Mar 4, 2008 7:16pm
Obama Takes Vermont
EmailAnd yet another state in our great union falls into Hillary Clinton’s "States That Don’t Matter" file…
along with small states, red states, liberal states, predominantly African-American states, and caucus states.
(Read more on that HERE or HERE – what Kos calls Clinton’s "Insult 40 States Strategy.)
Welcome Vermont! You are not alone.
-jpt
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
But he’s correct. Listen to any speech she has made and any small state she has she says she expected to lose and they don’t matter because she’s focusing on (insert big state) here. You can’t ignore half the country.
Posted by: Bill | March 4, 2008, 7:36 pm 7:36 pm
I bet if it were the other way around, and Obama had won the big states by such a wide margin as Mrs. Clinton won in California, you would be saying…
“But Obama is the one who won all the big states, and she’s just won the little states that go red anyway, and the caucus states…, etc.”
What do you think?
I love Vermont. I have close family in Vermont. But their entire state’s population is smaller than Portland, Oregon.
So it’s hard to say these are big wins.
I personally feel that caucuses aren’t democratic – so many people can’t even work them into their schedule – they don’t have a say – other’s get peer pressure from a mob mentality. Much of why Obama has been has successful as he has is because of the way the media has played him up, and Hillary down. Most of it has not really been on his own merits.
Posted by: Lauren | March 4, 2008, 7:38 pm 7:38 pm
Kos’s strategy is to insult half the party that knows that the extreme left wing of the Democratic party, as loud mouth as they can get, will not win the day come November. We’ve been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and it’s a painful four year wait thereafter.
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | March 4, 2008, 7:44 pm 7:44 pm
Thank you Rob
Posted by: toby | March 4, 2008, 7:47 pm 7:47 pm
Well have any of you been to Vermony??? Always been very liberal and out of touch with the rest of America, it’s even out of touch with New England. People go up there to go to college or hunt. It’s the ony New England state I can’t see my self living in, plus it gave us H. Dean.
Posted by: Sue | March 4, 2008, 7:54 pm 7:54 pm
every state, every vote matters, the thing is, we need someone who doesnt need a uhaul for a weekend getaway. Hillary has more baggage than your typical TWA flight out of new york. When it comes down to it, the canidate with the most delegates wins, and at this point, hillary doesnt stand a chance. it’s over, pack it up and get out.
Posted by: jon | March 4, 2008, 7:59 pm 7:59 pm
Chip -
Caucuses are a long process – a lot of people can’t leave work or their kids.
Regular primary voting is more representative and efficient for the majority of the voting public.
You can get excited all you want, but the caucus system is not truly democratic.
I have talked with young people who felt like they couldn’t vote for the person who they felt was truly more qualified, Hillary, because all their friends wanted them to vote for the “cool” candidate, Barack. That’s not democracy, that’s high school.
We need the most qualified candidate for president.
Posted by: Lauren | March 4, 2008, 8:03 pm 8:03 pm
When the networks refuse to call a state it means their candidate is losing. Hillary will win Ohio, Texas, and RI. They annouced Vermont to supppress the voters in TX and Ri where the polls are open.
Posted by: chasseur | March 4, 2008, 8:13 pm 8:13 pm
The very nature of her campaign is divisive. How can you openly tell states you could give a rats arse about their vote and then turn around in the general election and expect to get their vote? Pure Buffoonery I tell ya.
Posted by: mc | March 4, 2008, 8:54 pm 8:54 pm
Mc -you talking about FL and Michigan hypocrite?
Posted by: bryan shuy | March 4, 2008, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
No one can win general election without being able to win big states, it is that simple.
What you will see tonight is that people start to get tired of the empty talks. After you hear the same talk again and again, the only thing left in poeple’s impression is the emptiness.
Posted by: Mary Jane | March 4, 2008, 11:48 pm 11:48 pm
As a Vermonter I can tell you that the college vote and the endorsement from our longest serving senator were what put the dream weaver over the top here.As everyone that I talked to that was over 20 something were not in favor of Obama.It sould be differant in the elections in November.
Posted by: girlinvt | March 5, 2008, 12:53 am 12:53 am
What does winning ‘big states’ against someone FROM THE SAME PARTY in Primaries has to do with winning or losing the state in November?
PLEDGE DELEGATES ARE WHAT MATTER in America’s ‘QUOTA POLITICAL SYSTEM’, which sees ‘big states’ or ‘small states’ each with SAME US SENATORS!
Posted by: New Yorker | March 5, 2008, 1:59 am 1:59 am
Did you read about Washington? Obama won the caucus 68% to 31%.
10 days later he won the primary 51% to 46%. Big difference there, in delegates and margin.
Not only that, the primary had 550,000+ voters vs the much smaller amount that could get to caucuses.
Why? Because caucuses have fewer polling places, and take long hours and a lot of energy fighting crowds and unsure procedures and are also more attractive to people who like peer-pressure voting and social interaction.
They generally don’t include older people, those who are not in best health, or people who can’t get out of their jobs! to go spend hours there and people without transportation to polling places.
They are overrun by activists and college students. In other words, they really are not representative the way primaries are.
When I looked at the Texas primary tonight,
Clinton had 1.4 million votes to Obama’s 1.3 million votes with 98% of the vote in. In the Texas caucus, with 38% of the vote in, it was
Obama 20,000 to Clinton’s 19,000. Obviously fewer made it to the caucuses.
I agree with you that it was certainly shipshod of her not to have the ground plan for the caucus states though.
But if we ran our primaries as the Repubs do (and they have their candidate already while we don’t), Clinton would have nearly won already, since it’s winner-take-all with the Republican primaries.
Posted by: Andrys B. | March 5, 2008, 4:38 am 4:38 am
Add that in the General Election, it’s the big states that the Democrats must win.
It has not been at all clear that Obama voters would go for Clinton, certainly, nor that after all the acrimony Clinton voters would go for Obama.
Obama liked to say too often that her voters would “come to” him but he couldn’t say that hers would go to her. This is bad ‘leadership’ when one is stressing ‘unity’ and was divisive when the Clintons were saying they -would- support the Obamas, in Bill’s case saying he’d work his head off for Obama.
The main problem with Obama’s campaign has been that it’s not been about the Democrats getting back into power to do the things we want but it was about “The Movement” that almost never mentioned the word ‘Democrat.’ Mainly it’s been about Obama and his “new politics.”
What has hurt him are things coming to light due to current events that show that his rise was from heavy dependence on ‘old politics’ and he has practiced that also in his mailers, which fairly shocked some of his supporters.
Posted by: Andrys B. | March 5, 2008, 4:43 am 4:43 am
They have both won states the other, or any other Dem., could easily win in a general election. They have both won states, a Dem. will NEVER win in a general election, for example TEXAS!
It doesn’t matter which of these people end up being the nominee, b/c niether will win at this point. Texas and Ohio Dems. had the chance to almost guarantee a Dem. win come Nov. by ending this campaign, but they blew it. They will weep what they sow.
There is no damn way you Dems. can take this to Denver and still leave time for mounting an effective campaign; not to mention there will be no time for RAW wounds to heal. And, if you throw in Michigan and Florida all hell will break lose and even MORE Dems. will be voting with us just to get back at the nominee and the Dem. party.
No, I see a great defeat coming in Nov. for the Dems. Normally as a Republican, I wouldn’t care less. However, I am not satisfied with McCain and was looking forward to voting with the Dems. But, now, seeing how stupid Dems. are, I will probably vote for Nadar.
You guys made your bed, and you will drown in defeat come November.
Posted by: Chris | March 5, 2008, 3:00 pm 3:00 pm