Big county, city of Laramie located here.  Obama won BIG - 74% to 25%.  Vote was 969 to 328!

Go Obama!

Obama 66.2
Clinton 32.6

that Wyoming had so many african-americans and latte-drinking, birkenstock-wearing yuppies.

Maybe the Obama campaign had them all flown in from North Dakota, since Obama leads McCain head-to-head there. (even though it doesn't count)

that obama isn't doing better in wyoming. looks like by "big turnout" they mean about 10 thousand people caucusing in the entire state.

Surprised he's not doing better? That's some SERIOUS spin. Mark Penn would be proud.

It's just a boutique caucus. They're all just sippin' lattes out in Wyoming, reading the New York Times, and voting for a feeling.

... Errr, wait, or is the message supposed to be that she's competing everywhere now? I get confused. The nice thing for her in Mississippi is, she can win (actually, she almost certain can't) -- or she can just blame it on blacks again.  

let's not just insult Obama (while praising McBush), but his millions of supporters as well!

obama won wyoming by about 2,000 votes in a caucus. big deal. he has zero chance of winning wyoming or any of these other red states in november. senator clinton on the other hand won ohio which is one of the most important states by 230,000 votes. the obama people tried to spin that but it's pretty obvious that is a huge loss for him him regardless of delegates.  

huge important states versus the hugely unimportant ones -- like Wyoming.  Which in a close election like 2000 would have delivered the White House to the Dems without any worry about Florida shenanigans.

Winning Ohio makes life much easier for the Dems in 2008.  A broadened map though expands the Dems possibilities as well forcing the GOP to play defense in a lot of areas that they wouldn't otherwise need too.  

Clinton starts the GE behind in the Kerry states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire to McCain -- which combined equals 22 electoral votes to Ohio's 20.  In addition to needing to flip Ohio, Clinton would be in a must win situation in Florida in order to off-set these potential loses.  

Obama also has a substantial lead relative to Clinton in Nevada, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, Michigan, and Colorado -- amounting to 61 delegates.

Clinton's advantages versus Obama are mostly in the southeast where she would start the election at a 10%+ point deficit against McCain in all but Tennessee and Arkansas.  That's a swing of 17 electoral votes in a best case scenario -- with none of the potential benefits in the mid-Atlantic, the heartland and the northwest.  

are pretty sympatico tonight.

Wild and crazy Saturday night!

Which 'red' states are we talking about, exactly? And what is your proof?

Is Virginia a 'red' state?

The fact is, the coalitions of states that form majorities in Presidential elections is always shifting. The 'red/blue' divide of the Bush years will soon be replaced with something different, perhaps markedly. If you don't believe me, look at some of the states that Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996.

Who exactly gets to decide which states are worthwhile? Barack decided early on to contest every single caucus and primary, to work in every state -- because he knew that he couldn't beat Hillary by competing in the very large states that make up the plurality of the Democratic coalition where he was a virtual stranger. Hillary is the consummate insider, and she knew what the rules were. She decided to play the 'inevitability' card, and go for the knockout on 2/5. It didn't work. Now she, and supporters like you, are whining that certain votes ought to be discounted because those states won't go blue in November.

I find that argument highly elitist and insulting. If we're to follow the logic of your argument, any state in which Hillary lost, she won't be able to carry in November. Well, good luck forming a coalition without Washington, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, and Maryland -- not to mention Virginia and Colorado.

The SUSA polling clearly shows that Barack maintains a much more solid base of strong Dem states, and makes many, many more states competitive, than does Hillary. Hillary's strategy rolls the whole dice on Ohio and Florida, while she is much riskier in states like IA, WI, MN, WA, NH, and OR. Barack's strategy tells tens of millions of people in 15-20 states, "I need your help and your vote to dramatically change the direction of the country." Oh, and the SUSA polling (which is not sancrosanct, and needs to be affirmed by other polling) indicates that both candidates do equally well against McCain head-to-head.

So, what's your argument, again?

im sorry but obama is not going to win wyoming, north dakota, idaho, nebraska, alabama, georgia etc. in november. using your logic mccain should be considering himself competitive in dc, massachusetts,california, connecticut, vermont etc.
virginia will be a competitive state on the other hand. i would be very surprised however if obama pulled it off. im not saying clinton would either. she would be able to appeal to more people in places with a lot of blue collars like west virginia and arkansas. she is also popular in nevada and new mexico states kerry lost!

I almost forgot. judging by tuesday's results clinton is pretty popular in ohio. there are so many working class voters there that she can really appeal to. the fact that their very popular governor is one of her top potential running mates helps her already good chances there. that state has 20 electoral votes and gave bush a second term in 04.

if Hillary and her supporters had supplied us with the 'list of states that matter' before, say, the Iowa caucuses.

As to the specific states you mentioned -- no, I don't think Barack will be carrying Wyoming, Idaho, or Alabama in November. But he runs much, much better in Wyoming and Idaho than Hillary does, and there are important Senate and House races out there where he might help us get a few more quality representatives/senators into office. Regarding Alabama and Georgia -- those are base Republican states, no doubt. But Bill Clinton carried Georgia, Montana, and Colorado in 1992; and he carried Arizona and Florida in 1996. From the states that went red in 2000 or 2004, he carried West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio both times.

As for North Dakota and Nebraska -- polls indicate Barack would be competitive there, while Hillary would not. Similarly, Hillary and Bill obviously are well-liked by large segments of the populace in Appalachian states like WV, KY, TN, where Hillary would be competitive but Barack wouldn't. Should their votes matter? Those are considered 'red' states. Same with Arkansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, all states that Hillary won.

And it wasn't 'my logic' that I was following -- I was extrapolating your line of reasoning. Please answer me a simple question: Which states matter?

The elitism and arrogance of discounting entire sections of the country, and swathes of voters, is quite irritating.

Polls show Barack does better than Hillary in either Nevada or New Mexico, even though Hillary won those caucuses. He makes states like VA, NC, SC, and TX competitive in the south, and states like ND, SD, and NE competitive in the midwest and plains -- and even Alaska way out west. Hillary makes states like AR, KY, TN, OK, and WV competitive that he does not. So, again, which of these states votes shouldn't count in the primaries?

but voters in states that you are mentioning (in the deep south and plains) are conservative. obama may be popular among democrats in those states but that is not enought to win them. sorry to burst your bubble. that doesn't mean that spending time campaigning in them is a waste, but it is not going to win back the white house. the majority of people in states like this aren't going to vote for the most liberal senator.
also this poll of yours has senator clinton losing to mccain in liberal states such as oregon and washington. this seems rather unlikely when it comes down to the election. as we all know...polling isn't all that accurate...especially 8 months before an election.

as for you list of states that matter:
Colorado (there may just be enough elitist,birckenstock wearing, subaru driving white voters to pull it off for barak there)
Florida
Ohio
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Nevada
Pennsylvania

these states make or break presidential elections.

ps. your idea of picking a presidential nominee on the grounds that he would help a senate or congressional race in idaho is just whack.

Shame we wasted time voting here in Virginia, then. I could have been going to Starbucks, taking the old S80 to the car wash, and buying new sandals.

I do however like your ability to selectively pick data points from one massive poll. "Those results in Washington and Oregon must be wrong -- there's no way our tactic of dismissing entire sections of the country would piss off people in certain states that are part of those ares of the country."

Hillary's Supporters' America -- some states and voters are more equal than others!

that is not what i said. it is called an election. everyone's vote counts throughout the country. certain states are closer than others in these elections. these states decide who wins and loses the overall election. therefore, the candidates spend more time in certain states. you can't actually believe that they will campaign everywhere. well maybe you do. obama is probably not going to be doing much campaigning in west virginia, kentucky, or tennessee. i guess he is dismissing those people and saying they dont count.

ps. the scenario you described about a day of washing the volvo and doing some shopping in clarendon sounds kind of nice. sounds nice compared to someone's day going in to a mining or factory job in soutwest va who probably doesn't even have time to vote.

If Hillary Clinton is elected not a whole lot is going to change in southwest Virginia.  Not with all of her connections to Washington lobbyists.  

On the other hand, if Obama gets into office, there's a pretty good chance that Virginians from all regions will have an ally like Tim Kaine sitting somewhere in an Obama cabinet.

is that why clinton won southwest va and obama lost it big time?

didn't campaign in the southwest.  His farthest move west was in Roanoke -- where both he and Clinton had to cancel events due to heavy winds (you might remember those election week).  He had a total of 3 days to campaign in the state due to a weekend contest in Maine, Louisiana, Washington, and Nebraska.

Clinton was the known candidate -- and it probably is true that a message of "hope" doesn't resonate in some places as well as others. Boucher gave Obama his backing -- but I don't believe he did any heavy campaigning for him.  If Obama makes it to the general election, I would not be surprised to see him making an investment of time and energy in the southwest of the state.

Are the "secret Muslim" b.s. and race a factor?  Yeah -- I'm sure it was a factor for some of the voters.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were GOP voters participating in the Democratic primary as well.  If Democrats vote their interests they vote Obama.  In order to known that he's the best choice, he needs to do more outreach.

Look, this is getting tedious. You've made it clear that you think certain results matter less than other ones. Fine. But this is a delegate contest. At the end of the day, all candidates are in the business of trying to acquire enough delegates to win the nomination outright, just as in the general election each candidate is trying to get to at least 270 electoral votes. It doesn't matter if some of these states are less likely to actually vote for a Democrat for President in the fall -- THE RULES ARE ALREADY SET UP TO REWARD THOSE STATES THAT HAVE THE MOST DEMOCRATS. Yes, caucuses and open primaries and closed primaries and primary/caucus hybrids complicate things, but, guess what -- democracy is inherently messy. These rules were set up to choose a Democratic nominee AND strengthen the Democratic party in the states.

Obama leads in both delegates AND total votes cast. He has played the game by the rules better than Hillary has, and he has inspired more people to vote for him. Eventually, in a democracy, that makes him the winner. If Hillary can acquire more delegates than him after the contests in Pennsylvania through Montana and South Dakota and in fair re-dos of Florida and Michigan, then she deserves to be the nominee. But it seems very unlikely that that scenario is going to come to pass, so instead you decide to cry about the rules. Spare me. Hillary was as big a favorite as you'll ever see in an open Presidential election, and she got out-worked and out-organized.

And I think it's hilarious that you made a dig about my parody of your nonsense, comparing some 'elitist' in Arlington to the coal miner in Southwest Va. I don't suppose you see the irony in trying to tell me that that miner's vote in the 9th CD is inherently worth more than the voter in Arlington while simultaneously telling me that Democrats and voters in rural red states shouldn't have their votes count as much as those Democrats in the states that matter.

And just so as we're clear, I drive a truck, drink cheap domestic light beer, and don't drink any coffee, generally -- although I have been known to sample some nice pinot noir from time to time.  

as i said earlier everyone gets a vote. 1 person's vote counts as much in arlington as it does in buchanan county as it does in virginia beach. we have a state with different kinds of voters and thats what makes it somewhat competitive. other states don't have that. their votes DO count. but there are certain states that certain candidadetes don't appeal to overall. therefore not every candidate can campaign in every state. certain have more appeal in certain states and certain areas of states.
the great thing about senator clinton is that when it comes down to being matched up against mccain, she can appeal to voters in arlington, hampton roads, AND blue collars in the 9th CD.

There's a reason that Clinton polls 10 points less in Virginia than Obama versus McCain.  There's a reason that Clinton lost the primary by almost thirty points.

1. Turnout.  In those areas where Clinton won landslides in southwest VA turnout was in some cases 12%.  The average was 15%.  The state average was 22%.  In African-American areas the turnout was as high as 30%.  14% turnout in an election where the average state turnout is 22% doesn't tell me that there is a ton of enthusiasm for the candidate -- regardless of whether there's a blow out.  I'm sure there was a ton of enthusiasm amongst the 14% that showed up, but that won't be sufficient during the election.

On the other hand, when a candidate is getting 33% turnout in some areas in an election where there's 22% turnout across the state -- that tells me that that area is excited about their choices and that they WILL show up in the general election if the candidate who they overwhelmingly support gets the nomination.

2. Independent support.  Clinton struggles with the independent vote.  The only state where she has not lost independents 60 to 30 to Obama was in Massachusetts (this includes Virginia).   A Democrat cannot win an election in Virginia without getting a majority of the independent vote.  In 2006 Jim Webb would have lost the general election if he hadn't split the independent vote 56 to 44% versus Allen.  The difference in the independent vote was the margin of victory for him in the state.

as i said earlier everyone gets a vote. 1 person's vote counts as much in arlington as it does in buchanan county as it does in virginia beach. we have a state with different kinds of voters and thats what makes it somewhat competitive. other states don't have that. their votes DO count. but there are certain states that certain candidadetes don't appeal to overall. therefore not every candidate can campaign in every state. certain have more appeal in certain states and certain areas of states.
the great thing about senator clinton is that when it comes down to being matched up against mccain, she can appeal to voters in arlington, hampton roads, AND blue collars in the 9th CD.

I don't know that either of the states classify as liberal.  The coastal cities are reliably Democratic, but the interiors of both states are not.  This is why gubernatorial and senatorial campaigns in both Washington and Oregon have been so close and highly contested.

Colorado (9), Iowa (7), Wisconsin (10), Virginia (13), Washington (11), and Oregon (7)?

Clinton does poorly in Nevada -- she won a caucus based on the support of just three counties in the state.  Oh, that's right, Nevada doesn't count now.  Forgot that.  Never mind that Obama does better in every poll that's been taken since then precisely because he has the ability to peel off GOP votes in the rural northern half of the state -- he isn't reliant on the support of illegal aliens in casino caucus sites (amazingly no one had to show any ID in order to vote at those caucus sites).

But what you say again Nevada matters because Clinton won the caucus (by a narrow margin).  There are 5 electoral votes in Nevada.  It matters.

Yet, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, Washington, and Oregon -- which have more than 5 electoral votes are somehow unimportant?

No one is saying that Obama is going to win Alabama, Georgia, or Idaho in 2008.  Please put the straw man aside for a moment and engage the real argument.

but Obama can pick up electoral votes in Virginia, North Dakota, Colorado, and Nebraska according to SUSA; probably the most accurate polling outfit this election season.

Hillary could lose states like Wisconsin, Iowa, and Washington state. Yes, WASHINGTON. Winning swing states is important, but winning blue states is essential.

I congratulate Sen. Clinton on her wins in "big states" like California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. But I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that Obama would be able to carry those in the general.

She has major bragging rights when it comes to Ohio, but I think McCain will lose that state regardless. The Ohio GOP is in such disarray it's not even funny.  

at least as reported by major news outlets is the number of state delegates he won over Senator Clinton's.  That doesn't reflect the number of people who showed up to the caucuses and voted for him.  Percentage is really what matters though because large states, of course, have more people making a one percent spread total a large number of people.  

She won Ohio by 230k votes, so what?  Obama won Virginia by 276k votes.  That's 54% win in Ohio versus 64% win in Virginia (a relatively smaller state).  I don't know that a 10% spread in Ohio has some special meaning.

OBAMA WINS WYOMING.  Nets +2 delegates and will get the +1 add-on in May.  (Note - they haven't announced because people are still voting).
OBAMA 7, Clinton 5.

Go Orange for the details.  

CNN has the delegates split 7 Obama to 4 Hillary  (not 5).

His town has a population of 30,000 when the college students are in town.  Bill Clinton came to town on Thursday and Obama came through on Friday.  He said it's been pretty insane - remember this is a state that is bigger than VA in land mass and about the size of Prince William County in population.

He said they couldn't fit everyone into the caucus room because it was so crowded and it was pretty chaotic.  The energy is really reaching its way down.  Much of Wyoming is as hard core Republican as it gets.  

Unlike other caucus states, she had field offices open, and paid staff in the state.  In addition, Bill Clinton was there, as was Chelsea, who by the way, has turned into as asset I think, and Hillary was there campaigning as well.

Now, onto Mississippi.  I have been calling there and have had a good response to date.  

Ohio made me too angry to speak.  I'm so sick of this primary season I could spit.  Obama is the real deal, and he's the end of the political mess that has strangled America for decades.  Hillary is just more of the same.  She Roved her way to a marginal win in Ohio and now the press has annointed her the frontrunner again, despite the fact that there is no democratic way she can win the nomination.

This sucks... if Democrats can't read the writing on the wall, what hope will there be for Republicans.

I'm fed up and just taking a nice long break.  Wake me up sometime after Labor day.  Until then I'm focusing where I can do some good: Virginia politics.

One last thing:  I completely blame Obama for this.  He got shellacked in the media war leading up to Ohio.  All of the volunteers breaking their backs on the ground can't win this without the powerhouse Air action.  Dammit all anyway!

There are actually a few ways too look at this one.

1. Yes, things may end up getting pretty nasty between the candidates and the supporters.  There may be bad blood left before and after the convention.

On the other hand . . .

2. As nasty as Ohio and Texas were -- Ohio in particular had some underhanded stuff going on below the radar -- did you see the SurveyUSA numbers for Dems in those two states this past week against McCain?  

Voters pay attention during contentious elections.

In fact, did you see the numbers that the Dems pulled in every state where they have actively campaigned?  This is big especially for Obama who hasn't written off any state this primary season and is effectively introducing himself to an awful lot of voters.

In a swing state like Pennsylvania things could get very ugly between the two candidate.  On the other hand, Pennsylvania is likely to be a battle ground state in the Fall regardless of who the nominee is.  Both candidates will be investing about 6 weeks in the state setting up volunteer networks and meeting and greeting a lot of voters.  We have similar opportunities now in North Carolina, Mississippi, as well as a few other remaining states.  North Carolina being a possible swing state in the general if Obama is on the top of the ticket.  

Once these candidates leave the states and a few months pass some of the impact of their visits will diminish -- but as far as setting the table before the convention this has the potential to set the Dems up pretty nice in the general election.

Of course things could end ugly, and a large chunk of voters may simply sit out the general election -- or cross the line and voter for McCain.

And yes, in a perfect world I would rather have seen the nomination process having ended on March 4th.  But there is another side to this story to keep in mind here too.

I love the fact that Barack has to spend about 6 weeks in PA and then three or four weeks in IN and NC. His weakest demo continues to be working-class whites -- he will be able to try and find an approach that works.

I don't think IN will go blue in November (at least not for President), but I agree with you that NC is a dark horse. TX, and (improbably) SC are the other two southern states where Barack can be competitive, if the SUSA 50 state poll is to be believed. I'm also really hoping for a Florida and Michigan re-dos, as that would allow Barack to campaign in those states.

I don't know that he'll ever get Appalachia fully behind him, but he really needs to figure out how to stem the damage in that demo for the general. The next two months allow him the luxury to campaign in those areas and see if his message translates there if given time and resources.

One thing that he didn't have time to do in Ohio, Texas, or in Virginia for that matter -- was to invest time and energy in rural districts.  

With 6 weeks he should have the opportunity to spend time in the cities, the suburbs, and rural PA.  He will not win rural PA, but if he's going to improve on the Ohio numbers he needs to keep his margins close in western PA outside of the cities and the suburbs.  The only way he makes that happen is actually spending time in those districts meeting voters face to face and listening to their concerns.

A listening tour with him and Michelle would do wonders. They are both remarkably comfortable in their own skins, and I think once people understand that they both came from humble beginnings to get where they are, people in rural areas will begin to relate to them.

This would also be a real good time for John Edwards to endorse. Some combination of Barack, John, Michelle, Elizabeth doing listening tours in rural and rust belt communities, talking about investing in jobs and education ... well, I think it would do wonders for Barack's candidacy, both in PA and then in NC.

I've been very impressed at how Barack is just shrugging off the bad week, not over-reacting to the smear tactics, and continuing with his plan. He knew that Hillary has natural advantages in many areas, and deftly decided to run an entirely different campaign. The thing about the kitchen sink is, you can really only throw it once. I'd imagine Barack will find a way to smartly parry her latest attacks and tie her tactics to McCain's, and that will appeal again to the people he's already been appealing to.  

Someone from the Hillary campaign told me the Clintons complained to the FCC about having not enough coverage of Hillary. Apparently there were threats of lawsuits. I guess somebody is scared because now it seems like its Hillary 24X7.

the fairness doctrine went out the window in 1987 and the political editorial rule was jettisoned in 2000.  I have a hard time believing that the Clinton legal team would waste the kind of money necessary to pursue any claims based on an absence of coverage.  

The Clinton team probably has encouraged supporters to complain directly to radio and cable news stations -- I know they have complained directly to places like NBC and MSNBC.  They also stoke the "us against the world" perception, because there is a political upside to doing so.  It's a classic technique in sports where coaches "work the refs" to try to get a competitive advantage.  

kidoakland got be back in the game:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

I'm going to take a bit of time to recharge, and then it's time to take the country back.

you're much too active and imaginative to Rumplestilsken your way to Labor Day for the Big Event. Obama has got the brains and best campaign staff to figure this one out.  The KEY is calling out Hillary & Billary for what they are .... political hacks. The press is back on an even keel now and starting to peel away her "experience" story.... which is just a crock....  taking credit for anything good happening in the World when she was a cheerleader (er the President's wife).

Obama is going to come out of this primary season with more elected delegates ... the greater popular vote and more states won.  The Clintons will be second best .... fair and square.

Do you really think the Al Gores, Ted Kennedys and John Edwards of this party will let that pass?  They're going to ensure that those metrics are honored. PERIOD.  The Super Delegates will move to the candidate with  the most votes, the most delegates and the most states won.... that means Obama.... all things considered.

People have been way to nice to Hillary because she's a woman. But she doesn't hold a candle to Geraldine Ferrarro as an example ... a woman who truly made it on her own. Hillary has been coat tailing Bill her whole life.

Obama has to fine the right line of attack on Clinton to deflate this experience bullshit she puts out. He's on it and that message needs to get amplified. You watch .... Michele Obama will ensure that happens.

What if Clinton ends up surpassing Obama in the popular vote? Is there a clear winner then?

Frankly, the number of states as a measure for anything is patently ridiculous. No knock on, say, Wyoming, but to consider with say, California, for purposes of determining who has won the hearts and minds of Democrats just doesn't make sense to me.  

but there are only two ways that Clinton does this . . .

1. Michigan and Florida need to hold real contested elections -- otherwise they will equal net nothing.
2. Putting aside Michigan and Florida, Clinton would need to beat Obama 60-40 in the remaining contests.  The only way that I see this happening is if there is massive GOP cross-over voting -- or if Obama makes a major stumble (e.g. based on past regional and demographic trends we know if the vote in Mississippi splits 50-50 in Clinton's favor or better for Clinton that there is a huge lurking variable at work in the state's vote).  

That margin goes up if Clinton does not meet the 60-40 threshold in Mississippi.  Those numbers could jump to something along the lines of 70-30 if Team Clinton hits 55-45 in the PA's closed primary and Obama hits 55-45 in the open Mississippi primary.

I agree with you though that Superdelegates are likely to weigh the popular vote along with the pledged delegate count.  

To represent who has won the hearts and minds of Democrats?

All Hillary had was the Clinton name when she ran for the Senate. How many people can go directly from no official government position of any kind to being a Senator?

On the Clinton's avoidance of FULL DISCLOSURE.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

makes a great point about large donors.

Let's not forget that he (among others) was shut out of health care discussions in '93. I wonder if people like Bradley, Moynihan, and others had been included, would we be closer to universal healthcare.

Also of note, Bradley has been playing a prominent role as an advisor and surrogate for Obama. This makes me wonder if perhaps he would be part of Obama's administration? Since he lost in the Democratic primaries in '00 he has pretty much stepped away from politics, I wonder if this could be a segue back in?

of the Clinton campaign and their supporters trying to dictate which states are important and which states are not important in the primaries.  But isnt't it ironic - it was that very thinking that has lost her the nomination.  She put all her eggs in the Super Tuesday primaries and she ended up with scrambled eggs.  

Had she deemed every state important, she would not have thrown in the towel in Minnesota, Kansas, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, North Dakota and Alaska.  Obama clubbed her like a baby seal in these states and his deleagte lead today can be traced to his huge victory in these states.

And that is why the Clinton way of conducting a campaign makes her so dangerous as our nominee.  Their slash and burn menatality of campaigning so that she ends up with 50.1% of the vote will kill Democratic candidates running further down the ballot.  You have to compete in every state in a general election - it forces your opponent to spend time and money there but is also helps Dems running in other races as well.  

Take some down time and re-charge.  This has been an exhausting primary season and much of this campaign has  been going on for a year.

You and I are with the right candidate for the times, he is going to win the nomination and the general election sweeping in a bigger majority in the Congress as well.

We'll finally have a leader who can lead, work with both sides of the aisle to get things done here domestically that we care about, and, more importantly, restore our image throughout the world that has been decimated by my favorite village idiot.