Don't Count Hillary out yet. New Polls give her huge leads in OH and PA.

Link.

It aint over yet. Even with a few more victories, it's going to be hard for Obama to cut that size of a lead in only a few weeks.

At this point the Democratic nomination pretty much can't be decided before the convention unless one of the candidates drops out. Neither will have anywhere near enough pledged delegates to win before superdelegates are counted. Of course if one of them is significantly ahead in pledged delegates--say 150+ or so, which at this point most likely would have to be Obama if it happens--there will be real pressure on the superdelegates to support that candidate, but unless someone drops out any minor skeletons that come out of the closet before the convention could be enough to change that.

Edit: Let me add that what I'd like to see, if neither drops out, is an agreement that once the primaries are over public campaigning will be against the Republican party and its nominee, not each other. They can do all they want in private to woo superdelegates, but they should cease publicly going after each other once there are no voters left to convince on their relative merits.

Corrected for accuracy by the Hillary for President Campaign.

Hillary: I'm running for President and I support this change. Also my condolences in advance to the Obama family.

Indeed, wait until Uncle Teddy takes him out for a drive to give him some campaign advice.



Like Sir Humphrey said, "you have to get behind somebody before you can stab them in the back".

Good I hope she wins.

In a party that is supposed to be totally against racism, don't these kinds of figures cause any raised eyebrows?

Link

Do you hear that, Mrs. Clinton? That's the sound of inevitability...

I will simply love it if the party that whined about "letting every vote count" and droned on about winning the popular vote during the 2000 election now selects a candidate who is chosen by party insiders over the expressed will of the people.

I'm projecting a full scale riot at the Dem convention.

I will personally go to Denver to help start that riot if Hillary wins via super delegates.

I suppose this is a bad time to mention I was playing with unloaded guns today — picking out which weapon to use for a photoshoot of a Democratic candidates. We picked the Walther 9 mm.

Well, I have to go, as despite having not posted this yet, the Secret Service is, uh, knocking on, uh, down my door.

What does it say about you when your core constituancy is poor and stupid?

Said Barack Obama today in Columbia, OH: "Jerry Springer was a mayor here in '77. Springer ran a good campaign. And Hillary ran a good campaign here."

It says you're a democrat.

I'm curious about the education and income trends are for registered republicans v democrats IMHO. Taking a wild guess, I think Marso/Paladin wouldn't like the result.

I'm guessing this subtle burn went right over Hillary's head, too.

When you have confidence and courage in your own position, you don't need the reassurance of other people sharing it.

What? That Republicans are more likely to have college to postgraduate education levels?

^
if that is indeed the case, then I stand corrected. It was just a hunch I was going on based on big cities going democrat and the boonies voting red. I wouldn't put it past you being completely full of shit, but don't care enough to look into it IMHO!

Big cities are better educated per capita?

Tell me more about Detroit's Shakespeare In The Ghetto production!

Those people didn't evacuate from New Orleans because they were all working on their doctoral thesis!

All the major parties are against racism. And yet there are probably discrepancies in the racial makeup of parties and in which candidaes they favor.

They're also more likely to have higher water bills

Everyone at the Nebraska caucus was pretty pissed about the possibility too. I haven't met anyone who thinks the super delegate idea is good.

I'm still trying to figure out how Hillary became anointed the blue-collar candidate. She's as far from blue-collar as you can get.

EDIT: deleted post, in order to do further research, then stuck the results in a different post rather than editing them in here, by error. See below for response to Podgers' question.

If the AFL-CIO Union rag is any indication, lies and fearmongering about jobs and healthcare among "hardworking Americans who are the backbone of America".

You wouldn't believe some of the blatent, shameless propaganda that is printed in Union magazines. Hitler was more subtle.

You might not like the results, either.

A search around the 'net will show that there is plenty of data out there, but a lot of it is clearly partisan and since the results are fairly close for the two parties, it can be interpreted pretty much either way. A number of trends do appear to be true, however. (Remember that these are all trends, meaning they have statistical importance only. There are huge numbers of exceptions all around, since the differences between the trends, even on a statistical level, are not as great as some would like to imagine.)

- Historically, Republicans had much higher educational levels than Democrats. It would appear that in very recent years, however (since 2000), that balance may have changed. Some studies show that overall the Democrats actually have higher educational levels than the Republicans now, but most tend to show only that the gap is closing significantly.

- A higher percentage of low-income, low-education voters are nevertheless on the Democrat side than the Republican side.

- A (barely) higher percentage of college-educated people are, apparently, also on the Democrat side in very recent years.

- Among the Republicans, the less educated tend to be the hard-core conservatives. Among Democrats, the less educated tend to be less liberal overall.

- The type of higher studies done by educated Democrats is not the same as that done by educated Republicans.

So neither party can really gloat about their people being better educated. Both parties have their supporters (a non-negligent percentage of them) among the uneducated knee-jerk people who will vote for them without any understanding of the issues. Both parties, also, have their very-well educated people.

I don't really think the issue makes a lot of difference, however. For one thing, education level has little to do with intelligence. For another thing, neither education levels nor intelligence have much to do with being right, unless you have a very clear majority of the better-educated and more-intelligent on one side of an issue, which simply is not the case with the divide between the Democrats and the Republicans.

That makes sense. At the risk of oversimplifying things, both parties have an elite wing and a populist wing. For the Democrats, the elite wing is primarily socially liberal, while the populist wing, which Bill Clinton drew his support from, is more concerned with economic issues. For the Republicans, the elite wing consists of the more moderate country-club Republicans like Bush Sr., types, while the populist wing consists of the red-meat social conservatives.

I was thinking of an apparent "anti-intellectualism" slant noticeable in the rhetoric of the Bush II era neo-cons in the past 8 years when I made my comment. A book I enjoyed was "What's wrong with Kansas?", which was about low and middle income people voting against their interests (according to the admittedly liberal author) economically, with the anti-education rhetoric being a factor.

Lastly, in the places I've lived in my life, *especially* where I am now, which has obscenely expensive real estate values and a population density downtown greater than Manhattan, the city is very much the land of either the highly and expensively educated, or inherited money. I haven't seen enough of the large American cities to see the ghettos and suburbia IMHO.

Once again thanks to Async.

The "voting against their interests" line always makes me Does it never occur to those who write that phrase that perhaps people don't want to be given stuff by the government? That they believe it's not the proper role of government to bribe citizens this way? Or that many view a smaller government as being more in line with their economic interests?