Michael Barone Projection: Hilary Will Win Popular Vote in Dem Primary

[Evilmav2]

And what Rough Beast, its Hour come round at last, Slouches towards Denver to be Born?


Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Count

March 28, 2008 02:31 PM ET | Michael Barone |

The Clinton campaign has taken to boasting that its candidate has won states with more electoral votes than has Barack Obama. True. By my count, Clinton has won 14 states with 219 electoral votes (16 states with 263 electoral votes if you include Florida and Michigan) while Obama has won 27 states (I'm counting the District of Columbia as a state, but not the territories) with 202 electoral votes. Eight states with 73 electoral votes have still to vote. In percentage terms, Clinton has won states with 41 percent of the electoral votes (49 percent if you include Florida and Michigan), while Obama has won states with 38 percent of electoral votes. States with 14 percent of the electoral votes have yet to vote.

The Clinton campaign would do even better to use population rather than electoral votes, since smaller states are overrepresented in the Electoral College. By my count, based on the 2007 Census estimates, Clinton's states have 132,214,460 people (160,537,525 if you include Florida and Michigan), and Obama's states have 101,689,480 people. States with 39,394,152 people have yet to vote. In percentage terms this means Clinton's states have 44 percent of the nation's population (53 percent if you include Florida and Michigan) and Obama's states have 34 percent of the nation's population. The yet-to-vote states have 13 percent of the nation's population.

Thus the Clinton campaign could argue that Obama cannot win states with most of the nation's people even if he wins all the remaining eight primaries. Could argue—but I don't think that's going to persuade any superdelegates that Clinton is the real winner.

The Obama campaign has argued on occasion that its primary or caucus victories in Republican states means that Obama has a better chance to carry them in the general election than Clinton. As the Clinton people point out, that's ridiculous in some cases: No one thinks Obama's victories in lightly attended caucuses in Idaho or Wyoming mean that he can win them in November. Even in states like Minnesota and Colorado, Obama's caucus wins are less persuasive evidence than current polls that he can do better there than Clinton in November. Nor are Clinton's primary victories in states like Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Ohio very strong evidence for the proposition that she'd be stronger than Obama. General election polls are better evidence; they buttress Clinton's case in New Jersey and Ohio, and refute it for Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. Interestingly, Clinton won primaries in only five states which went heavily for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004—Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.

This has led me to ask what would have been the result of the Democratic primaries and caucuses if the party's rules tended to allocate delegates by winner-take-all rather than proportional representation. It would be an interesting exercise to apply the Republicans' delegate allocation formulas to the Democratic results. Interesting—but also time consuming, since those formulas tend to allocate many delegates by congressional district (or, in Texas, state Senate districts). So instead, using the realclearpolitics.com summary, I simply assigned all of a state's Democratic delegates to the winner of the Democratic primary or caucus. The result: Hillary Clinton gets 1,430 delegates and Barack Obama 1,237. That's almost the exact opposite of realclearpolitics.com's count of "pledged" (i.e., selected in primaries or caucuses): Obama 1,414, Clinton 1,247. It should be noted that the winner-take-all score would have been reversed if Clinton had lost Texas, which she carried by the narrow margin of 51 percent to 47 percent and which has 193 delegates.

That's an Obama margin of 167 delegates. And most of that margin came from caucus states and territories, where Obama's delegate lead was, by my calculation, 266 to 141—a margin of 125 delegates. (I'm leaving aside the minority of Texas delegates chosen by caucus.) In the primary states Obama's margin was just 1,148 to 1,106, a delegate margin of only 42.

It's at least theoretically possible for Clinton to overcome this lead in primary-chosen delegates in the eight remaining primaries. That would give the Clinton campaign another basis for arguing that their candidate is really the choice of the people. But the fact is that the Clinton campaign has only itself to blame for its weakness in caucus-chosen delegates. The caucuses were there on the schedule all along, and the Clinton campaign had as much time and about as much money to prepare for them as the Obama campaign did. The Clintonites simply did not prepare as well as I am sure they now wish they had. I suspect that some of the anger we see from Clinton backers comes from their own reflection that if they had planned and executed better they would be ahead in delegates now rather than behind. You get really angry when you have no one to blame but yourself.

While we're talking numbers, here are a couple of interesting charts. First, from the Democratic MyDD website, here is a projection of Pennsylvania voting based on the results in demographically similar counties in Ohio. It projects a 57 percent to 43 percent Clinton win. (Hat tip, Jim Geraghty.) And at realclearpolitics.com, Jay Cost has prepared a spreadsheet on which you can put your own projections of the popular vote in the eight remaining primaries.

I couldn't resist using Jay Cost's spreadsheet to calculate the popular votes in the remaining primaries and my own old-fashioned legal pads to calculate delegate results. I used Cost's default turnout numbers and estimates of the two-candidate percentages which I consider optimistic from the Clinton point of view but not wildly unrealistic.

STATEWIDE PREDICTIONS

State Eligibility Kerry Votes Expected Margin Expected Margin Clinton Votes Net Clinton Margin
Pennsylvania Closed 2,938,095 63.0% 1,851,000 20.0% 370,200
Indiana Open 969,011 82.0% 794,589 20.0% 158,918
North Carolina Open 1,525,849 82.0% 1,251,196 -10.0% -125,120
West Virginia Open 326,541 82.0% 267,764 40.0% 107,105
Kentucky Closed 712,733 63.0% 449,022 30.0% 134,707
Oregon Closed 943,163 63.0% 594,193 -10.0% -59,419
Puerto Rico Open N/A N/A 1,000,000 30.0% 300,000
Montana Open 173,710 82.0% 142,442 20.0% 28,488
South Dakota Closed 149,244 63.0% 94,024 20.0% 18,805
Total Net Clinton Votes 933,684

This would eliminate Obama's current popular vote margin, without including Florida and Michigan totals and even if you use imputed vote totals for the four caucus states (Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington) where Democrats did not disclose vote totals. The current popular vote margin for Obama on realclearpolitics.com is, under those favorable assumptions, 827,498. My spreadsheet numbers would give Clinton a 106,186 margin. The Obama margin if you don't give him his imputed margin in those four caucus states is 717,276. My results would convert that to a Clinton popular vote margin of 216,408.

But note a couple of other things. One is that this popular vote margin is exceedingly small when measured in percentage terms. With my estimate of 6,444,230 turnout in the remaining primaries, that yields a total Clinton-Obama turnout (with the four imputed caucus states included) of 32,995,378. The Clinton popular vote margin with the imputed caucus result was, as noted, 106,186, which is 0.32% of the total.

The other thing to note is that all of Clinton's popular vote margin and more comes from Puerto Rico. The turnout in other extraterritorial jurisdictions was very small: 1,921 in the Virgin Islands, 22,715 among Democrats Abroad and 284 [sic] in American Samoa. I'm projecting a turnout of 1 million in Puerto Rico, which has a population of 4 million. Turnout in Puerto Rican elections is, as a percentage of those eligible, higher than anywhere on the Mainland, something on the order of 80 percent as compared with 61 percent in the 2004 presidential general election. But Puerto Rico has not had a presidential primary before, so no one knows what turnout will be like. Puerto Rico will also be a challenge for the candidates. How do you campaign for the June 1 primary there and also campaign for the June 3 primaries in South Dakota and Montana?

Are my projections for Clinton's share of the vote too optimistic? Quite possibly. But I think they're at least defensible. I have her carrying Pennsylvania by 20 percent--a 60 percent to 40 percent margin of the two-candidate (Clinton and Obama) vote. That's better than she did in Ohio, where she won 55 percent of the two-candidate vote. But her showings there in the 6th congressional district (70 percent to 27 percent), the 17th congressional district (63 percent to 35percent) and the 18th congressional district (66 percent to 31percent) have influenced me; those areas are a lot like most of western and central Pennsylvania, where you also find very few blacks and upscale whites. Those results have also influenced my projections of even bigger percentage margins for Clinton in Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky. I projected a 10 percent margin for Obama in North Carolina; the realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls has him ahead 57 percent to 43 percent in the two-candidate vote. I have Clinton losing also by 10 percent in Oregon. That’s roughly comparable to her showing in the nonbinding February 19 primary in next-door Washington, where she got 47 percent of the two-candidate vote. I have Clinton winning Montana and South Dakota by 20 percent margins, when the conventional wisdom seems to be that these states lean to Obama. It’s true that Obama did very well in caucuses in Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, and Wyoming. But my hunch is that the wider primary electorate will go the other way. The closest comparable I can come up with is the nonbinding primary in Washington, where the vote in eastern Washington, the heavily Republican area east of the Cascades, went 50.3 percent to 49.7 percent for Obama. I don’t think he’ll do as well in Montana or South Dakota as he did in his halcyon days in February in this nonbinding contest. In any case, the popular vote margins in Montana and South Dakota are so small that they’re unlikely to make much difference in the bottom line. My projection for Puerto Rico is a guess, nothing more. Clinton has done well with Latinos in other states, but they’re a diverse group and voters in Puerto Rico may be different. Governor Anibal Acevedo, who has endorsed Obama, has just been indicted; other leaders of the two major Puerto Rico parties, the Popular Democrats (PPD) and New Progressives (PNP), are, according to this post, for Clinton.

My projections on Jay Cost's spreadsheet put Clinton ahead in popular votes, however they're measured. But my projections on my legal pads leave her behind in delegates. Each of these contests allocates most of a state's delegates by congressional districts, except for South Dakota which has only one congressional district; Montana also has only one congressional district, but it allocates most of its delegates in the two congressional districts it had in 1980, before the apportionment following the 1980 Census reduced its number of House seats to one. I give Obama small delegate edges in North Carolina (5) and Oregon (6), and Clinton relatively small edges in Pennsylvania (22), Indiana (12), West Virginia (10), Kentucky (17), Montana (3) and South Dakota (3) and a relatively big edge in Puerto Rico (20). Even so, that reduces Obama's current lead among "pledged" delegates (those selected in primaries and caucuses) from 1,414-1,247 to 1,655-1,565.

These two projections, if they come to pass, seem likely to cause maximum pain among the superdelegates. Clinton will be able to claim a lead in popular vote. But only because of Puerto Rico—and because Puerto Rico this month replaced its caucus with a primary. Obama will be able to claim a lead in pledged delegates. But only because he gamed the caucuses better. His lead in caucus-selected delegates is currently 125, as best I can calculate it; that would mean Clinton would have a 35-delegate lead among delegates chosen in primaries. Both sides will be able to make plausible claims to be the people's choice.

Let me add that my projections don't leave much room for a cascade of superdelegates to Obama. On each day's contests I have Clinton leading Obama both in delegates and popular votes (because North Carolina would be outvoted by Indiana on May 6 and Oregon outvoted by Kentucky on May 20). She would be getting closer to the nomination, not farther away.

Of course my projections could just be plain wrong. Clinton could win Pennsylvania by an unimpressive margin on April 22 and get clocked in Indiana as well as North Carolina on May 6. Then you might see a cascade of superdelegates toward Obama, and the race might effectively be over. But if all those three things don't happen, then I am sure the contest will go on through June 3. And in that case I think my projections are within the realm of possibility.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2...ate-count.html

[FishForLunch]

She will not be denied, its her turn to be President, Bill Clinton just told the Dem big shots to cool it and relax.

[dude1394]

Barone is just about the best in the biz. I hope he's wrong as I really want to run against obama and not clinton.

[Evilmav2]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I hope he's wrong as I really want to run against obama and not clinton.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm coming around to that opinion myself, Dude. The past three weeks of Jeremiah Wright culture-wars rehash has done much to change the complexion of this race, and I have a feeling that even if the Wright business subsides, it's going to come back ferociously in the general election and be compounded by wide dissemination of some of the ridiculous things he says about race and the elitist/near-marxist academic bent of his education in his 1995 Dreams of my Father book (and that he actually reads out loud in his Grammy award winning audio book version), by damage that he's done himself in his ham-handed handling of the current Wright mess, and by continued focus on and investigation of just what kind of a bizarre and extremely left-wing place his and his wife's core intellectual outlooks come from.

That will leave Messiah direly compromised not just with conservatives who are rightfully realizing just how noxious his anti-business, semi-socialist, class war policy positions and core philosophy is, but especially amongst older voters from both parties who are and will be an extremely strong area of support for McCain and are also increasingly showing a growing revilement of Obama, and also amongst working class whites in key states like PA, OH, WV, IN, MN who would largely vote for Hillary in the general election (and have been voting for her in the primaries), but would sit on their hands or cross over to the Maverick centrist war hero if Obama was the candidate.

I voted for Hillary in TX a few weeks back, and even though it isn't too unlikely that I might later change my mind about this, I guess I hope that Hillary does win the Dem primary popular vote plurality, but that the fatally flawed Obama manages to snare the nomination and the trying task that comes with it of leading an exhausted, fragile, and dis-unified Democratic party on a death march into a general election that will be be dominated by the unforgiving culture war battle-lines that we are already seeing being drawn up by this recent Wright business...

[dude1394]

IMO a large amount of the democrat party politics is about victimhood. Economic, racial, sexist victimhood. So the strife they are feeling sorta serves 'em right imo, but it is what it is.

If you just straight look at victimhood status with clinton/obama you have the female, african-american victimhood segments vying for each other. You also have the zealots and very liberal types (they like obama). The more sane of democrats prefer clinton.

Anyway the way I see it is that if Obama is nominated:
- He get even more of the african-american vote, but how much more can he get, the democrats get 90% anyway.
- He alieanates quite a bit of the hispanic vote IMO. I feel the hispanic victimhood lobby has been at odds with the african-american victimhood lobby for a while. They see a pie out there and they both want their share. The hispanic lobby will ultimately win this battle because of demographics, but right now they are still sort of at odds.
- He'll alieanate lot's o' bubbas out there and probably some folks who wanted hillary and are pissed that a female didn't get it.

If Clinton is nominated:
- I think she'll still get a huge percentage of the african-american vote no matter what's going on now. They have no place to go and they have a history of trying to gain power at the ballot box. I don't see that stopping.
-She will do better with the hispanic vote.
-She'll CERTAINLY do better with the female voter (this is what I fear the most as this is the largest demographic).
-She'll do better with moderates because Obama is one liberal dude.
-She'll do better with business.

She's just a harder opponent all the way around imo. You should have voted for obama like I did.




They think that way

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by dude1394

IMO a large amount of the democrat party politics is about victimhood. Economic, racial, sexist victimhood. So the strife they are feeling sorta serves 'em right imo, but it is what it is.

If you just straight look at victimhood status with clinton/obama you have the female, african-american victimhood segments vying for each other. You also have the zealots and very liberal types (they like obama). The more sane of democrats prefer clinton.

Anyway the way I see it is that if Obama is nominated:
- He get even more of the african-american vote, but how much more can he get, the democrats get 90% anyway.

He will get this vote dude but look at the states he has won, Ms is a republican state and all those western states, like Mont, Utah, Idaho, Az and i am not sure how many more are all republican states. Most all these he will lose against McCain. Ms, AL, GA is usually big time republicans, so how much will the african amercain vote help him here when it is republican states? Let's all be real here. Mo, Fl, Oh, Pa, Ca, Ky, Tn, Mi, are huge key states. I am talking big for McCain, Hillary or Obama. Yes probably Ca goes Democratic and yes Tx probably goes republican but some of these other states are big time key on who wins. Can Obama pull from these states and can he sway republicans, independents and women? I also will say this, if the democrats can't win with this being the worst adm ever in the history of the united states of america and them running against a libberman democrat in McCain, then Democrats have a big problem. That means any republican can throw our country away and down the tubes, bankrupt us, make our dollar a peso, make all middle class the poor and like most all are saying now, this adm has made Iran a big time power now and no one knows what is going to happen now to any of the middle east or Iraq but if he Democrat can't win, will they ever have a chance again in history? Hillary can compete in Oh, Pa, Fl, Mi, Ky and Tn and other swing states. Can Obama? I am talking about against McCain. It wasn't good with his preacher because Obama had alot of white vote and independents but when you throw in things like Hillary hasn't even been called this or that, whitey runs the world, this can turn off white voters and fringe voters. He doesn't need this when he was really on a surge. This helps McCain and i can explain how. Especially if this keeps on.

- He alieanates quite a bit of the hispanic vote IMO. I feel the hispanic victimhood lobby has been at odds with the african-american victimhood lobby for a while. They see a pie out there and they both want their share. The hispanic lobby will ultimately win this battle because of demographics, but right now they are still sort of at odds.

You are very right about this. This is a huge thread in itself but you are right.

- He'll alieanate lot's o' bubbas out there and probably some folks who wanted hillary and are pissed that a female didn't get it.

True but young people get pissed if McCain is in or Hillary as they think Obama is the best thing since sliced bread. They must come together or Obama and Hillary could split the party as McCain has with conservatives.

If Clinton is nominated:
- I think she'll still get a huge percentage of the african-american vote no matter what's going on now. They have no place to go and they have a history of trying to gain power at the ballot box. I don't see that stopping.

This is true, long ago the republican party told them one thing and did another and i forget the president but it was very bad what he did to the african americans and this is why they have been Democrats ever since as a majority. I feel Richardson went with Obama because of being promised vice pres but is this enough to sway latios? It might not be because it is tension between the two of what you mentioned above. This is why they need to get along to unite and her voters help him and his help her but a split helps McCain. Even the people saying Obama doesn't need her, well trust me McCain will welcome all Democrat and Republican women voters. McCain would love all latino voters also that Hillary gets. Obama doesn't beat McCain on just young people vote and African American. He has to pull more than this. So see why Hillary and Obama both need each other and both their voters? You split, you run them to McCain.

-She will do better with the hispanic vote.

She wins this hands down.

-She'll CERTAINLY do better with the female voter (this is what I fear the most as this is the largest demographic).

True again and women voters are not to turned on to a 75 year old forgetful McCain.

-She'll do better with moderates because Obama is one liberal dude.

Obama is maybe the most liberal in the party.

-She'll do better with business.

Yes, Hillary and McCain both do good here and business is scarred of Obama.

She's just a harder opponent all the way around imo. You should have voted for obama like I did.

She will be harder but your vote wasn't good or that isn't nice because you voted fear because you fear the Clintons and a hate vote because you hate the Clintons, even if you feel they will be better for our country, some rather keep us in war in the middle east and more war and gas prices going over 5.00 a gallon. Why not protect us and ouir borders instead of Libberman, this adm, Rudy, McCain fighting for oil and fighting for Israel? Let's protect our country and our people and make us strong again. Why tear us down more with what we have had the last 7 years? Are you proud of this adm of making Iran a huge and much bigger power than they were? Maybe even giving Iran, Iraq? How does this help us or Israel? Dude, we can't go around the world and make everyone a Baptist. We can't police all muslim countries because their law is so backwards than what ours is. You would be amazed on knowing how they live comparred to us and we can't change them. They can't change Israel being jews and us or Israel can't change muslims being christians or jews and none of us can push ourselfs on each other to live by one law or one bible. That land over there is much more than you know as they fight for ever piece of dirt and they fight over religion and we are not going to be able to change them, nor will they change us. Do you honestly think you and this adm is going to free China, N Korea, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Cuba, and over throw these govs and say now you are Baptist, read the bible, you are free and live like us? I promise you dude, it won't happen. See how free Iraq is now and how they are loving this freedom? Bin Laden begged the muslims, all muslims to be in a holy war with Christians and Jews. They thought he was crazy and ignored him, so his plan was to attack the usa and make the usa attack him and he wanted us to start attacking all muslim countries, where it would turn into a holy war.

See what Weasel and Chains is doing? By wanting to attack Syria and Iran? Now muslims are saying wait a min, is this Laden guy right? Once the muslims was wanting to help us catch te crazy man and now they think, is this adm the crazy ones and why is Chains and W trying to take over the middle east and now they are scarred and confused on who is good and who is bad. W, rams and Chains has made Iran filthy rich, Saudi and many more. They can build, buy many weapons, buy land in all countries, build up the armies, with the sky rocket oil. It has made the middle east rich dude and it has taken our money away from us. Are you happy because you are giving your money to Iran? Are you happy because you have so far paid Iraq 20 thousand of your money so far?

Your thinking is like Pat Robersons, let's fight all muslims in the middle east and have ww lll and make all nations take sides and lets get it on. This would be what the bible speaks of dude and the end of times. Bill Clinton made the muslims feel proud and he made the jews feel proud and he didn't hate one or the other and tried to talk peace. When we jump in and take religious sides, it is bad like W has done. Listen to republicans, Warner, Hagel, and Greenspan. It is ok to go get Laden and we should have and we had muslims helping us and the whole world but look what this adm did dude? You know why we went into Iraq and you know why they want to go into Syria and Iran. We need to take care of our people, love our country, make us rich again, give us jobs and stop making the middle class poor an offering them only Haliburton or Military jobs. McCain is an extension of the above.

We can't police all the middle east, make them all christians, make them live free like what we call free, tell them to let women be equal when they don't believe that, and make them stop fighting over middle east land and religion. That is their way of life but dude, when anyone comes to America and acts up, we need to go get them. Bin Laden, it is a sin this adm has not got him. Our allies won't let us go get him where he is at, so this adm just attacks another country for no reason at all? Making people hate us. Let's protect the USA and let's help the American people and let's do what is right in getting Bin Laden and stop the crazy stuff that has no rime or reason.


They think that way

As you see, i agree with alot of you and what you said about Obama or Hillary but i do not get off on hate. I don't believe in throwing our country away because of hating one party or the other or playing this like a basketball game. I give credit where it's due. The last 7 years is more than a game and helping one party and hurting your country. That is not right.

[Janett_Reno]

dude, sorry about answering your post with my post inside yours. I did not mean to do that. I agree with alot you say but where we differ big time is wanting to romp thru the middle east and where you want to keep McCain into power to keep on as where i would rather build the usa up, protect our borders and make us a rich country again and looked up to.

I do not believe in making the american people a slave to haliburton, oil and make them join the military to have a job. We need a different path than what we are on. We need to go after Bin Laden and finish the job and not get side tracked, plus making every tax payer in the usa pay 20 thous for iraq to date. You and i do not get an oil well dude. It also makes oil and gas go up.

Let's make the American people safer and rich again, not give our money to the middle east and make us unsafe as this adm is doing, plus being hated.

[Ninkobei]

whats with the lighting in that picture? really thats just awful photography.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

dude, sorry about answering your post with my post inside yours. I did not mean to do that. I agree with alot you say but where we differ big time is wanting to romp thru the middle east and where you want to keep McCain into power to keep on as where i would rather build the usa up, protect our borders and make us a rich country again and looked up to.

I do not believe in making the american people a slave to haliburton, oil and make them join the military to have a job. We need a different path than what we are on. We need to go after Bin Laden and finish the job and not get side tracked, plus making every tax payer in the usa pay 20 thous for iraq to date. You and i do not get an oil well dude. It also makes oil and gas go up.

Let's make the American people safer and rich again, not give our money to the middle east and make us unsafe as this adm is doing, plus being hated.

You should have put this rant in the post above as well. Anyway who yell "halliburton, oil" is a lunatic imo.

[Janett_Reno]

A big part of our economy and why we are not as safe now is because this adm went into Iraq. My point is, weapons of mass destruction, Sadam was part of 9/11 and Al Queda was running Iraq and was in Iraq before we went in was all not true.

We went into Iraq becuase Israel wanted us to, because Chains(former ceo of Haliburton) and W wanted to run Iraq's oil wells like they wanted because Sadam was a thron in their side, because this was the first step to invading Iran.

Who did this help? It made Iran a much bigger power and player in the world now. They have spent no money, without Sadam they can walk in when they want now or cause probs untill we leave, Chains and W with Rams has pushed oil prices over $100.00 a barrel and go read, look what the middle east countries are building up and investing in with billions of dollars per day as we suck billions from our country and are putting into the middle east. This is a failed policy. Haliburton has gotten filthy rich with no bid contracts but in the process it doesn't help our country and even puts military personal in danger trying to guard them, while we are trying to fight a war.

A big part of our falling dollar, oil and gas prices, the world being less safe, our bad economy, is tied to the Iraq war. Now you can spin the Iraq war like Pat Robertson but it is a serious issue. We can't and we won't take over the middle east. Muslims will not take over Israel and Israel won't take over all the middle east. It is going to be war and fighting forever in the middle east even when it is brother against brother but we can't run it because they won't let us and i am speaking of our allies won't let us. Iraq can't be spun and it is a serious issue.

[Janett_Reno]

The problem dude, is the American people will not let this adm or McCain go into Iran. Iran was a threat dude, not Iraq. Just because of the fibs the adm told has now has us in bad shape because if they was to tell the truth, the American people won't believe them, plus this adm has made Iran much more of a power now.

You do not run the country by being a bully and saying i have a big stick and i'll use it on anyone. You run it by letting people know you have a big stick but you only use it as a last resort and that you have sense, you talk and stay quiet and not going around threating people.

Now we are less safe with Iran and even Iraq. The middle east is now unstabble. It is a powder keg.

McCain ‘Surprised’ by Iraq Developments

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-developments/

Dude, you are this adm doesn't know how complicated the situation really is in Iraq and the middle east. It is now really scarry if McCain gets in on what might happen. The situation and the blunder in Iraq is much bigger than you know, plus even now this adm has no plan. Not for Iraq. Like i have said, it is going to be a hard sell now for this adm or McCain to invade Iran now as we are in a recession and it is many more reasons i can go into if you like.