I wouldn't count it as a clear win for Clinton. In California, yes, although the margin has been steadily shrinking all night as the counting continues. But Barack won 13 states to her 8, so far. And unless something bizarre happens with the delegate allocations, I think Obama is actually going to finish the night with more pledged delegates than Clinton. And the rest of February looks good for him.

It's interesting that in all but three states (CT, NM, MO) the result was a 10 to 30+ point landslide for the winner. There really weren't a lot of close races, but in aggregate it's nearly a dead heat.

This ain't gonna be over for a while...

Interesting demographics.

1. 19% of white California Democrats over 60 voted for ... John Edwards. Why not Eldridge Cleaver?

2. As for the youth vote - what effing youth vote? God, how I love to see that preposterous fallacy shot down again - I could watch it 100 times. The torch will be passed to a new generation, as soon as we find out where the hell they go at night.

3. Obama won the atheist vote. Church-goers went overwhelmingly for Clinton. I find that really funny, for some reason.

4. 71% of practicing Catholics voted for Clinton. No doubt related to the fact that 73% of Latino Democrats voted for her. Very bad prognostic for Mr. Obama - he has zero traction with Latinos, and the black vote was so small it resembled a boycott.

5. 82% of people who didn't finish high school love Hillary Clinton.

Turnout comparisons look magnificent for the Democrats.

My dream if for Obama to go into the convention with a small lead. Clinton will try to get Florida and Michigan put in the tally and it will be world war 3. Finally some Democrats will see how destructive the 'all votes must be counted even if they arent technically votes' idea really is. But it seems like Hillary has the advantage and that wont be necessary.

I am always astonished about how the Democrats find a way to lose. They have a candidate that can help them forge a new coalition and take the center, but they go for the candidate that will galvanize their opposition and surrender the center. Throw in the overt racism shown by Bill Clinton towards their most loyal block of supporters and you have a perfect recipe for defeat. It is really astonishing to witness their death wish.

They are like the Palestinians who "Never miss and opportunity to miss an oppurtunity". How stupid and inept can a political party be? What a bunch of hacks.

It could certainly be divisive for Democrats to have a situation where Obama won the most delegates by vote, but Clinton was given the nomination by the Superdelegates. For that reason, I don't think the Clintons would unilaterally support or try to force such a move, as it jeopardizes the election of a Democratic President.

A more likely scenario would be to broker a deal with Obama, giving him the VP slot in exchange for his support of Clinton for President. The outcome of this process is more likely to energize than disaffect Democratic voters, since most of us (70%) like both of our choices and would be happy to vote for the other candidate. So, current Obama supporters will certainly line up behind Clinton as long as she didn't appear to "steal" an undeserving victory...which is understandably still a very sore spot for Democrats.

I don't think this can happen credibly if Obama is not given the VP slot, even if he does come out to support Clinton, as it would ring hollow with the electorate.

However, a Clinton-Obama ticket is pure gold in the fall, and if this "coming meltdown" (as the Republican Ed Morrisey unsurprisingly sees it) produces such a pairing, Republicans might not see the Oval Office again until 2024.

I was noticing today that if you remove the super-delegates (which seems like a stupid idea anyway) that Obama is actually in the lead. Still, it's going to be really tough for obama to get 90 extra delegates.

We'll see.

Alan, you assume that Obama would want to be Vice President. I really don't think he would. There would be little to gain; it runs counter to his reasons for not waiting patiently for his turn in the Senate. I suspect Obama would serve out his term and run for President in four years (if Clinton lost) or run for Illinois Governor in four years (if she won).

I think a Clinton-Obama ticket would be pure gold, but I really, really doubt that it would happen; I don't see it but would be happy to be wrong...

A.L.

I think a Clinton-Obama ticket would be pure gold

Can someone explain the appeal of Hillary Clinton to me? I just don't get it. I can understand Obama, I could understand Edwards. But not Hillary.

I'd take HRC over Obama or Edwards if I had to pick. She's tougher than the are. Easy as it is to forget, we're at war. Hillary may talk about cowtowing to our allies etc, but at the end of the day she has the clout to kick some tail I think. Obama I think seriously wants to have a nice big sit down with the ME leaders and honestly thinks they can just talk everything out. Very Carteresque, and what always happens is you end up browbeating your friends to excuse the bad behavior of your enemies. Edwards... probably just spend his term getting haircuts and letting the military eat cake.

TOC #5:

Although Clinton is ahead in the delegate count that's largely because she won a number of big states. The next round of primaries and caucuses almost all favor Obama over Clinton.

Alan:

Assuming Clinton wins, Obama won't be offered the VP position, and there's no reason he'd take it even if he were. He certainly wouldn't take it if he were ahead in the "ordinary delegate" count. He'd only have to show a little resolve and the "supers" would fold like a cheap suit.

A.L., et al:

The likelihood of Hillary winning against McCain has to be lower than an Obama win, although there are also a lot more uncertainties with an Obama candidacy. But frankly, I find it hard to imagine how a Republican gets much purchase against him. Yeah, I know his middle name is Hussein, but once that novelty wears off what follows?

Neither candidate gets very much out of offering the VP to the other. If there were some electoral traction to be gained by the appointment of the VP candidate they're a lot better off going for a perception competence. I wouldn't be surprised to see Bill Richardson get it.

Now, what about McCain? Does he get anything out of a Huck appointment? Again, it doesn't add much to the ticket in the way of perceived competence.

Didn't Mark Twain make some comment about the VP office being equivalent to a bucket of warm spit, or am I thinking of someone else?

Demosophist -

"Not worth a pitcher of warm piss." - John N. Garner, Vice President of the United States, 1932-1941

Either Democrat is vulnerable because of their policies. HillaryCare is going to be back on trial in a big way.

That being said the unfortunate truth is that the taller, better looking candidate always wins.

Mark- So if it's a race between Hillary & McCain the taller, better looking person would be....?

Let the market decide. Buchanon might actually have a chance.

Of course Obama might not accept a VP position under Clinton. I'm not sure it's the best thing for him politically or pragmatically. But he does have one important quality that goes a long way toward thinking that the risks/compromises might be worth it....youth. He's got plenty of time for a second coming if things turn out to disfavor his ascendency into the top slot after association with a potentially negative Clinton second term.

The governorship makes more sense for Obama. Its his for the asking. The Republicans might not even run against him. The corruption and incompetence of the recent Illinois governors guarantees that he will obtain a good record of relative improvements along with executive experience.

Clinton’s VP seems like the same problem that he has expressed in with the Senate: his political future is being shaped by others. He is being forced to vote for bad legislation as preferable to worse. As Clinton’s VP he would become the Clinton’s water carrier, and we can ask Gore how that turns out.

(Of course, I’m not sure he might not win the whole dang thing)

Now, what about McCain? Does he get anything out of a Huck appointment?

The national security wing of the Republican party just imploded.

My take on Huck is that he'd be a disaster as VP and would lose McCain the election. Here's my post on the subject...

PD Shaw is correct - better that Obama becomes governor of Illinois - assuming he doesn't win the dem nomination, and the Presidency.

Being a successful Senator, successful Governor, he could try again in 8 years.

Obama is unlikely to win Governor. For one thing if he did he'd have to govern and his Black Nationalist policies would be disaster. For another thing he's a fluke. Jeri Ryan's divorce action (allegations of wife swapping and sex parties against Jack Ryan) sank him and led to ... Alan Keyes. Anyone could beat Alan Keyes.

Lost in all of this is that Obama won where:

*The Democratic Vote is almost exclusively Black, ala Georgia.
*The Democratic Vote is almost exclusively upper class white, ala Idaho.

Obama does well among Blacks. At around 12% of the population, that's not much of a base. Obama did well among the stereotypical "gay antiques store owner in Boise." That's about it.

Against McCain he's road kill.

I don't like McCain, but I see why he won. He positioned himself as the patriotic, hard-ass guy who will kick terrorist/Muslim butt (same thing really) and won. More than thirty years of humiliation and surrender and losses, from the Embassy Hostages to ... 9/11, have led to a deep desire for a win.

Dems and Obama in particular but also Hillary pandered to their base's desire to inflict a loss on America. Now, selling losing as good for you and good for the country is about as winning a combination as Jimmy Carter's re-election campaign. That's McCain's strength against Obama-bambi. His line about not being interested in trading with Iran, they only have burquas, and not wanting to fly with AQ because they only fly one way went over big. And Obambi's naive desire to hold hands and sing kumbayah is going to be a loser.

Glen Wishard is right btw, Amber Lee Etinger, aka "Obama Girl" did not bother to vote. Youth don't vote. It takes responsible, ordinary, middle aged middle class Americans to vote.

McCain's great advantage (and I loathe the guy) is: "Do you want America to win or lose in Iraq? Are you on the side of America or AQ? Choose." He'll just destroy either Hillary (who is loathed by men) or Obama (who loses all but rich white men even to Hillary). This country is not ready to elect a Black Man, a White Woman, or a Mormon President. Simple as that.

bq.Obama is unlikely to win Governor. For one thing if he did he'd have to govern and his Black Nationalist policies would be disaster.

Not to go all ad hominem, but, over several years of browsing this site, I've evolved a mental filter that just scrolls right past any block of text with the name 'Jim Rockford' in front of it.

Is that out of line? Apologies.

Suppose Obama by some miracle got the Governorship. He's already on record for releasing Black criminals because they are imprisoned dis-proportionally to their population. I.E. imprisonment rates are something like 7-8 times higher. Of course so are crime rates by Blacks. But never mind.

How popular would widespread release of Black criminals be? Not very would be my guess.

Obama has backed seizure of all guns, handguns and long guns held by private individuals. How popular would that policy be in IL? My guess, not very.

Obama has backed "reparations" for Slavery. How popular would that policy be enacted in IL? Not very popular is my guess.

Broadly, in crime, gun ownership, racial issues relating to resource allocation, Obama's stated policy preferences as a matter of record court disaster. If he did get elected he'd turn IL into a Republican stronghold for generations.

Being a do-nothing Senator has been easy for him. He's been able to evade scrutiny of his positions by feel-good rhetoric and a press covering for him because of his race and politics. Executive responsibility means decisions which would be disastrous, or alienate his core which is Blacks.

Jim - cites?

A.L.

the stereotypical "gay antiques store owner in Boise."?????

Boy, learn something new every day!

Mark,

With a name like "Boise", what do you expect? I mean, just SAY it - BOISE - it's a pretty gay sounding name, don't you think?

(Just joshing', just joshing!)