these facts augur poorly for obama and democratic fortunes in general. of course, they are counterbalanced by obama’s personal charisma, and his often pragmatic leftism, and his dovish foreign policy certainly resonates with a very large number of voters. but it is my impression that obama faces weaknesses that have a reasonable chance of subjecting him to a rather large defeat.

be that as it may, it could be a close race, and of course obama could win. i do think the length of the democratic race – though not the supposed vitriol, which i personally find mild to non-existent – has hurt the dems’ chances vs. mccain because mccain will likely be able to slip obama’s charge of “bush 2.0″ by a simple and powerful appeal to pragmatism: we are in iraq now, we are in afghanistan now, there surely is a conspiracy of militant jihadis and certain governments to undermine the international system and attack us and europe, any withdraw now, even if clearly forced by domestic politics, will be, without question, perceived as a world-historical victory for these antagonists by all the wrong people. to do so would simply be irresponsible stewardship of the national interests and by extension of the international system, which relies as decisively on american strength as it does on american fairness. all this is quite obvious, in my opinion, and most of the ardent bush-haters that i know are not blind to these facts, as long as presents them gently enough. mccain seems capable of doing so. and this foreign policy disagreement is the clearest divide between the candidates.

however much it is possible that obama will win, i believe he will lose, for the same reasons bush won in 2004.

It is just as valid as any other count. Remember NOBODY has ANY delegates yet. NO delegates have been ’seated’ by the RBC.
Mr. Bradley, do you have the slightest clue as to what happens during the Democratic nomination process?
Here is the rule book. Educate yourself;
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf
There it is, the complete rule book in a pdf. format. Read it and weep. You will find that I’m not making this up as I go along. I leave that to Ohhhh….BAMA.
I would bet that less then 10% of democrats know what is in that Rule and Bylaws manual.

“Section 10. The Democratic Party shall not require a delegate to a Party convention or caucus to cast a vote contrary to his or her expressed preference”

“Section 3. Delegates to the National Convention shall be allocated in the Call to the Convention
consistent with the Charter.” (aka, seated)

The section on challenges is to long to cut and paste here. Technically, there are no delegates until the call to convention. That act creates the delegates, some of which are ‘pledged’ some of which are not (super).

The current trend in nice neat Conventions is a product of Television and TV producer’s anal-retentiveness. The producers want everything to run smooth so they can stay in control. It wasn’t always like that;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1932

FDR’s first term was the result of a brokered convention.
we will see a LOT more of them in the future.
That is because the internet has relaxed the grip of the MSM on the convention and the ratings from the ‘08 democratic convention will be thru the roof. They will make O.J. and his Bronco look like Hockey re-runs.
As a conservative, I’m more concerned about the bounce the Donks will get from having 75% of the planet Earth watching the convention then any actions on the part of 3 mediocre candidates.
Modern communications mean anyone on this planet can watch. Most of them will be interested.
When POTUS farts, people in Lusaka know what he had for lunch. There are a lot of net savy 3rd worlders that feel they should have a say in who the American President is. I tell them, ‘get in line’.

Obama leads McCain by 17 points in California.

>That map is somewhat delusional.
CA, with it’s 55 EV’s and heavy Hispanic turnout will vote McCain. What does Ohhhh…..BAMA poll among Hispanics 20%? 10%? CA is about 40% Hispamic, so Big Mac starts with a 30 point lead plus the Governator in CA.

You might want to read some history. All of which begain prior to 9/11.

>John Samford:
“He is a supporter of an unpopular war, a Bush backer,” Party line talking points, none of which matter or are true.

ALL wars are unpopular. Every single one of them.

These sorts of inaccurate posts waste time for readers and myself.

>John Samford:
17 points is a solid win, but not a landslide. Over 30 is a landslide.

>Ed Wallis:
DELEGATES – Bwill Bwadley; I do NOT include SUPERdelegates in my count. Please learn to read and count.

May 22, 2008 – 2:33 am

ALL wars are unpopular. Every single one of them. That isn’t the question.
The question is ‘Is the war necessary’? The answer to that depends on if you think terrorists killing American in wholesale lots is OK or not.
Most Americans don’t.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/terrorist-attacks-decline-40-during.html

Meanwhile it looks like this administration’s strategy of using Iraq as a killing ground to thin out the terrorist’s ranks is working quite well thank you.
Iraq is NOT A WAR. Iraq is a campaign in a war, one that is almost won and will be 90% finished by November of this year. Iraq will elect a new government in October, which will end the ‘one man, one vote, one time’ argument that Iraq isn’t a democracy. It will also make the cut and run crowd nervous, since they have all come out at one time or another and claimed victory was impossible, which demonstrates a lack of knowledge that is downright scary. The voters will be asked if they really want someone that foolish representing them.
BTW, there are hours of soundbites of McCain fighting PRESIDENT Bush tooth and nail that give the lie to that ‘Bush backer’ stuff. Let the Demonrats try that. It reminds me of Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch.