And if we compare Clinton's resources with Obama's, we will probably find the answer. He had substantially more money. She never should have contested Iowa...she should have started with new hampshire and let john edwards compete with obama in iowa. That leaked memo should have been followed. Instead, she was bullied to compete there and yielded to bad advice. She wasted tons of money and still came in third...it was a lose lose situation...bad press, bad momentum, wasted assets...for what? New Hampshire was only 5 days later...plus a debate intervening...it was a bad demographic for her in Iowa and she knew she would have trouble.

So she was short on money going into the caucuses and failed to appeal for online donations sufficiently after New Hampshire.

Money is the answer. By the way, great analysis. So I must ask the question...why is your analysis nowhere to be found in the MSM and other progressive blogs? Why is this information being suppressed? Why is Karl Rove smirking on Fox? Why is Bill Kristol positively jubilant over at Daily Show? And why, in New Hampshire, did independents vote McCain when they had a choice between Obama and McCain?
These are the questions...because that is how we are being undermined and subverted. Obama has always had a fortune to play with...an unending supply of money...even in the beginning...when his poll numbers were not impressive...

But great analysis...again, you should be at Salon , Eriposte.

But of course, this in no way excuses the failures of the Clinton campaign...but everything is being stacked against her...including all that free advertising for Obama, the great divider. And this is the travesty...that the progressives and liberals have been suckered so easily...by the Republican machine and the media. Because think about it...FISA passed without trouble...not even close. So it's not like Republicans have lost their power. On something important.

Hillary has no chance of beating McCain. He'll haul in the independents, and she'll motivate the GOP base to get out and vote. Plus, her negative ratings are astronomical.

The sooner Hillary is dispatched from this election, the better off the Dems will be.

I know this is not a PC statement on this shark-jumping Hillary-endorsing site, but hey, I'm not the one who sold out, so I can speak truth sans rationalization.

Obama is kicking the shit out of Hillary. She was supposed to be the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination, the perennial frontrunner. She's getting PWN3D. Bad.

Jim Dwyer of the NYT had an interesting point about Clinton's domination of the Roman Catholic vote (NYT 2/11/08). He asserts that this is normally a harbinger of victory in November.

"great analysis"? Analyze this: total up Hillary's "me"'s vs. Barack's "we"'s and the net is, as RAM so eloquently phrased it, Obama kicking the shit out of Hillary. Like our future nominee said, "We're what we've been waiting for."

Obama wins caucus states because he has a much, much, much, much better organization on the ground in those states. After blowing the budget on Iowa, Clinton didn't have the funds to match his operations in all of those states. He had the organizers, the volunteers, and the infrastructure to get his people out.

Of course, caucuses aren't the excuse anymore. Clinton got buried in three primaries last night.

Since you admit that Obama does a better job at motivating his voters maybe that says something about Hillary's November chances?

Her voters don't seem to be as motivated as Obama's. In addition she is likely help motivate the GOP vote to some degree.

I'd say that we'd be better off with the candidate who does a better job at motivating our side to come out and vote rather then the one who has difficulty (by comparison) motivating democrats to turn out and helps to some degree motivate the opposition.

Obama had the money to motivate his voters and get them out...Clinton did not. She still brings in women...the Potomonc primaries had heavy african american support and high income support...but these demographics, which combine the Bill Bradley support with the African Americans still do not win Dems the election. And Clinton has still won big diverse states...We need the blue collar voter and we need all the new voters Hillary can bring out with women. Her ability to enlarge the party with new women voters is being ignored in the hoopla...but she has demonstrated an ability to do that...meanwhile. Obama's negatives can rise in a concerted two attack by the REpublican machine. As I said...Dems have lost a lot of votes in Congress and yielded to the Republicans...there power has not waned as much as you might think. Foreign policy is a real problem for Obama as is the Rezko trial and Rezko connections to other unsavories...He has big vulnerabilities...more than is currently visible...that is the problem...a mania has taken hold...Again, this does not dispute the mistakes made in Hillary's campaign...but had she Florida and Michigan been penalized only 1/2 their delegates, like the REpublicans did, she would have had a different momementum...Eriposte's numbers are important to take into consideration...for the general..because in California, for example, Hillary won across the board and millions voted. Independents could also vote. Hillary won the youth vote, women, asians, hispanics...seniors...and Obama still outspent her there. That cannot be ignored...although it has been..while these caucuses have been hyped. She didn't have the money to get her voters out in those caucuses...That doesn't make him the strongest candidate..because those voters don't win him the election in the general...after his negatives go up.

I am not nearly as pessimistic as some about Hillary's chances against McCain. I think the GOP is so out of fashion and John McCain is so OLD and STALE that even Kucinich would have a fighting chance of beating him. I don't trust national polls, which are based, in significant part, on people's recollections of McCain circa 2000.

That said, the self-pity of Team Hillary is rather sad. I didn't hear any complaining when the Media declared Hillary to be a near lock for the nomination since, oh, 2004. I didn't hear any complaining when Hillary got more press than Obama for the past year. I didn't hear any complaining when Hillary got VASTLY more press than Richardson, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd.

Yes, Edwards' supporters were upset by his candidacy being buried, but we understood that when you challenge corporate America, corporate America doesn't deliver fawning press.

I think Hillary is clearly the better candidate against McCain.
The experience factor will be a huge negative for Obama against McCain, among other things.

space, if you didn't hear complaining, you weren't listening. It was all over the blogs, even here in the comments, from 2004 on.

A great article, rationally explaining why you can not bet the house on either candidate until after March 4th. (unless of course you happen to be an irrational fanatic)

"In Maine, Nebraska, and Washington - Obama took advantage of largely homogenous white populations and caucus contests to secure victory.

In other words, it is hard to identify a momentum effect here"

"Clinton's losses in the contests are as explicable as any of her losses before or on Super Tuesday. Obama has systematically won states that play to his particular strengths since the Iowa caucus. So has Clinton. Her problem has been that she has not had any good states in the last week."

"Though she seems down now, and though there are reasons to favor Obama in several of the above states, Clinton has real strengths in several small states and many of the big ones."

"39% of Virginia Democrats and 41% of Maryland Democrats reported incomes of $100,000 or more - this plays to a major strength of Obama. If income is causing these changes in the gender gap, it is hard to see momentum as a factor"

Full article complete with numbers...

The Democratic Race Moving Forward

Disclosure: I am not voting for barak hussein obama jr in the primaries.

Yes, lily, Hillary wasn't able to motivate her supporters because she didn't have enough money. Sure. Keep telling yourself that one.

There are a lot of unfair stereotypes about Hillary. But one that is true is that her campaign was far too much about her and far too little about America.

The most telling thing for me is that the one time Hillary welled up ("got emotional," whatever) on the campaign trail was not in recounting the mendacity of the Bush administration. It was not in recalling her AUMF vote or reflecting on the dead and wounded American soldiers that it produced. It was not in response to her failure to stop the appointment of Alito. It was not in response to the diminishment of America's reputation abroad, signified by Gitmo. It was not in response to the legalization of torture, the abolishment of Habeas Corpus, or the illegal spying on Americans. It did not occur when reflecting on Katrina.

It was when Hillary pondered the prospect -- Horrors! -- of fellow Democrats Edwards or Obama becoming President.

That drove Hillary to near tears. Not the FISA vote. President Edwards or President Obama.

Why do you think Hillary didn't have as much money as Barack, Lily? Could it be because he has hundreds of thousands more contributing, enthusiastic supporters than Hillary?

Let's add this up:
Better organization, check;
More contributions from MANY more contributors, check;
Better campaign strategy, check;
At least a million more popular votes, so far, check;
7 straight and probably to be 9 straight, (mostly) overwhelming victories, check;
Increasingly broadening demographic support, check.

Please tell me Lily, who sounds like a more likely victor in the general election, the one that counts for our very souls? And who might have bigger coattails for down-field Democrats?

Open minds want to know.

Hillary has been destroyed, and any objective person would see that. Her only "chance" now is to go extreme negative and try to destroy Obama and start the Repubs dirty work for them. Her "positive" story isn't selling, how many more doors slamming their face does the Clinton Sales Operation need to understand this?

I have no doubt that going negative is what Team Clinton will now do. Endlessly "looking forward" to the next states, the next holy grail---now it's OH and GOoP Mothership Tex-ass, lowering expectations such that "of course we can't be expected to actually win one of the primaries in Feb., caucus OR primary!"---is a sign of pure desperation. And it's irresponsible and obstinate, not great qualities in a leader.

Bitterly attacking the clear front runner at this stage will be very damaging to the party, and it's all she has left. Frankly, she should drop out now and let the Clinton Dream of Most Influential Power Couple in American History (tm) die with dignity.

in my precinct in Minnesota we had 68 people turn out in 2004 to vote for either Edwards or Kerry.
In 2008 we had 104 turn out to vote for either Obama or Clinton. Overall Democratic caucus turnout was easily more than 2x in 2004.

I dont see a logical correlation between Kerry gen election turnout in 2004 and caucus turnout in 2008, sorry. It is likely that 08 turnout will be high. if the general election were next week it would be much higher than Kerry's numbers in 2004. This could change by November. But my guess is with the recession in full bloom by summer and Iraq still a mess that many people will be as motivated for change then as they are now.

you seem to be grasping here. I only know if Obama has a convincing victory in Wisconsin next week that the dynamic in Ohio, Pennsyvlania and Texas will change. This type of success feeds on itself, the extent of the Obama victory in Virginia only shows that. Exit polling shows unexpected gains in his vote counts among white men and white women, and among hispanics, and among even people above 65 years old.

You are witnessing a phenomenon here. I am not saying it will last, but it currently has a life of its own.

Congrats to the Obama folks on your wins last night.....

May I suggest that celebrating Hillary's "demise" is way premature...The news cycle has had less than a full week from Super Tuesday results and Obama is clearly riding the wave of endorsements from the past few weeks....

Now we enter a new phase in the process....

Next up: debates, and Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania....

Looking forward to a substantive debate on the issues in the next few weeks, rather than this nebulous concept of "change"....

I'm definitely impressed with voter turnout for both of our candidates in the primaries last night.....

Let's see what happens in the "big states".....

Remember Yogi Berra: "It ain't over, til its over...."

space...are you actually saying that Hillary's campaign is about her and Obama's is not about his cult of personality? Obama's so called movement is of a new America, without universal health care? A new America where social security is a problem Democrats must deal with by raising taxes?
A new America where Obama takes the side of his cousin, the opposition tribe in Kenya, naive enough to even involve himself there? A new America where all the bad actors in the world take Obama seriously as a tough leader...or play him as a lightweight? A new America where Obama is so well versed in economic issues, that he will be trusted to lead the economy out of multiple disasters? After all, Ben Bernanke, from Princeton, hasn't been able to that effectively yet..and he has a Ph.D in economics...so Obama's Harvard law degree and zero experience managing any economy...will be trusted? (that puts him in no better position than McCain..while Clinton has bragging rights to the 90s) Hope will only get him so far..You know, if he had been a successful governor for 4 years, I'd feel better. But his resume is very very thin...and his voting record not one of leadership on big ticket issues..I still don't know why Obama supporters aren't concerned about more policy...aren't concerned that he has undermined progressives with non universal health care. That he has not met with his sub committee on Nato. Why won't he be perceived as the flim flam candidate of youthful idealism...but too inexperienced for the problems we have now? Late breaking voters went for Clinton. Doesn't that portend a trend? And what about a manufactured foreign crisis that plays to McCain's strengths? Are Republicans beyond such gamesmanship? They have pretty overwhelming power it seems, right now.

What kind of analysis is this? How can you compare Kerry's GE turnout to 2008 primaries. It doesn't make much sense. I am a hillary supporter. I don't think she will win nomination at this stage. She has to win the rest of the contests with wide margins which is not being shown by the polls now. I think it is better for her to withdraw gracefully and try next time if Obama looses GE. I think in Virginia, Republicans voted to make sure she gets a decisive loss. That shows why so many white votes in that state went to him. I do not think that will be the case in GE.

There are plenty of other ways to explain point 2. As pointed out by other commenters, your hang up on the ratio of (total caucus 2008)/(dems GE 2004) seems utterly bizarre to me. Even if you were to run with it, it's pretty clear that IA and NV are outliers, and that there isn't a meaningful statistical relation where you're trying to infer one. Give me a regression line excluding the outliers. Does it confirm your hypothesis?

lily,

you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the substance of what Obama says and his ability to inspire voters.

I fully agree that, when the rubber meets the road, Obama may not be able to deliver on his promises of hope, change, and unity. But I am able to recognize that his message is captivating.

I said this in an earlier thread. Your message doesn't have to be logical or realistic to be captivating. Jim Jones "inspired" roughly 900 people to move to South America in pursuit of a color-blind utopia. Realistic? No. Logical? No. But I probably couldn't convince one person to move to Guyana. Jones' ability to inspire and captivate people is undeniable even if he was a drug-addled nutcase.

As I have said in the past, most of HRC's primary wins have been in Blue States. For a Democrat to win in November, we need to be able to get as much of the Southern and Great Plains (Red State) votes as possible. BHO has beaten HRC in the majority of these races.

As noted in the past, HRC will do a better job of mobilizing the Republican base (simply because she is HRC) than BHO will. The main complaint the Right has is the BHO is "inexperienced". I would much rather run an inexperienced candidate vs. McCain than one that everyone knows and either loves or hates.

America wants to feel hopeful...they want change...we know we can't get that with McCain or with HRC. Do we know if BHO will deliver? No, but with BHO there is hope...

DeminNewJ summed it up pretty well. Obama's big wins in caucus states is because

- he has more resources
- he uses those resources wisely
- he has strong organization
- he has motivated supporters

How is any of this not a positive looking forward to the general election?

Joe, what you cite is just excuses. States favorable to Obama include African-American states, white states, rich states, caucus states, and heartland states. That doesn't leave much, especially with Obama improving among white women, Latinos, and the working class. The Clinton supporters here at TLC recognize that she needs to broader her appeal to win, not cherry pick only those states to which she is best suited.

Repub Joe is a Repub, CAPJ, don't waste your excellent analysis trying to "convince" him of anything---up is down for him.

I love this new "Waiting for Ohiot" meme by Team Clinton. At this point, PA OH and GOoP Mothership Tex-ass are just three more states, not anything "decisive", not utterly unusual "big" states---and super-red Tex-ass is certainly not particularly meaningful to Dem chances in the Fall, as Hillarians never tire of telling us.

Say Hillary wins them by her usual small (less than 10 point) margin, it doesn't mean much at this point in delegates or undermining the uniform trouncings and thrashings she's suffered across the nation this past week.

OUT with the past and its deeply compromised political figures, IN with the future---look to what the youth think (for once), we've shitted up the country and planet enough for them and their future. It's not rocket science, jeez.

CA Pol, only 1% of the total delegates separate them, why do bho fans want to stop the nonimation now and declare a winner? and not give everyone their chance to vote?

Hmmm, because they know they will be in a weaker position after March 4th.

Clinton supporters here at TLC actually recognise the hype and distortion of the MSM, which so many interlopers appear to spout without question.

Speaking of which, zous, you are laughable, nothing more than a dkos troll.

Speaking of which, zous, you are laughable, nothing more than a dkos troll.

Actually, euzoius has been a respected commentor here at TLC for several years, and not a troll or interloper. Please don't add to the discord.

I worry a lot about how Obama will do in a general election. One thing that keeps me going is the fact that in the last 25 years, the only prez we've gotten into office had charisma. Obama has charisma. And McCain doesn't.

>

sorry but if he acts like a dkos troll, then he is, at that moment, a troll, regardless of his history.

and your comment is hypocritical, methinks, adrress it to the correct person and "stop adding to the discord" yourself.

oh and if you are going to be the police, try asking the people you defend to keep their comments to posts rather than attacks on people.

It will help promote a more constructive thread and be a better use of your time.

If, as Eriposte concedes, Obama voters are more motivated, then they'll be more motivated to donate money to Obama's cause for the general election! Hillary already is having money woes.

Other electability issues:

1. Vice President. Hillary may choose General Clark (a strong Hillary supporter), an outside chance of taking Florida Senator Bill Nelson (who endorsed her, but is a right-wing Dem). She can't very well take Ohio's Senator Sherrod Brown, who voted against the AUMF, but Obama can. Senator Brown can help the Dems win Ohio, and with it, the presidency.

2. The Debates. Hillary is less able to attack McCain for wanting to be in Iraq for 100 years, as she voted for the AUMF. Obama would make McCain seem, well, antiquated.

3. Individual toss-up states. Hillary does start out assuring victory in Arkansas. Obama counters with much larger Virginia, and he did beat Hillary in Missouri (though barely), and has the support of Missouri's Dem. Senator. (Call New Mexico a tie). I don't think either of them would win Florida, which seems to have lurched a bit right, its popular governor now supporting McCain. Give Hillary the edge in West Virginia, but Obama might be able to win Colorado.

4. Independents. Polls show Obama more able to attract them than Hillary is.

5. Still a lot of stupid, irrational hatred toward Hillary, making her less able to turn a Republican vote into a Democratic one.

6. Main-stream media seem to like Obama more. This may be completely unfair, but it's a fact of life, and life ain't always fair. The media unfairly turning against Gore may well have cost him the election. Would be good to have the media on our side.

7. Polls also show Obama doing better against McCain than is Hillary. Some might argue that the more people become aware of Obama, his popularity vis-a-vis McCain might go down. But it could go up as well. In the absence of other more pertinent factors, better to take the candidate ahead of McCain in the polls, than the one behind him.

I would like to know the evidence for thinking the less hawkish candidate has an advantage.
I simply do not know myself, but generally it's a plus to be a hawk in a US election.
I doubt this year will be different.