over and over again as African Americans say "enough" and make their stand in the most meaningful way you can in a democracy: with their vote.

    and when this coalition crushes McNasty in November, you'll realize just how exciting the new Democratic Party is.

  • (Show?)

    I don't get it: How does people voting amount to stealing? I don't fit any of those demographics, but I can't read what KimberlyG wrote without cringing.

  • DB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Even if Hillary wins Indiana now, we know why. Hillary must be so proud to finally have the support of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

  • (Show?)

    Holy Florida, Batman.

    It's just after 9:00 pm.

    Clinton is currently ahead in Indiana by 20,000 votes.

    Among Hamilton, Hancock, LaPorte and Marion counties there's about 5,000 votes remaining to be counted. Averaged together, these counties are splitting.

    Lake County, featuring the great city of Gary, IN is the last large county with significant votes to be counted.

    Currently the Indianapolis Star and New York Times are reporting that with 28% of precincts reporting in Lake County that Obama is taking that it by a score of 74.7% to 25.3%.

    It appears that Lake County has about 105,000 voters.

    If Obama's 75/25 lead holds up he takes Indiana?

    Or we recount it?

  • Katy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, I was listening to NPR and heard her say Oregon very clearly. Did the radio play something the TV did not? Signed, Confused in East Portland (the Bedrock of Portland, it's a new thing, you'll soon be hearing about it all the time haha)

  • (Show?)

    WTF!? I mean, W. T. F? . Thanks, Karol for taking on KimberlyG, cause you're more polite than I am!

    For ONCE African American and urban people make a true difference in a race and shocking...some people just can't deal.

    Here's a little exercise, tired white folks. Gather up your power. As I say to my small children, it's time to share. Get used to it.

  • KimberlyG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Okay, people before you attempt to have me burned at the stake let me clarify, perhaps stolen wasn't the right word or was chosen hastily. Let's not flip out! Don't you think that Hillary / Edwards / Et cetera must be thinking the election has been stolen from them after they have waited their turn to run?

    My point was that we are all claiming to want to heal the racial divide but we are not talking about race! My point here is that if 92% of women voted for Hillary or 92% of Hispanics voted for Richardson someone might say "Hmmm? I wonder what's going on." But we have a definite elephant in the room and no one is introducing it – matter of fact, if you do people immediately look to say you’re a racist – hard thing for me to imagine – but proves my point exactly; no one wants to have a real discussion of what it means to have a near entire demographic move towards a candidate.

    Karol, et al - I personally have no problem with Obama or any other candidate regardless of the skin color they have. I'm glad to see MANY people supporting OUR candidates. You assume that I have no experience being discriminated against or my family does not know poverty – wrong on both accounts!

    As far as me being a crazy person who doesn’t like tainting the blood line you couldn’t be farther from the mark – I’m the result of immigrants who were indentured servants and married different races; all of which I’m proud to call my ancestors. The fact that you jumped to the conclusion that I was part of the vast, imperialistic white world speaks volumes about how you believe.

    It’s a shame really – I’m not evil or racist or “white” – any other time and we would probably have been friends.

  • (Show?)

    Kimberly....this race has reminded me how much work our party still needs to do in terms of race. Being a "better educated" person does not make anyone a better, more worthy human. But it does make you...better educated. Perhaps you could drive down to "the beach" and see if you can find Sandra L. She was waiting for the tide to turn.....

  • (Show?)

    Go Lake County! My father's been camped out in Indiana for the past week canvassing and organizing for Obama. Can't wait to get details.

  • KimberlyG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    DH,

    I think we call it "the coast" here in Oregon

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, we do call it "the coast" (born and raised sweetheart). We were ribbing SL last night for calling it "the beach". Its all good.

  • CJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Having the nomination stolen by three demographics: youth, African Americans and college educated (making over $100,000). Welcome to the new Democratic Party; it should be awful."<<<

    How dare you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Bill McDonald (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Tonight was the end of a bad feeling that started back on the night of Election 2000, and stretched into the weeks afterwards, finally turning into years of ugliness. Time flies at my age so I suppose I should thank George Bush for making this the longest 7 years of my life - if you don't count high school. There's going to be some venting. My brother-in-law was for Hillary as was someone I really like at work. But it looks like Obama won this nomination. Let's not tear each other down with hurtful racist shots. Think of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Iraq. 1000 vets a month trying to commit suicide. We've got to see past our own favorites here and unite to replace one of the worst things ever to happen to America: The administration of George W. Bush.

  • DB (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kimberly, I agree people may be reading more into your comments than you intended. I think your argument doesn't work though. Look at polls back in November and you'll see the African American community wasn't nearly as single-minded back then. Obama's share of the AA vote has increased significantly since SC (where it was 78%), where Clinton started the "racist strategy", i.e. trying to paint Obama as the "black candidate". The AA community was rightfully offended at the Clinton's strategy and moved en masse to the remaining candidate- they didn't start out that way because of skin color.

  • (Show?)

    Except when you include the 30-35 demographic, I'm not "young" (which in this election typically means those under the age of 30 who are just voting for maybe the first or second time... I've missed only 2 minor elections in 12 years). I don't have a college degree. I'm about as white as they come. And I don't make $100K (we don't make half that). Yet I'm an Obama supporter. And I know plenty of people just like me that are Obama supporters as well.

    Did you ever think that those demographics are voting for Obama for a reason other than race? Could it have something to do with his policies and how it could help the people within those demographics? That maybe African Americans see him as having the right policies to help their community? Or that young people see him as the right person to turn things around so they can have a better future instead of the bleak future they face now? Or that those with college degrees see someone who will better things so that there will be good paying jobs for those with degrees and that they won't end up working some crummy job in retail or whatever that makes under $30K a year?

  • (Show?)

    i was born in Springfield and have lived in: Corvallis, Riddle, Bend, Portland and Eugene -- and i go to the beach. it's over there at the coast. where they blowed up the whale, still Oregon's singular moment of video glory.

  • (Show?)

    KimG - white people vote for white people all the time. Me voting for Obama doesn't make me racist against whites, it makes me smarter than most. And is no one's "turn" to be president. Its Americans turn not to be rode hard and put away wet every.four.years, until someone cares about what we want, not dumb talking points like repealing a gas tax. Lame, Hillary. I don't want to save $30 over three months that won't even fill my tank once in one trip to the station.

    How come when I sit with other Black people I'm being racist but when a group of white people do the same they are just being comfortable?

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This race HAS been about race in America and yes, Barack Obama knows it.

    That may be true about a percentage of the American people, but it is clearly not true about a sizable portion of non-blacks who see Obama as the better person on the Democratic ticket and as by far the best of the three leading presidential candidates. Note Iowa and other predominantly white states that have gone for Obama.

    The trouble with many commentators on these blogs is they have a staked out position and tailor their comments to fit, no matter what the reality might be.

  • M (unverified)
    (Show?)

    <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/exQ5nDdKX1g&amp;hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/exQ5nDdKX1g&amp;hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

  • (Show?)

    Damn those evening meetings--I miss out on all the nice celebration.

    To Kimberley, a couple thoughts: obviously it's about race. It's also about gender. Blacks account for something like 12% of the electorate and women 55%. So if you're going to argue demographics, careful who you label a thief.

    And of course, race cuts both ways. If there are blacks voting for Obama because he's black, then there are whites voting against him because he's black. But Obama isn't running as a black candidate, and he's no more responsible for the racial dynamic than Hillary is for her racist voters. (Tough term, but we have unfortunately seen them rear their heads in the past week.) Hillary isn't running as a white candidate, and with the exception of a few cutthroat comments from her boneheaded husband, she's not fanning those flames, either.

    So you cite a dynamic that has no agent. Race is an issue in this election because it's an issue in America.

    But it's not only about race. If it were, Obama would get crushed. He's currently running at 49% in Indiana, a red state with a white population of 88.3%. If whites aren't voting for him, how is he running even? By last count, some 15 million people have cast a ballot for Obama, and the overwhelming majority were white.

    Could it be that you're not prepared to hear that he's run a better campaign, has better solutions, and is a better candidate than Hillary? Or are his voters just stooges?

  • KimberlyG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    DB,

    I recall the time you are talking about. The African American community was not so quick to move to Barack Obama and the tide did turn with South Carolina but again I think a large part of this change has been linked to our (Americans) inability to have a sincere exchange of ideas and thoughts.

    How can we move to have a conversation about resolving racial inequity if we are in fear that we may misspeak?

    To be honest, this discussion is bigger than this campaign and should have been had years ago. Tonight I saw that a careless use of a word (stolen) without proper clarification set off a fire storm. Are we adults who want resolution or do we intend to carry this forward and hand it off to our children?

  • Blake C Hickman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Man, what a nailbiter. Down to 16 k. I live for this shit.

  • (Show?)

    Margin's down to 16,609 votes. With almost 1.2 million votes counted already, that's awfully close.

  • (Show?)

    9:50 pm and IN has just updated.

    With 57% of precincts reporting in Lake County, Obama's lead has waned a bit but still stands at 65%-35%.

    Current total for the state of IN has Clinton edging Obama by a margin of 50.7% to 49.3%

    Must..remember..to breath....

  • (Show?)

    The mayor in Gary, Indiana said they've never had this kind of turnout before, which is causing the vote count to run late. They had three times as many people vote as they've ever had before (11,000).

    They're around 56% of the vote counted now, and expect to have more numbers in about 20 minutes.

    For some reason unlike other counties they're not reporting every few percent - they're turning them in at very large chunks instead (28% twice).

  • (Show?)

    That should say they had three times as many people vote EARLY as they've ever had...

  • KimberlyG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jeff,

    This is my point - race is an issue in America. When are we going to talk about it? I get where you are coming from: some people are going to vote for Barack because he is black, some will vote against him for the same reason. The same holds true for Hillary and gender.

    But now, not later, is the time to address why 92% of black voters are now consistently voting for Obama. I'm not stating that I have a problem with it; I'm bringing it up now because it will come up in the general election. I don't want to see our party fall apart over race OR gender.

    Don't you think that it would be a news story if 92% of women were voting on gender lines?

    I'm not naive or stupid or racist or evil. I happen to know people working for Obama around our country and I don't take anything away from their hard work for their candidate. But let us have the conversation. Let's not shove it under the rug yet again. Let's not wait for Rove to drag it out and make it an issue in all those states and with all those voters who do care.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary has canceled all public events tomorrow.Is she ready to concede?

  • (Show?)

    KimberlyG, some advice from someone I suspect a bit older and burned a few more times over intemperate internet comments.

    Just apologize for your comments and be over with it.

    But saying you're sorry but then following up with this

    Okay, people before you attempt to have me burned at the stake let me clarify, perhaps stolen wasn't the right word or was chosen hastily. Let's not flip out! Don't you think that Hillary / Edwards / Et cetera must be thinking the election has been stolen from them after they have waited their turn to run?

    just digs a deeper hole.

    "Wasn't the right word"? Then you use it again? No, it is completely the wrong, inappropriate, racially insensitive word.

    After they have "waited their turn"? What does that mean? Do you think the presidency is some sort of line that people get into?

  • (Show?)

    Clinton 606,497 Obama 589,888

    [Refresh]

    Clinton 606,497 Obama 589,888

    "dammit" [Refresh]

    Clinton 606,497 Obama 589,888

    "dammit" [Refresh]

    Clinton 606,497 Obama 589,888

    etc.

  • (Show?)

    I am amazed at Indiana.

    And my wife pointed out how smart Obama played this tonight.

    When he "conceded" Indiana around 8 pm our time, the NY Times blog wrote "Perhaps Obama knows something we don't."

    But my wife pointed out that it was a brilliant strategic move. If he lost, he is conceding. But if he won, or made it very close, he's successfully lowered expectations that very night.

    Amazing. If he is within 2 or 3 points, I think the race is over. Superdelegates will begin to peel off rapidly.

  • (Show?)

    With 99% reporting, Clinton has jumped out to a 22,000 vote lead--insurmountable now. Put a fork in Indy, she squeaked it out.

  • (Show?)

    We're now at 99% with the numbers going up very little, which means a bunch of rural counts just came in, with almost all precincts outstanding being urban.

    Clinton: 637,389 Obama: 615,370

    Clinton's lead: 22,019

    Places still out, with the exception of one very small rural county, are all heavy Obama supporting areas. So they say that she may squeak through with a very small lead.

  • (Show?)

    Indiana was just announced for Hillary...at least now I can go to bed...

  • RKS (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Historians sometimes say that when Lincoln abolished slavery it wasn't really about slavery at all. It was about money. But a college professor of mine once pointed out that that probably wasn't true for the people who were slaves at the time. I see this race in a similar light. For people whom race doesn't matter, it's not about race; it's about choosing the best candidate. But to those who have felt the effects of living in a racially oppressive society, race does matter. So it is understandable that when faced with two candidates who are very similar on most issues that black people will line up behind the black candidate. It's the inevitability of living in a society that still struggles with racism. The fact that Obama's support goes much deeper than that shows that he is not winning merely on principle, but because he is also the better candidate.

  • KimberlyG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    paul g,

    Thanks for the advice but again let me clarify: Both Edwards and Clinton waited for older leaders within the party to make their run(s). I'm not saying that we should use this system, that it is good or anything else. I'm saying that they must feel this way. How frustrating for them and others who feel that they've dedicated their lives to the furthering of this Party to not get the nod from the "faithful".

  • (Show?)

    They're showing on CNN that the reason why Clinton won Indiana was seniors - Obama won the vote under age 65, but Clinton won 2-1 on those over the age of 65 (69% for Clinton, where other groups were only voting about 47% for her).

  • (Show?)

    So props to Hillary for eking it out. But in the battle of perceptions--in which the win in Texas kept Obama from "closing the deal"--the 1.8% victory in Indiana can hardly be seen as encouraging.

    I think the over-under for expectations was 10% for Obama in NC and 5% in Indiana for Clinton. Anything between 5% and 10% would have been considered a wash. And anything under 5% is a loss. I hate the perceptions game, but that's the narrative coming out, and with little chance to win the popular vote, no chance of winning the most states, and no real mathematical chance for winning the most pledged delegates, that perception may be harder to shake. There's just not enough game left for her to catch up.

    Never say never, but this is a pretty big night, Obamaniacs. (Thank god I've already voted!)

  • (Show?)

    Just because you've "waited your turn" doesn't make you the better candidate. And for them to think they deserved the nomination just because they waited their turn is just wrong - it's not democratic that's for sure.

    I'm sorry, but attacking Democratic activists (saying she is losing because Democratic activists are voting) isn't furthering the Party. I'm a long-time Democratic activist and would definitely be called a party "faithful." And I'm an Obama supporter.

  • (Show?)

    One more and that's enough out of me. Kimberley, in response to your comment up-thread, I do think the conversation's starting. And it will continue and deepen. And when Obama wins the presidency, it will deepen further. With any luck, in 25 years, America will look so different that we'll marvel at this period in history, much like we marvel at the mid-50s in the US from 2008.

    As to this comment, I just can't let it go: "Both Edwards and Clinton waited for older leaders within the party to make their run(s)." What are you talking about? Hillary didn't run in '04 for strategic reasons, and Edwards did, after a paltry six years in the Senate. Edwards was one of the least-experienced candidates in memory, having exactly six years of elective service under his belt. He was all of 51 years old.

  • KimberlyG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    RKS,

    Your post is a breath of fresh air. As to your point, I think it is stated brilliantly. I agree that many people attempt to find the candidate with which they can best identify. So my question is this: How do we move forward instead of yet again falling into the stagnation of silence? Race has never been properly addressed in this country and I do think that it could easily become a campaign issue.

    For that matter, I've spoken with many women who are equally feeling that they have been ignored in modern times and more specifically within the Democratic Party; still disproportionately living in poverty, still being beaten and abused on a regular basis, still a glass ceiling.

    What happened to the movement of civil rights? I think that the Republicans and the conservative groups are happy to see us divided among our brackets. (Hispanics, religious, African American, 2nd and 3rd wave feminists, etc) The right has figured out how to work together. Whatever their faults they can beat us hands down on that. How do we start again to work together? Divided and silent we fail but I know quite a few who are willing to do just that.

  • (Show?)

    Karol, will you be voting for Obama's black half or his white half? i haven't made up my mind which one i'm voting for. there's compelling reasons to vote for each. i just don't know which one to vote for, though. and sometimes it gets confusing and i don't know which Obama i'm even rooting for.

    i do know i'm voting for Novick's hook. my left hand has been badly injured twice and it's all gnarled and bent and weird. i think his experience as a person of different left-handedness makes him more qualified to represent me. for too long, people with 2 good hands have ruled politics and i'm sick of it. it's our turn this year!

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It is interesting to note that before SC Obama and Clinton had been running about 50%-50% in the AA community. The intemperate and inept remarks of Bill Clinton in particular, and some Clinton campaign staff, which were noted by Rep. James Clyburn, neutral in the nomination as being racially polarizing,together with his growing viability, pushed the AA vote toward Obama. Since then the use of a George Wallace strategy to marginalize Obama along racial lines caused further alienation. If similar remarks had been made attempting to marginalize or diminish along gender lines, a similar reaction would have taken place.

    The point is Obama is not successful because he is AA.(Let us not forget he is mixed race and not exclusively AA or other.) He is a gifted man who has leadership qualities and skills. Clinton has not been successful because she is a woman. She got a good boost by being Bill Clinton's wife, but the run in the NY Senate is what brought credibility. Personally I think she hurt her cause by putting Bill front and center, and would have done better by building her own identity as a candidate apart from his presidency. At this point she can best preserve her status and leadership role in the party by bringing about some healing. She has much more leverage as well by conceding at this point, as she has no shot, and all this talk about the nuclear option really didn't impress anyone. If she doesn't concede tomorrow or this week, she loses that leverage.

  • Bill R. (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Addendum: No one has a "turn." The presidency is won by persuasion, not by lineage.

  • Chuck Butcher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't pretend to know what a race does because it is a race, I'd assume I was wrong if I tried it. Good grief, I'm a mid50s white guy blue collar in one of the whitest counties in one of the whitest states and I happen to like Obama better than Clinton. Somebody want to try to make something out of that? He is better for my point of view. If exit polls say 90% of blacks voted Obama, he must be better from the point of view of 90% of blacks. 70+% of white women over 60 go Clinton - so that is what? Racism, genitalia, early onset Alzheimers?

    A lot of things go together to make a point of view. If you assume you know from the basis of exit polling, you're making some real big assumptions on the basis of very little. Let's play demographics with me: I drag race, I shoot, I'm a construction worker, I'm a small business man, I make considerably less than $50K, I live in Baker Co so I'm rural, I'm white middle aged male; so I shouldn't even be a Democrat much less an Obama voter. oh, rats, I'm educated.

  • (Show?)
    When he "conceded" Indiana around 8 pm our time, the NY Times blog wrote "Perhaps Obama knows something we don't." But my wife pointed out that it was a brilliant strategic move. If he lost, he is conceding. But if he won, or made it very close, he's successfully lowered expectations that very night.

    I think it was Russert (this is like 830, mind you) who said that the Obama people told him they penciled it out about 15,000 short.

    Beware their spreadsheets. They are GOOD.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Just because you've "waited your turn" doesn't make you the better candidate. And for them to think they deserved the nomination just because they waited their turn is just wrong - it's not democratic that's for sure."

    Thanks Jenni! I agree with your principle.

    In 1992 AuCoin campaigned as if it was his "turn" and thus the fact that his major opponent came as close to defeating Mark Hatfield as the great Wayne Morse shouldn't have the nomination. (Kinda the same thing with Mondale in 1984, at least in the eyes of some people.)

    Elections should be about voters making decisions about what kind of state/country they want, not who has been "standing in line" the longest.

    Whatever one may think about the various Oregon primaries this year, what I have seen is a lower level of nastiness this year than in some previous years.

  • sadie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As a very devout volunteer/supporter of Obama and a friend of KimberlyG's, I can say with 100% certainty that Kimberly isn't a racist. She chose her words poorly, who hasn't been known to do that from time to time - and in a conversation online it is hard to know some body's character and get that out of their comments.

    There are many reasons that people support Barack Obama. I support him because I can identify with him, even though I'm as white of a woman as they come.

    We can parse the exit polls and divide Democratic Primary voters by race, age, gender and income level, in an attempt to psycho analyze the reasons people support one candidate over the other, but I don't think you'll find your answers in the numbers.

    Every primary season, year after year, we find that older voters and party activists tend to be about the only folks motivated enough to vote in a primary. Every primary season those populations decide who our candidate will be. This year is different. This year record numbers of people have been turning out in state after state, election after election, for one reason - we expect to win this change election in November.

    The typical universe of primary voters are split, activists are mostly supporting the grass roots candidate and the older Democratic voters are mostly supporting the establishment candidate whom they view has waited her turn. The amazing fact to me in this primary season has been that those voters who don't usually vote in a Democratic Primary are the folks who are deciding this election. People who usually sit on the sidelines, or who have never voted before, are not waiting for the General to make up their mind. They are thinking about, talking about, and voting in the Democratic Primary.

    Sure the talking heads are doing their part to divide the party by saying it is racism and gender or class divides that are "tearing this party apart". Certainly there are numbers from their exit polls that can help them support these simplistic explanations for what is actually happening within the Democratic Party. Certainly some Clinton supporters will stay home or support John McCain in the fall. But the reality is that our party is so much stronger today than it was 4 years ago.

    I don't think people who are truly disappointed that voters selected Obama instead of their candidate are going to support John McCain en mass, unless they are really longing for another term of the Bush Presidency.

    I think perhaps many of those who read your earlier comments, Kimberly, were thrilled that last night, Obama overcame the harshest of criticism and the greatest attempts we have seen to make these divides seem very real, clear and monumental. In doing so, I'm sure they were hoping that at least among Democrats, and especially Democratic activists, that we would move beyond these media driven chasms and start working towards unifying the party. I think once we do we can finally start attacking the only enemy our party has - John McCain.

  • (Show?)

    TA - I think I'm voting for the black half with my partner in crime voting for the white half. That's how we roll so we figure we'd show that to the world. I do think RSK is right; between two equally qualified candidates, I'll pick the person of color or the woman. In this case, I think the Big O is more qualified, more motivating to Americans and smarter in some ways than Hillary. So, that's my choice. Plus, it doesn't hurt to be able to look up as see someone in power who looks like me. It does wonders for the mind and spirit and will go along was for minorities of every stripe in America to know that white people have faith in us to do something amazing; and not just because we are on some affirmative action bandwagon.

  • sadie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Karol, what has infuriated me most about this campaign has been the fact that Barack Obama is an amazing brilliant man, yet he is supposed to be somehow 200% better than any other candidate out there to prove he is worthy of what he has achieved. It's the Jackie Robinson syndrome all over again. A person with black skin can't just be amazing, they have to be super amazing.

    For crazy reasons that I don't understand, he has to prove that there was not something evil and sinister in his desires to attend church. He has to prove that every wonderful thing that we know about him and his character is not a farce because Rezko gave money to his campaign. No other candidate has to defend every detail of their life or their donor's lives to prove their character and motivations the way he has.

    We have a Democratic Candidate, whom I voted for and wholeheartedly support because I've never had the chance to support a candidate who has deserved my support for their ideas and abilities the way this candidate does. I don't have to defend my selection though - because I'm a white woman.

    When I say I support Obama because I identify with his character because I too grew up poor with a single mom and know what it is like to feel abandoned by my father, nobody seems horrified. Why is that type of identifying with the candidate more acceptable than those who identify with the fact that he knows what it feels like to be black in America? It is not as though identifying alone is enough to win him my vote. I have to like the candidate and agree with their policies and politics, as well.

  • (Show?)

    Boy, it's going to be interesting to see what the final numbers in Indiana end up being. They were making a big deal out of her lead going up to 22,000 last night, but I see an update just went in a few minutes ago and that lead is down to 14,000.

  • CJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kim, you are backpeddling so fast it's making my head spin. I agree that some people have an issue with race (I don't) but how do you explain THIS comment in your original post, particularly the last sentence?

    "Having the nomination stolen by three demographics: youth, African Americans and college educated (making over $100,000). Welcome to the new Democratic Party; it should be awful."<<<

  • (Show?)

    Sadie, I agree. There is a standard that women and people of color have to be 200% better to be considered equal. I think the Big O is that way naturally, but I feel there have been more questions about his skill potential than Hillary's. Though, Hillary has been getting it from some pundits about her gender. Its a no-win for both of them. What makes KimG's comment about youth and blacks "stealing" elections more infuriating, is that young people, minorities and liberals are the wave of the future and should be setting the tone for what we want to see in our country and our party. What I want to see is woman and people of color taking charge and sharing responsibility with the usual suspects.

open discussion

connect with blueoregon