Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Arles]

BTW, did anyone see the SNL skit last night with Obama, Jesse and Sharpton? I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard:

<embed allowNetworking="all" allowScriptAccess="always" src="http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/47cad9db19db18a3" width="384" height="316" quality="high" wmode="transparent" id="W47cad9db19db18a3" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

[Dutch]

That's about the most critical thing I've ever seen about Obama. SNL must be racists.

[Greyroofoo]

Anybody remember when SNL was funny?

[Arles]

I think that's pretty solid humor. Talking in a broom closet with Jesse and sending both Jesse and Al to the 4 corners of the world to avoid a negative impact from them.

IMO, SNL at spots is still pretty funny. It's just not the event it once was because of all the additional stations out there. I probably watch it once a month (used to watch it every week) and I would probably say it's close to as funny as I remember it being in the 80s-90s. The difference now is that there are other shows on/things to do that I just enjoy more on a Saturday night than I did back then.

[JPhillips]

That's about the most critical thing I've ever seen about Obama. SNL must be racists.

Well you must have missed this from the AP.

Obama May Face Grilling on Patriotism
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080223/D8V053E00.html

[Dutch]

Well you must have missed this from the AP.

Obama May Face Grilling on Patriotism
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080223/D8V053E00.html

How many articles on Obama did you have to read before you found that one? And it blatantly blames Republicans and conservative radio talk show hosts and Fox News for the "grilling" throughtout the entire article. Score one for Obama!

Let's keep this in perspective. :)

[JPhillips]

You could always look at the inexperience stories or the Rezko stories or the Farrakhan stories or the voted present stories or the internet rumors may hurt him stories. But you are right, if you ignore all critical stories there are only positive stories.

[Dutch]

You could always look at the inexperience stories or the Rezko stories or the Farrakhan stories or the voted present stories or the internet rumors may hurt him stories. But you are right, if you ignore all critical stories there are only positive stories.

What the deal with Rezko and Farrakhan? Never heard about that.

[Big Fo]

Rezko is the "Chicago slumlord" that Obama did a real-estate deal with once, Clinton brought him up in one of the debates. You might want to google that to get more in depth.

Farrakhan endorsed (it might not have been a formal endorsement, perhaps "came out in support of" fits better) Obama, Tim Russert asked Obama if he accepted Farrakhan's support. Obama's responce was “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments,” Obama said. “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan." Shortly after Clinton jumped in and the two wasted time debating whether it was better to reject his support or denounce his support, Obama ended it by saying he rejected and denounced Farrakhan's support.

Man I'm excited for tomorrow night, hopefully the Clintons see the writing on the wall after what should be a decent night for Obama supporters.

[Scoobz0202]

http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/archives/2008/03/caucus-strategy.html


Tough Caucus Strategy

3:31 PM Sat, Mar 01, 2008 | Permalink (http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/archives/2008/03/caucus-strategy.html)
Christy Hoppe <!--http://www.dallasnews.com/blogs/images/bio-icon.jpg Bio (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/) --> http://www.dallasnews.com/blogs/images/email-icon.jpg E-mail ([email protected]) http://www.dallasnews.com/blogs/images/email-icon.jpg News tips ([email protected]?subject=Trailblazers%20News%20Tip)
Hillary Clinton and her campaign is pushing for precinct captains for Texas' 8,000 Democratic polling places. They need to train folks to lead the caucus sessions that will determine more than 60 delegates after the primary voting is over.
In training materials being handed out by the Clinton campaign, it is clear that they want to control those caucus sessions.
The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."
It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serves as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.
"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."




God, I can't wait to see the look of resignation after she realizes tomorrow Obama is going to win the nomination.

[Big Fo]

I'm already anticipating her "my night-job working voterbase is once again disenfranchised by the caucus system" complaining after the delegates are basically split in Texas. It should be fantastic.

[Vegas Vic]

Uh-oh. "She's baaaaaack! (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html)

[Galaril]

Uh-oh. "She's baaaaaack! (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html)

Polls don't mean much especially in Tx where alot of hispanic voters are not polled. ANyways the pop vote doesn't matter a smuch as the delegates and I am sure at the end of the night Obama will have earned more Delegates than her albeit only a few more.

[Jas_lov]

Finishing a little bit ahead of Obama in Texas and Ohio is meaningless. She has to blow him out and pick up signifcant delegate gains. It doesn't look like that will happen in Texas, but if it does then she's back. The last poll from Zogby in Ohio had it tied 44-44. Even if she only wins 55-45, it ain't enough.

[TroyF]

Polls don't mean much especially in Tx where alot of hispanic voters are not polled. ANyways the pop vote doesn't matter a smuch as the delegates and I am sure at the end of the night Obama will have earned more Delegates than her albeit only a few more.

From what I can see of the delegate count, she needs more than a 2 point win in Texas. Her handlers keep saying that just one more popular vote in Texas is all they want, but I think she needs a lot more than that. Anything less than a couple of ten point blowouts in Ohio AND Texas tonight puts her in real trouble. If Obama were to lose Texas and Ohio by under 5% each, Hillary doesn't make up enough ground to reverse the last month of defeats.

It would, however, keep her in the race a lot longer. Probably until convention. If that happens, I'm not sure how the dems are going to be able to unify the party and recover in time for the general election.

[Vegas Vic]

The last poll from Zogby in Ohio had it tied 44-44. Even if she only wins 55-45, it ain't enough.

Picking out a single poll usually isn't very accurate. The cumulative polling over the past three days in Ohio (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html) has Clinton up by 7 points.

[TroyF]

Picking out a single poll usually isn't very accurate. The cumulative polling over the past three days in Ohio (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html) has Clinton up by 7 points.

Which again, isn't enough. I think her only real shot to win the nomination rests on double digit wins in Texas and Ohio.

I don't think it's likely she gets them.

[Jas_lov]

Picking out a single poll usually isn't very accurate. The cumulative polling over the past three days in Ohio (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html) has Clinton up by 7 points.

The bottom line is that it's not enough for her to catch Obama in elected delegates. The most recent poll has it tied. Hillary will still probably win Ohio, but not by enough for it to matter. As Troy said, it'll just delay the inevitable. And as I said before, even winning 55-45 in both states just won't get it done.

[TroyF]

The bottom line is that it's not enough for her to catch Obama in elected delegates. The most recent poll has it tied. Hillary will still probably win Ohio, but not by enough for it to matter. As Troy said, it'll just delay the inevitable. And as I said before, even winning 55-45 in both states just won't get it done.

If she were to win by double digits in Ohio and Texas, it could turn the momentum. She'd have to win something like 60% of the remaining vote to do it, but it'd keep things within the realm of possiblity and I could see her continuing on.

Anything less than the ten point blowouts and she doesn't make up nearly enough delegates for it to matter. At that point she's in the race not to win it, but to finish as close of a second as she can. I think she is going to win Ohio by 6-8 points today and Texas will be a coin flip. That makes it likely she stays in and turns this thing into a real bloodbath (even with little shot of winning) as we head toward the convention.

[Warhammer]

It would, however, keep her in the race a lot longer. Probably until convention. If that happens, I'm not sure how the dems are going to be able to unify the party and recover in time for the general election.

Since when have either of the Clintons cared about anything other than themselves?

[Jas_lov]

It might change the momentum going into Pennsylvania where she also has to win big, but is it enough for Hillary to defeat Obama in states like North Carolina, Montana, Oregon, Indiana, South Dakota, and all of these states that Obama has been winning?

Between tonight and Pennsylvania, there are 2 contests- Mississippi and Wyoming both of which Obama will win. She's behind by over 100 elected delegates. She needs to pick up big chunks because she ain't gonna beat him in the majority of remaining states. We'll see how many delegates she picks up tonight. If it's not enough to close the gap considerably, it's over.

[TroyF]

It might change the momentum going into Pennsylvania where she also has to win big, but is it enough for Hillary to defeat Obama in states like North Carolina, Montana, Oregon, Indiana, South Dakota, and all of these states that Obama has been winning?

Between tonight and Pennsylvania, there are 2 contests- Mississippi and Wyoming both of which Obama will win. She's behind by over 100 elected delegates. She needs to pick up big chunks because she ain't gonna beat him in the majority of remaining states. We'll see how many delegates she picks up tonight. If it's not enough to close the gap considerably, it's over.

Momentum can turn quickly, so if Hillary were to at least win by double digits in Ohio and Texas tongiht, she could at least make a plausable case that it is worth continuing the fight. The problem is this is all moot. I don't see her winning Texas and Ohio by double digits. The only way she leaves the race is if she gets destroyed in both places tonight.

In other words, I'm you 100% on this. I think tonight means nothing in the long run. Obama still will win, Hillary will still stay in and continue to bash Obama sensless. Then it's going to be up to the dems to find a way to unite and hit the ground running come August. McCain has to be loving every bit of this right now.

[Vegas Vic]

Keep in mind, Florida and Michigan are considering redoing their primaries, and it remains to be seen how that will affect the overall delegate count.

[Fidatelo]

Why would McCain love this? Obama/Clinton is getting 90% of the press right now (at least up here in Canada), and will continue to do so until it's over. During this, despite Hillary's attempts, I don't think Obama has lost a step. Meanwhile McCain sits there waiting and forgotten.

[TroyF]

Keep in mind, Florida and Michigan are considering redoing their primaries, and it remains to be seen how that will affect the overall delegate count.

It wouldn't be enough Vegas. The math is pretty astronomical here. Let's give Hillary a +70 delegate count tonight. That'd be a huge win for her. of the 370 available tonight, she'd get 220, Obama 150. That puts Obama at 1334 and her with 1181. She's now down 153 total delegates with 611 left to fight over. (more if you add MI and FL of course, to that in a bit)

If that's the case, she needs to get 383 of the remaining 611 delegates to win the war. That's over 62% of the remaining votes. Do you understand how improbable that is? Go ahead and revote MI and FL. She still needs betweent 58 to 60% of all the remaining votes to go to her.

FWIW, if she takes Texas and Ohio by 5 points tonight, she'd make up 38 total delegates, not counting the 36 left over in Vermont and Rhode Island.

You can say what you want about the Super Delegates, but if they end up going against the true delegate count, I think you can stick a fork in the dems this year. There will be so many disenfranchised voters, McCain wouldn't have to do a thing.

[TroyF]

Why would McCain love this? Obama/Clinton is getting 90% of the press right now (at least up here in Canada), and will continue to do so until it's over. During this, despite Hillary's attempts, I don't think Obama has lost a step. Meanwhile McCain sits there waiting and forgotten.


Wrong. There won't be any happy, happy fun time for the dems until their nominee is picked. Hillary is going all out after Obama now. She's going to attack the living daylights out of him. We aren't talking positive press here, the two candidates are going to bloody each other.

Study some history and tell me how well it's went for either side when they've had bloody battles in the primary season. It has rarely translated well to the general election. Obama and Hillary will spend upwards of 30 million dollars in PA if Hillary stays in it. You honestly think that money wouldn't be more helpful to store up now and spend on McCain in October?

[TroyF]

Double Dola: For Hillary to get that +70 win tonight? That'd mean she takes Texas 60/40. She takes Ohio 60/40. She splits both Rhode Island and Vermont.

You see how astronomical the odds are for her even if she does it. If she scrapes out under 10 point wins in both states? This is over and done with. I don't care about FL and MI.

[Fidatelo]

Wrong. There won't be any happy, happy fun time for the dems until their nominee is picked. Hillary is going all out after Obama now. She's going to attack the living daylights out of him. We aren't talking positive press here, the two candidates are going to bloody each other.

Study some history and tell me how well it's went for either side when they've had bloody battles in the primary season. It has rarely translated well to the general election. Obama and Hillary will spend upwards of 30 million dollars in PA if Hillary stays in it. You honestly think that money wouldn't be more helpful to store up now and spend on McCain in October?

But for all of Hillary's efforts, where is it getting her? And what will McCain have left to say that Hillary didn't already try? And doesn't momentum count for something?

I'm not a student of U.S. politics so I'll trust that you are correct historically, and I'm certainly open to being wrong on all of this. It just seems, from what I see up here anyways, that everyone is talking about Obama, almost always in a positive light.

[TroyF]

But for all of Hillary's efforts, where is it getting her? And what will McCain have left to say that Hillary didn't already try? And doesn't momentum count for something?

I'm not a student of U.S. politics so I'll trust that you are correct historically, and I'm certainly open to being wrong on all of this. It just seems, from what I see up here anyways, that everyone is talking about Obama, almost always in a positive light.

That's the problem, you can't build up momentum at this point. Look at the likely result tonight. Hillary wins Ohio. She maybe scrapes out a tie or a one point win in Texas. Where is the Obama momentum now? Now we have another 30 million or so being blown in PA, maybe more.

What will McCain say that Hillary hasn't? Well, he'll have examples of what worked, what didn't and how well. (these guys have pollsters all over the country, this is more than just Texas and Ohio tonight. McCain may follow up on Hillary's attacks. He'll certainly try to get the Hillary voters to move to his side. Ohio is an important state, let's say Hillary takes it by 7 points tonight and then Obama still gets the nomination. (both VERY likely to happen) Now McCain uses the same message Hillary had with the Ohio.

I'm not saying McCain is going to breeze through the election. He's going to have it tough. But he's happy as pie if the dems turn this into a bloodbath to the convention. They'll be spending resources, giving him valuable information about what attacks work and what attacks don't, and he'll have his organization on the ground running 2 months before the dems have thiers going. If you think money and intrastructure don't matter here, you are kidding yourself.

The Republicans are presently setting their money aside and starting to store the coffers. Hillary and Obama are raising a ton of money and spending it as quick as they get it. You tell me who has the advantage the longer this continues?

[Malificent]

That's the problem, you can't build up momentum at this point. Look at the likely result tonight. Hillary wins Ohio. She maybe scrapes out a tie or a one point win in Texas. Where is the Obama momentum now? Now we have another 30 million or so being blown in PA, maybe more.

What will McCain say that Hillary hasn't? Well, he'll have examples of what worked, what didn't and how well. (these guys have pollsters all over the country, this is more than just Texas and Ohio tonight. McCain may follow up on Hillary's attacks. He'll certainly try to get the Hillary voters to move to his side. Ohio is an important state, let's say Hillary takes it by 7 points tonight and then Obama still gets the nomination. (both VERY likely to happen) Now McCain uses the same message Hillary had with the Ohio.

I'm not saying McCain is going to breeze through the election. He's going to have it tough. But he's happy as pie if the dems turn this into a bloodbath to the convention. They'll be spending resources, giving him valuable information about what attacks work and what attacks don't, and he'll have his organization on the ground running 2 months before the dems have thiers going. If you think money and intrastructure don't matter here, you are kidding yourself.

The Republicans are presently setting their money aside and starting to store the coffers. Hillary and Obama are raising a ton of money and spending it as quick as they get it. You tell me who has the advantage the longer this continues?

Rush Limbaugh is asking his listeners to vote for Hillary in the primary so as to extend the Democratic nomination process. That indicates to me that it is a bad thing for the Democrats.

[Fidatelo]

Those are all excellent points TroyF. I will bow to your knowledge on this one :)

[JPhillips]

The money isn't that big of a deal. Right now both Dems are spending money allotted to the primaries. All of those donors can max out again after the convention. Either Dem candidate will have plenty of money come September and probably more than McCain.

As for a tough primary hurting the candidate, I'm not sure. A long primary also poses problems for the opposition candidate. Who do they run against? How do they get their message out when the other side's campaign is far more interesting? I think it also toughens up the eventual winner provided nothing happens that splits the party. If this goes until the convention I think it's a problem, but if it lasts through May I don't think that in itself is a big deal.

[TroyF]

The money isn't that big of a deal. Right now both Dems are spending money allotted to the primaries. All of those donors can max out again after the convention. Either Dem candidate will have plenty of money come September and probably more than McCain.

As for a tough primary hurting the candidate, I'm not sure. A long primary also poses problems for the opposition candidate. Who do they run against? How do they get their message out when the other side's campaign is far more interesting? I think it also toughens up the eventual winner provided nothing happens that splits the party. If this goes until the convention I think it's a problem, but if it lasts through May I don't think that in itself is a big deal.

They are RAISING money and spending it as quickly as they get it. It isn't lock, set and match that they'll get maxed out again before the election. It's also a little optomistic to think they'll have more cash than McCain. The Reps can raise an amazing amount of money quickly. I'd be surprised if they didn't raise more cash at than the dems this year.

[Galaril]

Yeah, this extend Dem fight has really fucked the Democrats. Hilary should quit tomorrow unless she wins by agregate percent differnce of 10%.

[Butter]

They are RAISING money and spending it as quickly as they get it. It isn't lock, set and match that they'll get maxed out again before the election. It's also a little optomistic to think they'll have more cash than McCain. The Reps can raise an amazing amount of money quickly. I'd be surprised if they didn't raise more cash at than the dems this year.

After 8 years of Bush Jr., do you really think it's going to be hard for the Democrats to fund raise for the General Election?

Uhhhh, no.

[JPhillips]

In January McCain raised 12 mil. Hillary was over 20 and Obama was over 30. February showed the same kind of discrepency. The Reps are having a fair amount of trouble raising money this cycle. The RCCC is in the red as of now and the combined totals of the different candidates show a significant advantage for the Dems. The only place the Republicans are doing well is at the national committee level. There's no reason to think that the Dem candidate won't be equal or ahead in funds this cycle.

Of course all donors won't max out again, but they'll also have two sets of donors to work from. The important thing is to remember that the 2000 dollar cap applies to both the primary and general. All of the primary donors for these candidates can give again for the general and a lot of them will. It's two separate funds and both the Dem candidate and McCain can't start over until after they are officially nominated. Money won't be an issue.

[TroyF]

After 8 years of Bush Jr., do you really think it's going to be hard for the Democrats to fund raise for the General Election?

Uhhhh, no.

Actually. . . yes.

Bush was as hated four years ago as he is now. The dems felt the first election was stolen from them and they were out in force. It failed.

Blind hatred won't work. It's going to take a unified belief that their candidate can win. Obama has a great chance to be that candidate. But where do the Hillary supporters go when she dies off? Worse, what happens to the Obama faction if Hillary stages a miracle come back?

McCain has an (R) next to his name, but he was a guy rumored to be flipping to a (D) just a few years ago. The uglier this campaign gets for the dems, the more likely it is that a good portion of the losing dems supporters either:

a) cross party lines and vote for McCain

or

b) stay home, don't give money or time to the dem candidate.

or

c) vote green or write in Daffy Duck or whatever

The Dems should win this election. They hold all the cards. But I wouldn't count on money continuing to be raised at these levels throughout the election process. And I would not underestimate the Reps ability to raise funds when they need it.

[Buccaneer]

Troy is right, just 3 failed Reps (Guiliani, Thompson and Romney) had raised almost $200 million themselves. And despite perceptions to the contrary, the polls between the D-R still show a toss-up.

[JPhillips]

I'm not saying McCain is going to breeze through the election. He's going to have it tough. But he's happy as pie if the dems turn this into a bloodbath to the convention. They'll be spending resources, giving him valuable information about what attacks work and what attacks don't, and he'll have his organization on the ground running 2 months before the dems have thiers going. If you think money and intrastructure don't matter here, you are kidding yourself.

The Republicans are presently setting their money aside and starting to store the coffers. Hillary and Obama are raising a ton of money and spending it as quick as they get it. You tell me who has the advantage the longer this continues?

No, Troy isn't right. McCain may wind up winning the elction, but money and infrastructure won't be the reason. The Republicans will at best be at even money this cycle. In 2004 the money was pretty even if you include 527s and party funds as well as candidate money, and there's no reason to see the Republicans changing that this cycle especially when they have been significantly outraised by the Dem candidates, the DCCC and the RSC. The only reported money that shows a Republican advantage is at the National Committee level. Look at the numbers so far for 2008 and there's no way you can rationally argue that the Republicans will have a funding advantage.

As for infrastructure, your points a little better, but contested primaries tend to turn out voters. These primaries have done far more for the Dem brand and email/donor lists than a clear path for Hillary would have. Only if the nomination drags until the convention will there be a significant backlash against one of the candidates. If this is determined by the summer McCain gets no "process" advantage whatsoever.

None of this adds up to a guaranteed victory as I still think McCain is the best candidate for the general, but arguing that the Republicans have the advantage is silly. There isn't any data at this point to suggest that's true. If you were running would you rather have more money so far, much higher turnout so far, the opposition president at 30% approval, likely indictments against the opposition Congressional committee, or not?

[Big Fo]

Exit polls suggest Obama won by a landslide in Vermont. 13 in a row now...

[Jas_lov]

Barack Obama has defeated Hillary Clinton in the great state of Vermont.

10% of Ohio Primary voters are Republicans. Are they Obamacans or Rush Limbaugh listeners? Stay tuned.

[Jas_lov]

Ohio is too close to call. Too close to call.

[Vegas Vic]

I know Texas is a big state, but WTF? 1% of the precincts = 800,000+ votes? :eek:

[Jas_lov]

Maybe they include early voting in that 1%. Still no solid numbers from Ohio as they extended some precincts poll closing times. Texas should come in quicker than Ohio.

[Jas_lov]

Texas is too close to call. Obama is ahead with almost 1 million votes in. Rhode Island is too close to call with no numbers in.

[Jas_lov]

Hillary Clinton has won the great state of Rhode Island.

Texas and Ohio still haven't been called. Obama is up in Texas and Hillary is up in Ohio.

[cartman]

Just got back from my district caucus. Obama got the alloted delegates for our district.

[Cringer]

The only way I was going to vote for the democratic side of things today was if my local elections mattered. Since all the democrats I want out of office and would have voted against are not in my district, I took the Republican choice so I could vote for Ron Paul. Nobody else got my vote, which didn't matter since they didn't have any competition.

Voting Republican was fun, except for having to wait around for the wife. It was an long wait for the democratic party, while I just walked up to the table and voting booth with no wait. :D

BTW, anyone know of a site that has the Texas districts? My wife and I were highly confused when we drove down the road to our polling location and find out that a couple races we thought we would be able to vote in were not in our district. Kind of weird when one of the races involves a guy who lives a street over from me and his brother lives 4 houses down from me. Not being in that district would have put me in another district with a race I would have voted in, but nope. I want to see where the hell I am because the map I looked at must have been wrong....

[Jas_lov]

Hillary is up by 16% with 35% reporting in Ohio. Obama is up by 2% with 15% reporting in Texas.

[cartman]

BTW, anyone know of a site that has the Texas districts? My wife and I were highly confused when we drove down the road to our polling location and find out that a couple races we thought we would be able to vote in were not in our district. Kind of weird when one of the races involves a guy who lives a street over from me and his brother lives 4 houses down from me. Not being in that district would have put me in another district with a race I would have voted in, but nope. I want to see where the hell I am because the map I looked at must have been wrong....

Go here:

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/

and click on State House Districts. It'll open up a new window that will allow you to zoom in. Hidalgo County looks to be split up pretty good, with a couple of streets I see belonging to three different districts!

[cartman]

Something thing to keep in mind for Texas is that even in the primary, delegates aren't assigned by statewide popular vote. Each of the state Senate districts has delegates assigned to them by the Democrats based on how many people in those districts voted for Kerry in the 2004 election and Chris Bell in the 2006 Governor's race. Some districts have as few as 2 delegates while a couple of others have 8 assigned to them.

[Cringer]

Go here:

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/

and click on State House Districts. It'll open up a new window that will allow you to zoom in. Hidalgo County looks to be split up pretty good, with a couple of streets I see belonging to three different districts!


Thanks, that cleared it up some. It annoys me because my district makes no sense, but then again they clearly want that I guess. I am in district 41, about 100 yards from district 40. My neighbor's brother is running in 40, so his other brother must be the one who lives on the street next to me. I don't like my district, the good people to hate are in 39.

[cartman]

My caucus was pretty subdued. We had about 40 people show up, and since I live in a rural area, I think that might have been every Democrat in the area. :) We signed in, counted up the preferences, and passed a couple of motions to bring to the next level of convention, one regarding the current investigation into our electrical co-op, and another about lack of oversight of the Tx DOT regarding several large projects in our county. It was all over and done in about 45 minutes.

Contrast that to near chaos in some precincts in Austin. The local paper is reporting that cops even had to be called to one.

http://www.statesman.com/

[Jas_lov]

Hillary Clinton has defeated Barack Obama in the great state of Ohio.

[bhlloy]

So Hilary wins by 10+ in OH and looks like she might get a 3-5% win in Texas. IMO, she's still got a good shot.

[Cringer]

Well crap. I really don't want Hillary to be President as of right now, even though the wife voted for her. I was hoping the door would be shut on her tonight. Oh well, I won't be real happy with anyone in the two major parties.

[Cringer]

Hillary Clinton is winning my region of Texas 3-1 over Obama. Expected I guess.

[Vegas Vic]

Did I just hear that no candidate, democrat or republican, has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio in their party's primary. If so, that must bode well for John McCain.

[Cringer]

My wife and I just realized that we screwed ourselves.

We voted in the primaries, so we are no longer aloud to sign the petition to get Nader on the ballot. Texas blows. I should have known that so I kick myself for it though.

[SFL Cat]

I think it's going to come down to an grudge oil-wrestling match between Hillary and Obama at the convention.

[Jas_lov]

So Hilary wins by 10+ in OH and looks like she might get a 3-5% win in Texas. IMO, she's still got a good shot.

We'll have to wait until tomorrow to see how many delegates she picked up. Obama was already up by more than 100. She may have only picked up about 30 depending on how things finish up. Obama can pick some of those back up with wins in Wyoming and Mississippi. It sounds like Hillary is going to go on through Pennsylvania at least. I still don't think she has a good shot, but we'll have a clearer picture when we find out her delegate gain.

[Galaril]

Wow I am really actually am shocked that Clinton won Ohio and TX. I will officially be voting for the Republican candidate though I have been a lifelong Democrat and a fairly strong supporter of both his message and way Obama has run his campaign. I won't be giving the Clinton mafia my vote in November being now I suspect they will eventually take the dem nom. Clinton only won today because of using the fear bomb, muslim bomb, and race bombs (indirectly) as well as a bunch of dirty policitcs that the Clinton's only a month ago accused Bush and the republicans of resorting to time and again. All Hilary did was give the election to the Reps for the next twenty years as many of the younger Obama supporters will be turned jaded by this whole mudslinging of there candidate by the Cintons. The republicans who voted today just to get the "weaker" opponent might be assholes but they are clever assholes know the less.

[cartman]

We'll have to wait until tomorrow to see how many delegates she picked up. Obama was already up by more than 100. She may have only picked up about 30 depending on how things finish up. Obama can pick some of those back up with wins in Wyoming and Mississippi. It sounds like Hillary is going to go on through Pennsylvania at least. I still don't think she has a good shot, but we'll have a clearer picture when we find out her delegate gain.

No way she picks up 30. At most it'll be half of that. It should shake out pretty close to this:

Ohio: Hillary +10
Rhode Island: Hillary +3
Texas: Hillary +1
Vermont: Obama +3

So that is a net gain of 11.

[Vegas Vic]

Clinton has not won Texas. Metropolitan Dallas and Houston have less than 30% of their vote tallied, and Obama is beating Clinton 3 to 2 in those areas.

[Jas_lov]

Good work on the math. 11 or anything close to that obviously isn't enough. Momentum schmomentum. Hillary isn't going to win enough delegates from Obama in states like N.C., S.D., Mississippi, Wyoming, Oregon, and so on. This probably just delays the inevitable as we said earlier today and the night gets even better for John McCain.

[cartman]

Clinton has not won Texas. Metropolitan Dallas and Houston have less than 30% of their vote tallied, and Obama is beating Clinton 3 to 2 in those areas.

And like I mentioned in the post at the top of this page, statewide vote isn't what determines delegate allocation. Certain areas get more delegates based on how they voted for the Democratic candidates in the 2004 Presidential and 2006 Gubernatorial elections. Two-thirds of the available delegates are assigned this way, and the other one-third are assigned from the results of tonight's caucuses. So yes, in effect, you can vote twice in one day for a candidate.

[st.cronin]

I think the Republicans voting for Clinton were not doing so to ensure Clinton's nomination, since I think its not at all clear that Obama is a stronger GE candidate, but instead were hoping to ensure a nomination fight, including possibly a bloody convention fight.

[SFL Cat]

Of course, the Clinton camp will undoubtedly try to get the votes counted in the states she won that were disallowed delegates because they held their primaries early without approval from the Democratic Party.

After all the flap about "votes not being counted" during the past two presidential elections, I don't see how the Dems can ultimately deny those states their delegates.

[st.cronin]

By the way, could the Texas Democratic Primary BE any more complicated????

[ISiddiqui]

I think the Republicans voting for Clinton were not doing so to ensure Clinton's nomination, since I think its not at all clear that Obama is a stronger GE candidate, but instead were hoping to ensure a nomination fight, including possibly a bloody convention fight.

Yep... if Clinton was up by just 100, they'd be voting for Obama in droves.

[Vegas Vic]

Of course, the Clinton camp will undoubtedly try to get the votes counted in the states she won that were disallowed delegates because they held their primaries early without approval from the Democratic Party.

Those states will redo their primaries before the democratic convention. Shutting out Michigan and Florida would be political suicide for the democratic party in the general election.

[cartman]

I think the Republicans voting for Clinton were not doing so to ensure Clinton's nomination, since I think its not at all clear that Obama is a stronger GE candidate, but instead were hoping to ensure a nomination fight, including possibly a bloody convention fight.

There were scattered reports from today that many people that did this were surprised when they were told after voting for Hillary that they couldn't also vote for the non-Presidential candidates in the Republican primary. I also don't see these cross-over voters coming back to caucus tonight.

[st.cronin]

Those states will redo their primaries before the democratic convention. Shutting out Michigan and Florida would be political suicide for the democratic party in the general election.

Hmm, I have heard that there are various reasons why this won't be possible.

[cartman]

By the way, could the Texas Democratic Primary BE any more complicated????

Not sure if this will make things any clearer. It spells out in detail how the process works.

http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/interim/int80-3.pdf

:D

Here's the part on how they apportion the delegates:


Pledged delegates apportioned by primary vote.

A total of 126 delegates will be apportioned to the
presidential candidates based on the March 4 primary
vote in each state senatorial district. Delegates are
allocated among the 31 districts according to a formula
that takes into account each district’s vote for Democratic
nominee John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election
and for Democratic nominee Chris Bell in the 2006
gubernatorial election. The 126 slots are allocated as
follows:

Two: District 31
Three each: Districts 6, 7, 9, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30
Four each: Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16,
18, 19, 20, 21, 26
Five each: Districts 10, 17
Six each: Districts 23, 25
Seven: District 13
Eight: District 14

In each senatorial district, delegates are apportioned
among presidential candidates who receive at least 15
percent of the primary vote in the district. If no candidate
receives 15 percent of the district vote, the threshold for
receiving delegates is reduced
to the percentage received by
the district’s plurality winner,
minus 10 percentage points. For
example, if the top vote-getter
in a district received 12 percent
of the vote, the threshold for
receiving delegates would be 2
percent. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats do not
apportion any delegates to presidential candidates based
on the statewide results of the primary election.

[SFL Cat]

Hmm, I have heard that there are various reasons why this won't be possible.

Don't know about Michigan, but I know Florida is trying to get it done.

And I think Vic is right, if the Dems snub Florida and Michigan, the can kiss any shot at the Presidency goodbye in the GE.

[Cringer]

There were scattered reports from today that many people that did this were surprised when they were told after voting for Hillary that they couldn't also vote for the non-Presidential candidates in the Republican primary. I also don't see these cross-over voters coming back to caucus tonight.

I didn't know about it before, but figured it out pretty quickly when I got there. I don't like it because the Valley here is pretty much democratic, so the local/state races pretty much come down to the democratic primaries.

Still, the big kicker is I screwed up and voted at all, since I can't sign for any third party candidates to get on the November ballot. Again, Texas blows.

[cartman]

Here's an official link showing the discrepancy between statewide vote and number of delegates assigned. It is from the Texas Sec. of State's office. Hillary is up by about 3 percentage points, but Obama has two more delegates.

http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_136_state.htm (continually updated as more votes come in)

[Vegas Vic]

And I think Vic is right, if the Dems snub Florida and Michigan, the can kiss any shot at the Presidency goodbye in the GE.

If they redo them, Clinton would be favored in both, although certainly not a shoe-in. She is up by double digits in recent Pennsylvania polling (a state similar to Ohio demographically). If she holds on to win Texas, then the only large state (150+ delegates) that Obama will have won will be his home state of Illinois.

This thing is going all the way to the convention, and it's going to be a blood bath.

[SFL Cat]

It will be interesting to watch...that's for sure.

[bhlloy]

If Obama loses by 10+ in PA and fades in the remaining significant states, it will be very interesting to see how many of those superdelegates that are making noises about him end up realising that they really want to vote for a Clinton. Do not underestimate the old boys network at work, no matter how much people got caught up in the 11 straight Obama hype.

It's going to get messy, that is for sure. And that's even before you consider potential pressure/controversy/legal wrangling over Michigan and Florida. McCain has got to be laughing right now.

[Jas_lov]

If they redo them, Clinton would be favored in both, although certainly not a shoe-in. She is up by double digits in recent Pennsylvania polling (a state similar to Ohio demographically). If she holds on to win Texas, then the only large state (150+ delegates) that Obama will have won will be his home state of Illinois.

This thing is going all the way to the convention, and it's going to be a blood bath.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

Actually in the most recent Pennsylvania poll, Hillary was only up by 4%. The poll before that she was up by 6%. RCP average has her up 9% so I'm not sure where you got these misleading numbers from. The rcp average is even misleading as 2 of the 4 polls go back to before Obama's sweep on February 19th. Here is a list of the remaining states:

Wyoming
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
Guam
North Carolina
Indiana
West Virginia
Oregon
Kentucky
Montana
South Dakota
Puerto Rico

There's just not enough left for Hillary to win, even with a 10% win in Pennsylvania. Obama will win Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, and who knows about the rest. A 150 delegate deficit is too much to overcome. Hillary Clinton is hanging on with no real shot of winning. She is the new Mike Huckabee.

[Vegas Vic]

Regardless of what happens, the democrats are in some fairly serious trouble heading into the general election. 25% of Clinton's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain, and 10% of Obama's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain. I suspect those numbers will increase with time.

[Jas_lov]

How many McCain supporters say they would seriously consider voting for Obama or Hillary?

[Chief Rum]

How many McCain supporters say they would seriously consider voting for Obama or Hillary?

Seriously? Not many.

I have found that most Republicans I know stick to their party lines through thick and thin.

But then again, why would McCain supporters consider voting for anyone but McCain? :)

[Vegas Vic]

How many McCain supporters say they would seriously consider voting for Obama or Hillary?

It's a different comparison.

25% of Clinton's supporters would seriously consider voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and 10% of Obama's supporters would seriously consider voting for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

[Jas_lov]

Seriously? Not many.

I have found that most Republicans I know stick to their party lines through thick and thin.

But then again, why would McCain supporters consider voting for anyone but McCain? :)

He should have made it more clear or just posted the damn source to his numbers. The Democrats certainly don't benefit by having this drag out for 3 more months. But to say that the Democrats are in serious trouble or that they don't have the advantage in this election is just silly. I think someone earlier today gave a bunch of reasons why. If the Democrats manage to lose this election, they might as well quit all together.

[Vegas Vic]

He should have made it more clear or just posted the damn source to his numbers.

Those numbers were discussed on CNN's election coverage tonight, and the accuracy could certainly be questionable.

As for me, I don't have a dog in the fight. I've voted in every election since 1988, and this is the first time in my life I'll be voting for a republican presidential candidate. I would have voted for Richardson or Biden, but once it came down to Clinton, Obama and McCain, it was a fairly easy choice for me.

[Neon_Chaos]

Those numbers were discussed on CNN's election coverage tonight, and the accuracy could certainly be questionable.

As for me, I don't have a dog in the fight. I've voted in every election since 1988, and this is the first time in my life I'll be voting for a republican presidential candidate. I would have voted for Richardson or Biden, but once it came down to Clinton, Obama and McCain, it was a fairly easy choice for me.

Obama? :D

[Neon_Chaos]

I find it amazing that if Hillary becomes the President, the US will have been under a Clinton or a Bush administration for 6 terms since 1988.

As it is, the US Presidency has been under either clan for the past 20 years!

[SFL Cat]

Wait 'til Jeb runs. :eek:

[Butter]

Regardless of what happens, the democrats are in some fairly serious trouble heading into the general election. 25% of Clinton's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain, and 10% of Obama's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain. I suspect those numbers will increase with time.

Dude, just stop. You're like the Mizzou B-Ball Fan of this thread.

[TroyF]

Dude, just stop. You're like the Mizzou B-Ball Fan of this thread.

Actually, he's right. This is going to end in a bloodbath. Pretty much what I expected to happen, did happen last night. Hillary got Ohio, she edged Texas in a coin flip. She made up about 35 delegates or so depending on how the final numbers turn out.

See my analysis above of how tough it'd have been for Hillary to win if she had taken a +70 delegate advantage. +35? Brutal. But, she's won the big states.

She needs to take 62 to 63% of the remaining vote for the dems now. Yet she's going to spin this off as a victory and bash Obama sensless ahead of PA. She'll probably win PA too. But she has virtually no chance of getting the delegate lead. Neither candidate will have enough delegates to lock the nomination so now it's going to go to the super delegates.

If Obama wins the overall popular vote and delegates (both almost assured) and the super delegates side with Hillary in a back room deal? We don't even have to bother with a GE. McCain will win going away. The dems will spend the next decade rebuilding the damage caused by the disenfranchised voters, especially the african american vote. If Obama gets it at that point? They have a chance, but the Hillary supporters are rabid and it is no slam dunk that they go to Obama. A large percentage of them will defect. Look at Hillary's own message and quotes which have been said about twenty times the last two weeks "If the phone rings at 3AM and I answer it, we're good. If McCain answers it, wer're good. If Obama answers it, I dunno."

If Hillary gets the message through that Obama isn't experienced enough to these people and says that McCain is, what do you think is going to happen in the GE? McCain isn't your typical Bible thumping Republican. The dems bitter "their" candidate lost aren't looking at turning to Bush 3. They are looking at a guy many Reps. dislike because he's so centrist and has went against the party line countless times. If you honestly think there won't be mass defections if this thing gets as bloody as I think it will, you are crazy.

Hillary isn't taking the next 16 states (or MI or FL) at 60-62%. It's simply not going to happen. She has no shot of catching Oboma in the delegate count at this point. She's going to try to rely on back room dealings and the super delegates. As I said above, if she wins, she ensures the dems lose the GE yet again. (just my opinion, I could be wrong)

[Passacaglia]

Did I just hear that no candidate, democrat or republican, has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio in their party's primary. If so, that must bode well for John McCain.

That makes sense -- I'd imagine that most primaries aren't very interesting by this time of year, anyway.

[Buccaneer]

Regardless of what happens, the democrats are in some fairly serious trouble heading into the general election. 25% of Clinton's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain, and 10% of Obama's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain. I suspect those numbers will increase with time.

I have been getting that over the past 2 weeks in reading many of the strident comments made by Clinton supporters to the news blogs. The common theme was that Sexism is trumping Racism in America and they were pissed about that. Despite the still high negatives for the Clintons, there are a statistically siginificant percentage of Clinton supporters (particularly middle/older white women) that will not vote for a black man. Also included would a segment of the Latino population and good percentage of the Asian population. They will tend to stay home instead.

With what you have seen with the Obama surge/coverage, do you believe that there is a great deal of sexist attitudes involved?

[cartman]

No way she picks up 30. At most it'll be half of that. It should shake out pretty close to this:

Ohio: Hillary +10
Rhode Island: Hillary +3
Texas: Hillary +1
Vermont: Obama +3

So that is a net gain of 11.

Looks like I was way off in Texas and Ohio. She's +16 in Ohio and +4 in Texas (primary only, no caucus) (http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_136_state.htm). So net gain of 20.

[ISiddiqui]

Regardless of what happens, the democrats are in some fairly serious trouble heading into the general election. 25% of Clinton's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain, and 10% of Obama's supporters say they would seriously consider voting for McCain. I suspect those numbers will increase with time.

I'm a Clinton supporter and if Obama gets the nod, I'd seriously consider voting McCain (forget seriously consider, I'll most likely do it).

[TroyF]

Looks like I was way off in Texas and Ohio. She's +16 in Ohio and +4 in Texas (primary only, no caucus) (http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_136_state.htm). So net gain of 20.

That'd be complete disaster. Move up the percentages by another one or two now. She has to win at a 64 to 66% clip. Does anyone in their ever lovin minds think Hillary is going to win 16 consecutive states 64 to 36?

If she went +20, it goes from improbable of getting the lead to impossible. It's not happening. The only way she can win now is by back room dealings with the super delegates. If she had any humility at all, she'd get out now. She won't.

[ISiddiqui]

Why not hold out for a deal in a brokered convention (such as giving her Senate Majority Leader) rather than just back out now?

[Surtt]

Why not hold out for a deal in a brokered convention (such as giving her Senate Majority Leader) rather than just back out now?

maybe President of the Senate?

[ISiddiqui]

President Pro Tem has usually very little power and is given to the most senior member of the Majority Party.

[TroyF]

Why not hold out for a deal in a brokered convention (such as giving her Senate Majority Leader) rather than just back out now?

Why not broker the deal NOW if that's what you want to do?

It's funny that yesterday I'm on here stating all of the reasons a fight to the convention are bad: 1) Money, 2) bloodbath not good for the party 3) Reps. have their candidate decided which means a better intrastructure.

Those points were brushed aside by a lot of people. Then I hear one of the democratic leaders on my local news show today and he states that the longer this goes it's bad for the dems because: 1) Money, 2) bloodbath not good for the party, 3) McCain is already working on his intrastructure.

Then he added that the one good thing is that Obama would get a lot of tough questions out of the way now.

I'm happy he found the needle of hope in the haystack of misery at the end, but the end will not justify the means. Her going to convention is going to be brutal for the dems come November.

Here is the thing IS, she doesn't want the dem chair. She wants the presidency and she's going to do whatever it takes to get it. She knows damned well she isn't going to win the delegate count now. She's not getting out because she wants to broker a backroom deal with the superdelegates to beat out Obama. That would be nightmare central for the democratic party. There is a very real chance it would spell the end of the party as we currently see it.

[ISiddiqui]

Well of course she wants the Presidency and will do whatever it takes... but as far as consolation prizes go, she'll get far better ones the more scared Howard Dean gets.

[Malificent]

Why not broker the deal NOW if that's what you want to do?

It's funny that yesterday I'm on here stating all of the reasons a fight to the convention are bad: 1) Money, 2) bloodbath not good for the party 3) Reps. have their candidate decided which means a better intrastructure.

Those points were brushed aside by a lot of people. Then I hear one of the democratic leaders on my local news show today and he states that the longer this goes it's bad for the dems because: 1) Money, 2) bloodbath not good for the party, 3) McCain is already working on his intrastructure.

Then he added that the one good thing is that Obama would get a lot of tough questions out of the way now.

I'm happy he found the needle of hope in the haystack of misery at the end, but the end will not justify the means. Her going to convention is going to be brutal for the dems come November.

Here is the thing IS, she doesn't want the dem chair. She wants the presidency and she's going to do whatever it takes to get it. She knows damned well she isn't going to win the delegate count now. She's not getting out because she wants to broker a backroom deal with the superdelegates to beat out Obama. That would be nightmare central for the democratic party. There is a very real chance it would spell the end of the party as we currently see it.

Why should she back out now? If she goes to the convention and manages to wrangle the nom via back room dealings, she's happy. If she doesn't, but the protracted fight ruins Obama's chances, then in 4 years she can run again, saying "you should've elected me last time." If you're Hillary, and all you care about is winning the Presidency, party be damned, then fighting to the convention is a no lose situation for you.

[cartman]

It appears that Obama is going to offset the delegates gained by Hillary in the Texas primary with a strong showing in the caucus. That would tend to support the theory that there were a lot of crossover voters for Hillary, as these voters more than likely aren't going to return in the evening to attend the caucus.

[mrsimperless]

When will we know the full delegate count?

[chesapeake]

People predicting some kind of "bloodbath" need to relax. You're buying into the media's penchant for hyperventilation. I've been involved in elective politics professionally now for almost 20 years. This primary race doesn't even qualify as rough. The Bush campaign's infamous push-polling in the SC primary in 2000, where they alleged that McCain had an out-of-wedlock black child -- that was rough. Questioning Obama's ability to lead in a crisis is, frankly, a good question to ask. You can be sure McCain will ask it again and again and again and again and again.

Democratic superdelegates will be asking the same question, too. And they should.

[Cringer]

I say they offer Hillary a deal that she fades away into obscurity. :)

I heard a rumor though that if McCain wins he is working out to be adopted by the Bush's or the Clinton's so the royal families can continue. ;)

[SuperGrover]

It appears that Obama is going to offset the delegates gained by Hillary in the Texas primary with a strong showing in the caucus. That would tend to support the theory that there were a lot of crossover voters for Hillary, as these voters more than likely aren't going to return in the evening to attend the caucus.

Not that I have a pony in this fight, but CNN exit poll data indicates that Republicans voted more for Obama. The data could be corrupted of course, but it's a pretty significant edge (7%).

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#TXDEM

[Cringer]

I say people care about polls too much.

A poll on our local paper's website had Ron Paul getting more votes then anyone down here. I was 1 of 264 people down here to vote for him. :D

[TroyF]

Hmmm. I wonder why people don't seem to like Hilary (or the Clintons in general)?

I'll just state for the record that I don't really have a horse in the race at this point. I'll probably vote for McCain in the GE, but honestly, I don't think it matters which of these three get in. I don't think any of them are going to give us some monsterous improvement or catastrophy. I could actually be swayed against McCain fairly easily.

I'm just finding this a fascinating thing to watch. The media is making this seem like it's anyones ballgame now. It isn't. If Hillary didn't gain 70 or more delegates last night, this is over as far as the delegate count in concerned. Over. Done. Finito. She has no chance of winning. Go ahead and revote Michigan and Florida. She's not going to get 60+ percent of the remaining delegates.

So she's staying in the race to try and sway the super delegates and broker a deal of some sort. She has every right to do it. I'm not for an instant saying she doesn't. I'm just wondering why die hard dems aren't coming out more against it. I think the biggest thing is that most them don't understand how delegates work and exactly what she has to do to catch up. If CNN came on tomorrow and said "Hillary needs to take the next 16 states at over 63% to catch Obama in delegates," I think the uproar would be heard around this country.

I'm reading newspaper articles this morning talking about how Hillary has now switched the momentum, how her attacks have worked and are acting as though this is coming back to her somehow. Guess what boys and girls, it isn't. In the delegate battle, she's done. Last night was not a victory for her, it was a complete and total disaster. It was like being down on away goals 4-0 and getting a 1-0 win at home in the second leg. Sorry. You aren't close.

As for her in four years? I think her windown will have closed. This is her chance. She knows she's lost the delegate count. It's all about backroom brokering now.

[cartman]

When will we know the full delegate count?

In Texas, they've counted all of the primary votes. The caucus tally probably won't be final until this evening. Most districts are only between 20 and 40% completed.

http://precinctconventionresults.txdemocrats.org/election08district

[TroyF]

People predicting some kind of "bloodbath" need to relax. You're buying into the media's penchant for hyperventilation. I've been involved in elective politics professionally now for almost 20 years. This primary race doesn't even qualify as rough. The Bush campaign's infamous push-polling in the SC primary in 2000, where they alleged that McCain had an out-of-wedlock black child -- that was rough. Questioning Obama's ability to lead in a crisis is, frankly, a good question to ask. You can be sure McCain will ask it again and again and again and again and again.

Democratic superdelegates will be asking the same question, too. And they should.

20 years? 5 elections? So you've went through the elder Bush election, the Clinton elections and the Bush2 elections?

Hate to break it to you, there hasn't been a battle that went to the convention for awhile now. Actually, the last time was 1976. Reagan and Ford went to the Republican convention with the race still to be decided. Ford won and then lost to Jimmy Carter. Think about that for a second. It's not the only time tight primary races that went to the convention floor has ended up in a loss for the party. Quite the opposite, it's what happen a majority of the time. The party in turmoil gets beat in the general election.


Oh, and if the super delegates give this to Hillary in a back room deal? You really think the African American voter base stays democratic at that point? You think that'd be a good thing for the democratic party? I can assure you it wouldn't end well. It wouldn't end well at all.

But you're the experienced one, you should know that. . .

[Toddzilla]

Right now, things don't look so rosy for the Democrats - no matter who wins the nomination, 49% of the democratic electorate is going to be bitter that their candidate is cooked. Which is sad, since the winner and often even the loser of the democratic primary has been getting more votes than the entire GOP field.

So the two democratic candidates need to start "playing nice" and make it easy for the supporters of the losing candidate to support the winner.

IMO, however, it isn't going to matter, because once the campaign against McCain starts, that guy is history. No way McCain can survive that - there is just way way too much baggage to use against him, as if "100 more years in Iraq" isn't enough by itself.

[SuperGrover]

I say people care about polls too much.

A poll on our local paper's website had Ron Paul getting more votes then anyone down here. I was 1 of 264 people down here to vote for him. :D

That's the thing with politics though. Many on this board are saying the Republicans are voting for Clinton to prolong the race, but the polls show otherwise. However, it will almost certainly be ignored as inaccurate. Funny how that works when the data doesn't support your argument.

Everyone needs to realize that not only can Clinton not win without super delegates, but Obama almost certainly cannot either. Using CNN's Delegate Counter Game, there are 613 unassigned delegates, with Obama having 1321 and Clinton 1186 pledged delegates before factoring the Texas caucus. Assuming a 37-30 caucus win for Obama, that leaves the counts at 1358 and 1216, respectively. By my math, that means neither can win the delegation without superdelegates, and, in fact, neither will be all that close (even at 66% of the remaining delegates for Obama, the total count is 1762 to 1424).

In other words, no matter the outcomes of Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana and Puerto Rico (the 4 largest votes remaining by delegation), the 800 superdelegates WILL decide the Democratic nominee. Consequently, I'm not really understanding why everyone thinks Clinton should bow out. Why shouldn't Obama bow out? Neither is going to win without some type of deal mongering (superdelegates, FL/MI, a brokered settlement).

I agree with many who say the DNC is screwed. You give the election to Obama and you most certainly disenfranchise the Latino vote and possibly FL/MI and white women. You give it to Clinton you lose the black vote and the young vote. It is a lose-lose situation unless one of them gives in and I don't think either will.

[st.cronin]

Anybody pretending this race isn't a nightmare for the Democratic party is either delusional or a spinner.

[TroyF]

Super Grover,

Agreed, but the key at this point is who has more "regular" delegates. Let's face it, the democratic party is the "blue collar" party. The Republicans are supposed to be the ones who disenfranchise voters, make backroom deals and go against the will of the people.

If the super delegates win the election for Hillary after she's lost the regular delegate count by 150 to 200? It's a bigtime nightmare for the party. It's something they can't recover from. I think they could recover if they give it to Obama at that point, especially if Hillary gives a nice concession speech and says it's the best thing for the party.

OK, now I'm the dillusional one. :)

[Butter]

Anybody pretending this race isn't a nightmare for the Democratic party is either delusional or a spinner.

Anyone saying this race is a nightmare for the Democratic party is rubbing their hands together on the sidelines, hoping they will fail anyway.

[TroyF]

Anyone saying this race is a nightmare for the Democratic party is rubbing their hands together on the sidelines, hoping they will fail anyway.

100% false.

Some are, sure. But you don't have to be a democratic hater to see what is happening here. Explain to me why it's a good thing to have a nasty race that encompassing two of your largest favorable voter groups.

You can't. It's not a good thing. If this goes to the convention floor, the dems will lose the race to The White House. Book it now.

[SuperGrover]

Super Grover,

Agreed, but the key at this point is who has more "regular" delegates. Let's face it, the democratic party is the "blue collar" party. The Republicans are supposed to be the ones who disenfranchise voters, make backroom deals and go against the will of the people.

If the super delegates win the election for Hillary after she's lost the regular delegate count by 150 to 200? It's a bigtime nightmare for the party. It's something they can't recover from. I think they could recover if they give it to Obama at that point, especially if Hillary gives a nice concession speech and says it's the best thing for the party.

OK, now I'm the dillusional one. :)

Certainly if one of them concedes gracefully then everything will be fine, but neither is going to concede. They are simply too close for either to give up.

My point is that the prevailing theme on this board is that Clinton should bow out because she can't win the delegate count. Since Obama cannot either, I don't see the point. There is going to be shady politics involved by the nature of the Democratic primary system. You think Clinton supporters are going to sit idly by and acquiesce because Obama 5% more of the regular delegation? You don't think that Latinos are gonna be pissed that their voices weren't heard? What about Florida and Michigan? You don't think there is gonna be disenfranchisement either way?

[SuperGrover]

100% false.

Some are, sure. But you don't have to be a democratic hater to see what is happening here. Explain to me why it's a good thing to have a nasty race that encompassing two of your largest favorable voter groups.

You can't. It's not a good thing. If this goes to the convention floor, the dems will lose the race to The White House. Book it now.

I am a democrat and think this race and the most liberal Republican candidate in years will ultimately cost us the election in November.

[Kodos]

Something tells me that Clinton isn't exactly a "take one for the team" kinda gal.

[Butter]

100% false.

Some are, sure. But you don't have to be a democratic hater to see what is happening here. Explain to me why it's a good thing to have a nasty race that encompassing two of your largest favorable voter groups.

You can't. It's not a good thing. If this goes to the convention floor, the dems will lose the race to The White House. Book it now.

You are assuming it will go to the convention floor. Even if it does, you are assuming the Republicans have a candidate that will be able to capitalize on any possible lingering bad blood. He can't. He is the worst candidate they could possibly have come up with. He is alienating the party loyal, and will be exposed as a panderer on a scale 4x worse than Bill Clinton in the general election.

If the race continues on for a couple more months, Obama and Clinton get a chance to get all of their warts in front of the public months earlier than normal. By November, they will have been forgotten or forgiven. Most Democrats will vote for the party nominee. Self-described independents will continue to not vote, as usual. Meanwhile, nobody will be talking about McCain. Except Fox News and the occasional blurb in mainstream media talking about how he doesn't know who to campaign against yet.

I love it when you get all worked up about something, Troy. You will be in this thread from now until June arguing this point if you had to. Which is fine. But that doesn't make your or my statement of opinion any more "100% false". They are simply 2 competing opinions.

[SuperGrover]

Something tells me that Clinton isn't exactly a "take one for the team" kinda gal.

As someone mentioned before she benefits by fighting to the bitter end. If Obama wins the nomination and loses the General, she can run again in four years and still be a viable candidate (she'd be 64). If he wins the GE, she can know that she gave it her all. if she wins the nomination, she got what she wanted. It's a win-win situation for her personally.

[TroyF]

You are assuming it will go to the convention floor. Even if it does, you are assuming the Republicans have a candidate that will be able to capitalize on any possible lingering bad blood. He can't. He is the worst candidate they could possibly have come up with. He is alienating the party loyal, and will be exposed as a panderer on a scale 4x worse than Bill Clinton in the general election.

If the race continues on for a couple more months, Obama and Clinton get a chance to get all of their warts in front of the public months earlier than normal. By November, they will have been forgotten or forgiven. Most Democrats will vote for the party nominee. Self-described independents will continue to not vote, as usual. Meanwhile, nobody will be talking about McCain. Except Fox News and the occasional blurb in mainstream media talking about how he doesn't know who to campaign against yet.

I love it when you get all worked up about something, Troy. You will be in this thread from now until June arguing this point if you had to. Which is fine. But that doesn't make your or my statement of opinion any more "100% false". They are simply 2 competing opinions.

Actually it is 100% false. Super Grover is a dem and stated he thinks they'll lose because of it. I don't think he's excited to lose the election or see the dems fail. Therefore your assertion in your first post is 100% false.

I like how I get called out for making widespread generalizations in your post, yet you are the one who stated the biggest one.

[rkmsuf]

can something be "100% false"?

I mean it's either true or false.

Unless you are telling me there is such a thing as big and little coincidences as well.

[Butter]

Actually it is 100% false. Super Grover is a dem and stated he thinks they'll lose because of it. I don't think he's excited to lose the election or see the dems fail. Therefore your assertion in your first post is 100% false.

Actually, you're right. That first blanket statement I made is 100% false. I was just trying to out-hyperbole saint cronin.

[Cringer]

I think none of you really know what you are talking about, and you all have a 50-50 chance of being right.

[TroyF]

Certainly if one of them concedes gracefully then everything will be fine, but neither is going to concede. They are simply too close for either to give up.

My point is that the prevailing theme on this board is that Clinton should bow out because she can't win the delegate count. Since Obama cannot either, I don't see the point. There is going to be shady politics involved by the nature of the Democratic primary system. You think Clinton supporters are going to sit idly by and acquiesce because Obama 5% more of the regular delegation? You don't think that Latinos are gonna be pissed that their voices weren't heard? What about Florida and Michigan? You don't think there is gonna be disenfranchisement either way?

1) They should redo Michigan and Florida. It won't matter in the overall delegate count, but they need to do it for those voters. Anything else is a black eye for the democratic party from the word go. The same people who accused the Reps of screwing over Florida in the last two elections are going to do it now? No way. I think they'll have a redo on both of those states.

2) I think Obama is going to get about 55% of the total delegates in the end and carry around 34-36 of the primaries even after MI and FL are added in. That's enough of a majority to give the nod to him. If the back door dealings get done to give Hillary the nomination, I don't think there is any hope of the dems winning the election.


3) If Obama is given it, it's still going to piss people off. I do think more Hillary people will move to Obama than the other way. Just an opinion on that one, but I think he's less divisive and more people will move to him. Then I think the dems have a chance. But I don't think this can go to the floor. If it does (and unless one candidate backs down, it will end up being decided there) will cause a loss for the democratic party.

4) I really don't think Hillary gets it in four years. I think this is her best shot and if she doesn't win here, it's going to have a long term impact on her as a viable candidate down the road.

[Kodos]

I think none of you really know what you are talking about, and you all have a 50-50 chance of being right.


Yes, but there's only a 10% chance of that.

[GrantDawg]

Looks like I was way off in Texas and Ohio. She's +16 in Ohio and +4 in Texas (primary only, no caucus) (http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_136_state.htm). So net gain of 20.


Nope, you weren't. The latest count has her picking up 12, with Obama gettting much of what Clinton gained back from the caucus. So, your less than half of 30 looks to be 100% true.

[cartman]

Now it is looking like Obama will win the delegate count in Texas. He stands to pick up 7 delegates more than Hillary in the caucus, giving him a net gain of 3 in the state.

[JPhillips]

The only thing I agree with Troy on is that a floor fight will be bad for the party. How bad? It's hard to tell. Remember that in 1968 after an assassination, a failed President, and a truly ugly primary and convention, Humphrey only lost the popular vote by less than 1%. A few hundred thousand votes changing in CA and the election would have gone to the House of Representatives.

All the talk of the Democratic Party dissolving is way overblown. Even if McCain wins there will still be pickups in both the House and Senate and a majority of Governors will still have a D. A floor fight will be bad, but I fully expect things to be settled one way or the other by the end of May.

[Honolulu_Blue]

1) They should redo Michigan and Florida. It won't matter in the overall delegate count, but they need to do it for those voters. Anything else is a black eye for the democratic party from the word go. The same people who accused the Reps of screwing over Florida in the last two elections are going to do it now? No way. I think they'll have a redo on both of those states.

For the most part, I agree. Though as a Democrat voting in the state of Michigan, I am not too upset at the whole thing. For whatever reason, I don't feel that terribly disenfranchised by the whole affair. Actually at this point, I have reached campaign fatigue. I am really getting tired of this whole thing and the idea of a "redo" in Michigan is a bit nauseating at the moment.


2) If the back door dealings get done to give Hillary the nomination, I don't think there is any hope of the dems winning the election.

I agree wholeheartedly. If it comes down to the super delegates and they end up, despite the "will of the people of the Democratic party", nominating Hillary over Obama, I think that could be a devastating to the party. I can't imagine they'd be that stupid, though based on how the party's been run the last 8 years or so, I wouldn't put it pass them. I think it would seal the deal for a McCain presidency and disenfranchise a lot of folks, including me most likely.


3) If Obama is given it, it's still going to piss people off. I do think more Hillary people will move to Obama than the other way. Just an opinion on that one, but I think he's less divisive and more people will move to him. Then I think the dems have a chance. But I don't think this can go to the floor. If it does (and unless one candidate backs down, it will end up being decided there) will cause a loss for the democratic party.

I agree, people will be pissed, but the reaction wont be nearly as harsh. Not only is Obama less divisive, but he's sort of the "newcommer" to whole thing and the Clintons are like the royalty of the Democratic insiders.

If Hillary does this, it'll be considered the result of slick, back door dealings with the established liberal elite. If Obama pulls it off, it will be because the Democratic party has sensed the desire for "change" and is moving forward in an exciting, new direction.

[chesapeake]

20 years? 5 elections? So you've went through the elder Bush election, the Clinton elections and the Bush2 elections?

Hate to break it to you, there hasn't been a battle that went to the convention for awhile now. Actually, the last time was 1976. Reagan and Ford went to the Republican convention with the race still to be decided. Ford won and then lost to Jimmy Carter. Think about that for a second. It's not the only time tight primary races that went to the convention floor has ended up in a loss for the party. Quite the opposite, it's what happen a majority of the time. The party in turmoil gets beat in the general election.

Oh, and if the super delegates give this to Hillary in a back room deal? You really think the African American voter base stays democratic at that point? You think that'd be a good thing for the democratic party? I can assure you it wouldn't end well. It wouldn't end well at all.

But you're the experienced one, you should know that. . .

What are you talking about? The word "convention" didn't even appear in my post. If you're going to insult me, at least do me the courtesy of reading my post first.

But since you called me out, let's talk.

Bringing up the 1976 convention is your first mistake. In 1976, brokered conventions were nothing unusual. Barely even half the states had a primary at that time. A huge portion of delegates were either selected at conventions (ala WV GOP today) or by party elders in the back room you worry about so much.

Ford lost that election because his last boss had resigned and because of dissatisfaction among his base because of Viet Nam. The convention had little to do with it. Actually, the 33 point gap after the Dem convention closed a bit after the Republicans held their's.

The back room superdelegate thing is a joke you've bought into. You'd need at least 200 of the remaining unpledged superdelegate Democrats (many of whom are elected and accountable to their constituencies) to 1) get into a room, 2) decide on a course of action, and, 3) go do it. If you had any experience in Democratic politics, you'd know how ridiculous this is. Just accomplishing #1 is would be a herculian effort.

Now if it gets down to a 10-20 superdelegate lift, that might be possible for HRC. Then it would be up to Obama to either take one for the team or blow it all up. But, still, that seems very unlikely.

The point I actually made, which seemed to escape you, is that by any realistic measurement, this is hardly a "bloodbath." The Gantt/Helms campaign I worked on in 1990 -- that was nasty. This primary race is a walk in the park.

[st.cronin]

I agree with chesapeake's point that this has been a fairly civil campaign for the Dems.

[Swaggs]

I don't see the Democratic primary as a negative right now, either. The party has its rules and procedures for its nomination and the media is overplaying its dissatisfaction that it is still going on, rather than wrapped up. I think most normal folks (that are not overly obsessed with politics and are looking on something to have outrage over) recognize that the primary can be/is a process and that process is still not over.

It is certainly nothing approaching a bloodbath at present. In my opinion, this is actually good for Obama. One of my fears over supporting him (I am sort of in a toss-up between Obama and Clinton right now, sort of lightly leaning Obama) is that he will get railroaded by the Republicans while he tries to stay "above the fray." Essentially, will he be the type of candidate that brings a knife to a gunfight. We know that the Clintons know how to and will fight, so this going to either strengthen or expose Obama, in my opinion.

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't see the Democratic primary as a negative right now, either. The party has its rules and procedures for its nomination and the media is overplaying its dissatisfaction that it is still going on, rather than wrapped up. I think most normal folks (that are not overly obsessed with politics and are looking on something to have outrage over) recognize that the primary can be/is a process and that process is still not over.

It is certainly nothing approaching a bloodbath at present. In my opinion, this is actually good for Obama. One of my fears over supporting him (I am sort of in a toss-up between Obama and Clinton right now, sort of lightly leaning Obama) is that he will get railroaded by the Republicans while he tries to stay "above the fray." Essentially, will he be the type of candidate that brings a knife to a gunfight. We know that the Clintons know how to and will fight, so this going to either strengthen or expose Obama, in my opinion.


+1

good points Swaggs

[TroyF]

I agree with chesapeake's point that this has been a fairly civil campaign for the Dems.

It's starting to get more bitter by the day. Look at the ads in Texas and Ohio for proof. Hillary has just started with the attacks. Trust me, it's getting ugly and will end in a bloodbath.

[TroyF]

If there's one thing I've learned on this board, its that Troy loves to argue, the facts be damned.


The only "facts" I've brought up are proven. Anyone can look at the delegate count and anyone can grab a delegate count calculator and figure up what it's going to take for Hillary to overtake Obama. (Hint: it aint happening in terms of the normal delegates, that ship has sailed)

The rest is opinion. That's opinion on both sides, not just me. The people who say this isn't going to be bad for the democratic party are no more right than I am. We are all voicing an opinion based off of history, how we view the current events and what we think will happen in the near future.

Mine may end up being spectacularly wrong. Obviously, I don't think they will or I wouldn't voice them. Doesn't mean I'll be correct. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong either. And as far as facts go, I have my facts straight. If you can find something factually wrong in the numbers I've given, feel free to show where those are and how you came up with them.

If not, it may be time to sit this one out and let the grown ups have a discussion.

[Vegas Vic]

I’m somewhat surprised that so many people think super delegates have some written code that they’re supposed to abide by, such as voting proportionally to the popular vote, or voting for the candidate who won their congressional district. If that was the case, they wouldn’t have created super delegates to begin with. The fact of the matter is that they can vote for whoever the hell they want to. Those are the rules that everyone agreed to participate under.

Is it fair? Who knows? Is it fair to have 1% of the registered voters (with an excess of free time on their hands) pick their state's delegates, instead of opening it up to the entire electorate? Is that an accurate representation of "the people's will"?

[cartman]

It's starting to get more bitter by the day. Look at the ads in Texas and Ohio for proof. Hillary has just started with the attacks. Trust me, it's getting ugly and will end in a bloodbath.

I didn't see or hear any bitter ads from her in Texas

*shurg*

[TroyF]

I don't see the Democratic primary as a negative right now, either. The party has its rules and procedures for its nomination and the media is overplaying its dissatisfaction that it is still going on, rather than wrapped up. I think most normal folks (that are not overly obsessed with politics and are looking on something to have outrage over) recognize that the primary can be/is a process and that process is still not over.

It is certainly nothing approaching a bloodbath at present. In my opinion, this is actually good for Obama. One of my fears over supporting him (I am sort of in a toss-up between Obama and Clinton right now, sort of lightly leaning Obama) is that he will get railroaded by the Republicans while he tries to stay "above the fray." Essentially, will he be the type of candidate that brings a knife to a gunfight. We know that the Clintons know how to and will fight, so this going to either strengthen or expose Obama, in my opinion.

1) I don't think the media is overplaying the dissatisfaction angle. Many of my democratic friends are sitting in either the Hillary camp or the Obama camp and all of them have said it'll be difficult to vote for the other candidate. The people who don't like Hillary, HATE Hillary. I mean, truly despise her. Many of the people who don't like Obama think he's simply not experienced enough to be president. Those people will fly to McCain.

2) I agree with you on Obama geting a challenge. It's good that he's getting a stiff challenge and is having to go into the fray. The problem is he's getting this after he's already all but clinched the delegate battle. If the Super Delegates give this thing to Hillary, it WILL get ugly for the dems. In other words, I wish he'd have had these attacks about a month ago before he started his huge run.

3) My bloodbath comments come from what I see in these next six to eight weeks. (not to mention how this gets when it hits the floor, I believe that's where this will end) Hillary went in complete attack mode this past week and she'll be doing more of it. The 3AM phone ads were powerful and she's going to hammer those home in PA. She isn't going to get NICER now that she's won Texas and Ohio and still not made up any ground in the delegates. She's going to get meaner and nastier before this next two months are over. (especially after she gets hammered in WY and MS, which I think happens over the next week)

All a prediction, nothing more, nothing less. We'll see how it plays out.

[TroyF]

I didn't see or hear any bitter ads from her in Texas

*shurg*

In the 3AM ad and the press conferences around it she stated that both her and McCain had the experience to answer the phone and he didn't. She actually stated that the republican running was better prepared for that eventuality than Obama. You don't think that's nasty or bitter?

[TroyF]

I’m somewhat surprised that so many people think super delegates have some written code that they’re supposed to abide by, such as voting proportionally to the popular vote, or voting for the candidate who won their congressional district. If that was the case, they wouldn’t have created super delegates to begin with. The fact of the matter is that they can vote for whoever the hell they want to. Those are the rules that everyone agreed to participate under.

Is it fair? Who knows? Is it fair to have 1% of the registered voters (with an excess of free time on their hands) pick their state's delegates, instead of opening it up to the entire electorate? Is that an accurate representation of "the people's will"?


Vic,

I'm not saying the super delegates are required to do anything. They aren't. They have the vote and can do whatever they want with it.

I am saying that if they go against the popular vote or the standard delegate count, the Obama voters are going to be majorly aggravated. And that the democratic party will lose a vast majority of those voters. Again, my opinion, nothing more. (I have to keep saying that now so people don't think I'm acting as though I know it all. I don't. This is fun to me and I'm fascinated to see how this plays out)

I don't think the dems have any chance in hell of winning the general election if the Obama voters think Hillary engineered a backroom deal to become the candidate.

[cartman]

In the 3AM ad and the press conferences around it she stated that both her and McCain had the experience to answer the phone and he didn't. She actually stated that the republican running was better prepared for that eventuality than Obama. You don't think that's nasty or bitter?

No, not really. I thought the ad was kind of silly, it really doesn't matter when the call comes in, does it?

[Vegas Vic]

In the 3AM ad and the press conferences around it she stated that both her and McCain had the experience to answer the phone and he didn't. She actually stated that the republican running was better prepared for that eventuality than Obama. You don't think that's nasty or bitter?

No question she's FOS on this issue. She has the same three years of experience that Obama has, compared to McCain's 25 years.

[GrantDawg]

No question she's FOS on this issue. She has the same three years of experience that Obama has, compared to McCain's 25 years.


I'll have to take a shower after this but...

I think the perception that she is playing on by saying she has "more experience" is the eight years she spent in the White House. Remember, many still think of her as the Co-president during her husbands terms, which is where she gets most of her support (IMHO).

[Swaggs]

By the sound of your friends, it sounds as if their minds are made up and the primary process means very little to them. The Democratic primary lasting six or ten weeks longer does not appear as if it will have much of an impact on them. In the end, I suspect the Republican or Democrat candidate that can get the most of these type of folks that are deciding whether it is better to sit it out or hold their nose while voting for someone who is not their ideal candidate but most closely matches their opinions on key issues will probably be our next president. If your friends literally hate Hillary or absolutely think Obama is not qualified to be president, whatever happens in the primary over the next month or two is not likely to have much of an affect on them.

I think you are "handing" the bid to Obama a little bit prematurely (even though I think he will eventually win--both delegate-wise and superdelegate-wise). I get the impression that you do not like the concept of the superdelegates and how they may be swayed and/or won over by the candidates, which I can understand. The race is still very, very close. Still, the DNC set up the (flawed?) system and, if Hillary remains close, why wouldn't she try to appeal to the superdelegates to get them to swing it to her? She obviously thinks she is the best candidate for the job, has been leading/organizing thousands of loyal supporters for nearly a year to try to reach the presidency, and is trying to win the nomination. It would be extremely gracious of her to concede at this point, but there is still some life in her campaign, so I don't mind her continuing on at this point. Again, in the end, I think too many of the superdelegates will be held accountable and, more importantly, I don't think there is any indication that enough super delegates would side with Hillary over Obama (I would suspect it will be pretty close to 50-50 if a deal is not brokered before the convention).

I think Hillary's ads were effective because they raised a legitimate point AND because they coincided with her very effective criticism of the media giving Obama a free pass, which lead the media to consider her point and act (overact?) upon it. The PAC ads in the general election are going to be 100x more cutting and negative than the most negative criticisms we have seen in the Democratic primary. As I mentioned, I think it is going to be good for Obama's campaign for him to take a few shots now to harden him, as well as getting some of his warts out now, rather than closer to election day when they may be impactful. I also think it will force him to sharpen his message on some of the areas where his views are not well known and/or still undefined.

I can understand your vantage point, but I think you are assuming the worst-case scenario much too early. I definitely agree that, should Hillary somehow get a tremendously unbalanced amount of the super delegates to swing things to her after Obama has won a majority of the states and their delegates, then the Democratic party will suffer major damage--most notably disenfranchising a lot of African-American voters that have traditionally been very loyal to the party (which would change the face of the party significantly). But, I honestly think too many of the superdelegates will be held accountable and that their voting will likely reflect that of the actual voters (where it will be very close to 50-50).

1) I don't think the media is overplaying the dissatisfaction angle. Many of my democratic friends are sitting in either the Hillary camp or the Obama camp and all of them have said it'll be difficult to vote for the other candidate. The people who don't like Hillary, HATE Hillary. I mean, truly despise her. Many of the people who don't like Obama think he's simply not experienced enough to be president. Those people will fly to McCain.

2) I agree with you on Obama geting a challenge. It's good that he's getting a stiff challenge and is having to go into the fray. The problem is he's getting this after he's already all but clinched the delegate battle. If the Super Delegates give this thing to Hillary, it WILL get ugly for the dems. In other words, I wish he'd have had these attacks about a month ago before he started his huge run.

3) My bloodbath comments come from what I see in these next six to eight weeks. (not to mention how this gets when it hits the floor, I believe that's where this will end) Hillary went in complete attack mode this past week and she'll be doing more of it. The 3AM phone ads were powerful and she's going to hammer those home in PA. She isn't going to get NICER now that she's won Texas and Ohio and still not made up any ground in the delegates. She's going to get meaner and nastier before this next two months are over. (especially after she gets hammered in WY and MS, which I think happens over the next week)

All a prediction, nothing more, nothing less. We'll see how it plays out.

[CamEdwards]

You're right, it was a cheap shot, and I shouldn't have made it.

However, your characterization of the primary as "getting ugly" is what I, along with others here, don't agree with. Whether that's fact or opinion I would say is debatable, I suppose.

Perhaps I should have said "... a reasonable characterization of the facts be damned."


Yes, Hilary is going after Obama. That's going to happen. I don't think she's doing it in a nasty or ugly way. As others have said, she asking real questions that Obama needs to be comfortable answering. She's not swiftboatting him, or talking about an affair he's had. Perhaps it has the potential to get nasty - I've heard some things went down in Ohio - but I don't forsee things going that way. I don't feel we're headed down that road, or there is any reasonable fact-based reason to see it that way.


Did you not hear the audio of the conference call from Team Hillary last night? The one where the Obama campaign jumped in? Hell, the fact that Obama called McCain last night and said he was looking forward to the general election in the fall (and then let the media know about it). That's a nasty little dig at Hillary.

[Vegas Vic]

I have a question for those of you who are outraged over the super delegate process.

Where is your outrage over Iowa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska, Nevada, Washington, Maine and Hawaii holding caucus systems that tend to favor affluent people with a lot of free time on their hands, and where in some states 1% of the party’s registered voters select the state’s delegates. How is that any different than some of the “banana republics” that we sit back and excoriate? So, where is your outrage over suppressing the will of the people in those states that don’t hold primaries?

Also, where is your outrage in disenfranchising millions of voters in Michigan and Florida, who will have no say in their party’s nominee?

Or is your outrage selective, depending on whether or not your candidate benefits in these situations?

[JPhillips]

You can't put the caucus system and the FL/MI issue in the same basket. The key is, what were the agreed upon rules? Both Obama and Clinton agreed to abide by the decision of the DNC to withhold those delegates because of conflicts with the primary schedule. Clinton and the pols from MI and FL don't have a right to change the rules that were agreed to by the Dem candidates.

The super delegates were also agreed to by both candidates, so I don't really think any decision would be "unfair" The key for me is who is the strongest general election candidate. At this point it seems that Obama is stronger than Clinton. If that changes, so be it, but I would not want the super delegates to put the weaker of the two candidates on the general election ballot.

If you want to start a big change in voting in the U.S. I'm all for it. We need extended early voting, mandatory time off for voting, mail-in voting, etc. to open the process to as many people as possible. Both at the primary and general election level things are completely screwed up.

[cartman]

I'm confused about your statements, VV, regarding outrage over the super delegates. I'm just not seeing a whole lot of that in this thread. It seems you are arguing a point that people aren't making.

As for Michigan and Florida, they decided to not follow their agreed upon rules, and they knew the potential consequences of their decision. That is why their delegates are not eligible as it stands now to be recognized at the convention. There was almost no campaigning done in those two states, and most candidates didn't even bother to go through the motions to get themselves on the ballot there, when it was known way in advance that the delegates wouldn't count. There's no disenfranchising going on there. People knew going in that their votes for delegates wouldn't be considered valid by the party. If the voters of that state are upset, it should be at their state bosses, who made the decision.

[Greyroofoo]

...or the Democratic party and their asinine rules

[Vegas Vic]

I'm confused about your statements, VV, regarding outrage over the super delegates. I'm just not seeing a whole lot of that in this thread. It seems you are arguing a point that people aren't making.

Your point is well taken, and I suppose it was more of a rhetorical question as it pertains to the posters in this thread. However, there seems to be a growing outrage within the democratic party (mostly from Obama's supporters) over the role of the super delegates, yet they seem to be just fine with the "banana republic" caucus system that they have immensely profited from.

In the states that have had primaries, where all registered democrats were free to vote, Clinton has 1052 elected delegates to Obama's 1049. It's somewhat ironic that Obama's huge advantage with African-American voters hasn't given him the overall delegate lead, but rather it's the lopsided scores he's racked up in the caucus states, where as I mentioned are sometimes representative of only 1% of the registered voters.

[TroyF]

I am not outraged in the least by the super delegate process. I think the super delegates should do their job. Pick the person they think will win in November.

That said, if you think the Obama supporters are just going to meekly zip their lips and follow Hillary to the general election if they have a 5 to 10% lead in the regular delegates, you are kidding yourself.

That's the point I'm trying to make. The die hard Obama voters are going to feel betrayed by the democratic party if it goes that way. (and that is the ONLY way Hillary can win. Again, I don't give a damn about MI and FL, hell add a state or two more to that if you want, Hillary is not going to catch Obama in the regular delegates, she's not beating him 65-35 in every state the rest of the way, that's a pipe dream that isn't happening)

By contrast the Hillary supporters can do like VV did. Point out the advantage in the caucases and point out the victories in the big states, as well as the critical states for the election like Ohio.

It keeps coming down to the same thing: The loser's support base is not going blindly to the winners support base. Quite the opposite, they have a nice liberal leaning (R) waiting to grab their votes. The die hard Republicans? A percentage will go for Obama simply because they are sucked in by his speeches and the promise of change. Are any of them going over if Hillary is the nominee? Hell no.

It's nice that we can have a civil discussion about the issues and all hold our hands up in the air and say "that's the rules, Hillary won this thing fair and square with the super delegates" I don't think that's what the general population is going to be saying. I'll be honest here, if that happens it wouldn't shock me if there were riots outside of The Pepsi Center in late August.

Before anyone slams me, I'm not saying that in terms of race. Obama has the support of most of the young voters. He dominates that age bracket. Some of these people think he could put on a cape and fly if he wanted to. (I know most people here know somebody like that, don't lie) If they feel Hillary won with the backroom dealing of superdelegates? I don't think it ends well. I also don't think the GE ends well for the dems.

I've stated it repeatedly here and there is nothing to do now but watch how it turns out, but I can say I think if:

1) this goes to the floor
2) Hillary wins by super delegates (the only way she can)

That the dems have a 0.000001% chance in the GE. I think she'll get slaughtered.

[Vegas Vic]

Quite the opposite, they have a nice liberal leaning (R) waiting to grab their votes. The die hard Republicans? A percentage will go for Obama simply because they are sucked in by his speeches and the promise of change. Are any of them going over if Hillary is the nominee? Hell no.

I think you're extrapolating a bit too much from the democratic primaries when it comes to Obama's potential defectors from republican voters. He has been somewhat shielded during the early primaries by his great eloquence and ability to avoid specifics pertaining to his voting record and stand on the issues. This won't be the case during the general election. The American electorate tends to be center/right, and Obama's voting record isn't going to play very well in the battleground states (where he has to win those center/right voters to have any chance). The same goes for Clinton if she somehow manages to get the nomination.

Say what you want to about Bill Clinton, but he actually had a track record as a centrist before he was elected president. Hillary and Obama's voting records in the senate are virtually identical to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. I don't think some of you guys realize what a huge deal this is going to be during the general election campaign.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

In the 3AM ad and the press conferences around it she stated that both her and McCain had the experience to answer the phone and he didn't. She actually stated that the republican running was better prepared for that eventuality than Obama. You don't think that's nasty or bitter?

I'm pulling for Obama, but I don't see that ad as nasty or bitter.

But I like the jokes from it better. Like when she picks up the phone, and the person at the other end says, "Can I speak to Bill?" or is she all that good when it takes 7 rings before she answers it.

[BishopMVP]

Yes, Hilary is going after Obama. That's going to happen. I don't think she's doing it in a nasty or ugly way. As others have said, she asking real questions that Obama needs to be comfortable answering. She's not swiftboatting him, or talking about an affair he's had.The Rezko thing could be huge. Is the trial supposed to play out before the convention?

[Butter]

Say what you want to about Bill Clinton, but he actually had a track record as a centrist before he was elected president. Hillary and Obama's voting records in the senate are virtually identical to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. I don't think some of you guys realize what a huge deal this is going to be during the general election campaign.

"Senator McCain, you supported the surge...."

Good night, game over. Thanks for playing.

[sterlingice]

Say what you want to about Bill Clinton, but he actually had a track record as a centrist before he was elected president. Hillary and Obama's voting records in the senate are virtually identical to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. I don't think some of you guys realize what a huge deal this is going to be during the general election campaign.

As an aside, I like how
A) every Democrat that you can pick out "has a voting record identical to (implied Superliberal dig) Ted Kennedy
B) Because John Kerry ran in 2004, he is now always the second one in that statement
C) In general, everyone in both parties, save about 10, have "nearly identical records" since everyone votes with their parties, but you never hear "But X is a dirty Conservative just like Sam Brownback" or anything like that

SI

[TroyF]

I think you're extrapolating a bit too much from the democratic primaries when it comes to Obama's potential defectors from republican voters. He has been somewhat shielded during the early primaries by his great eloquence and ability to avoid specifics pertaining to his voting record and stand on the issues. This won't be the case during the general election. The American electorate tends to be center/right, and Obama's voting record isn't going to play very well in the battleground states (where he has to win those center/right voters to have any chance). The same goes for Clinton if she somehow manages to get the nomination.

Say what you want to about Bill Clinton, but he actually had a track record as a centrist before he was elected president. Hillary and Obama's voting records in the senate are virtually identical to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. I don't think some of you guys realize what a huge deal this is going to be during the general election campaign.

I do know how big of a deal it's going to be. Which is why I'm saying the dems need all of their resources (money) and all of their intrastructure (people on the ground running) and all of their parties key dynamics (Latinos, women, african americans) fully backing the candidate they choose.

It's the entire basis for what I've been saying here. This fight is going to get uglier and it's going to split the party in two. It's also going to allow McCain to store money in the coffers and get his intrastructure lined up long before the dems will be even thinking about that. The dems are already in a tough race. They can't afford what is happening right now and the longer it plays out the worse it gets.

[Cringer]

"Senator McCain, you want to stay in Iraq for a hundred years...."

Good night, game over. Thanks for playing.

Fixed. :)

[cartman]

Also lost in the discussion about the Florida and Michigan primaries is that it wasn't only the Democrats that meted out punishment. The Republicans also are going to penalize each state half their delegates for the same early primary decision.

[JPhillips]

Troy: Money and infrastructure won't play into this. The Dem candidate will have plenty of money and the infrastructure in the swing states in particular is already much stronger than 2004 due to these primaries. Look at the turnout for these primaries. The candidates have done a great job of building the party and Dean's 50 state strategy has been paying dividends.

I guarantee that if this primary is determined before the convention the party will be fine. Even if it goes to the floor the idea that the party will irreparably split is as silly as thinking McCain will destroy the Republicans. People will scream and shout for a while and then things will go back to normal.

Vic: Polls don't match up with what you're saying. Look at the latest Kansas poll where McCain still wins, but Obama takes a huge chunk of the independents, more tan making up for the slightly lower percentage of Dems he gets compared to Clinton. A lot of state right now are showing similar numbers. If Obama is the nominee McCain loses more independents than he gains Democrats.

[albionmoonlight]

Clinton will go negative. A negative campaign hurts Obama much more than it hurts her. And negative campaigns work. (I know that you personally never fall for them. But they still work. Funny that.)

Will he still win? Probably. But not definitely. And in any event it is good practice for him. Clinton is pulling out all the tricks that the GOP will against him: claiming media bias until people start to beleive it; using surrogates to sling the dirtiest mud; repeating hard-to-dispute claims (she has more relevant experience than he does) over and over and over until people accept them as axiomatic.

Better Obama figure out how to deal with these things now than while he is running in the general.

And, of course, if he really does wilt under the pressure, then Clinton can still become the nominee. And we will all look back longingly at 2004 when the election was not so soul-draining and polarizing.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--in case it is not clear the "you personally" refers to any reader of the post above. I'm not picking on any one person.

[Jas_lov]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/05/clay_confirms_obama_has_50_new_superdelegates.html

Rep. Lacy Clay, Obama's MO Co-chairman, says Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided superdelegates later this week.

New ABC/Wash. Post GE Poll:

Hillary 50 McCain 47

Obama 53 McCain 42

[albionmoonlight]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/05/clay_confirms_obama_has_50_new_superdelegates.html

Rep. Lacy Clay, Obama's MO Co-chairman, says Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided superdelegates later this week.

New ABC/Wash. Post GE Poll:

Hillary 50 McCain 47

Obama 53 McCain 42

If he really does have 50 waiting in the wings, they should wait and announce after Mississippi/Wyoming. That would make those states seem more important.

Clinton has done a wonderful job of declaring which states matter and which ones don't. "Of course, we all knew that Obama was going to win Wyoming and Mississippi. So that's not relevant. We need to keep the eye on the battle that matters--Pennsylvania."

Her dismissal of states where Obama is strong is picked up eagerly by the media and pundits, not because they want her to win, but because a competive race is more compelling than an anticipated blowout. Football writers spill a lot more ink over Flordia/UGA than they do over Florida/Deleware State. The size of a blowout win is much less interesting than the result of a close game.

So, I think that Obama needs to provide people with reasons to care about his blowout wins.

[Vegas Vic]

Vic: Polls don't match up with what you're saying.

I don't pay much attention to the general election polls until late in the summer. In the spring, they aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. I've learned that over my voting career; otherwise, I'd be reminiscing over President Mondale, President Dukakis, President Perot, President Dole, President Gore and President Kerry.

The polls will look markedly different in September than they do now.

[CamEdwards]

Besides VV's points about polls not really mattering that much this early out, there's another reason to take that WaPo poll with a gigantic grain of salt.

From The Campaign Spot (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NGRkZmY3OTIzYjM4ZTU5YWE1MjA5ZTEyZDEyZjlhNjA=)

Fifteen percent of the sample is not registered to vote. Also note that the sample is 55 percent Democrat, 36 percent Republican, 7 percent Independent.

[JPhillips]

There's more polls than that WaPo one that show Obama makes up any losses in Dems with big pickups in Independents. While the polls don't guarantee anything, they certainly do put to bed the idea that McCain is guaranteed to win. There's no way to argue that with any data. It's just a way for supporters of McCain to cheerlead.

[CamEdwards]

I don't think too many serious political analysts would guarantee a win by any of the three candidates at this point. And frankly, how the mainstream media has viewed Obama will almost certainly change between now and November. I think we're already starting to see some of the frustration of Chicago-area reporters re: the Rezko connection. If Obama decides to pull too many "C'mon guys, I answered like eight questions" press conferences with national reporters, the honeymoon period will be over fairly quickly.

[JPhillips]

dola

The raw numbers don't mean much, but I bet the McCain folks do see a worrying trend.

2/1 M 46 O 49 with a 53/37 Dem - Rep split
3/2 M 40 O 52 with a 55/36 split

The split is also interesting if you dig into the numbers. The party identification is 40/28 with 28 percent independents. When independents are forced to choose the split goes to 55/36. So the question is whether this is some sort of media bias or a danger sign for Republicans that as it stands independents break heavily to the Democrats?

[JPhillips]

Cam: I agree Obama's response needs work. He simply got killed in the last 72 hours before OH/TX. As someone on CNN said, he showed he can take a bunch, but he hasn't shown he can throw one. The Rezko thing I don't think will be a big issue come November. I'm more worried about his inability to handle Clinton's experience charges and the the Canada/NAFTA flap.

McCain, though, has a very similar problem. His response to the revelations about Hagee and his performance next to Bush were pretty bad. The general may turn into a contest over who can finally figure out how to go on the offensive.

[QuikSand]

I don't think some of you guys realize what a huge deal this is going to be during the general election campaign.

Despite your hammering this point over and over, I'm not persuaded that it isn't basically already factored into most everyone's perception of a general election.
Pretty much no matter who the Democrat nominee is or could be, there will be some analysis, or something, by someone, at some point, that says that he or she is a filthy left-leaning liberal. And that report will be used by countless GOP pundits and pollsters and operatives during the campaign in all forms and fashions. That just seems like a given.

I happen to agree with you that the current polls vastly understate the likelihood of a McCain victory come November. But I disagree that this is essentially because there's some huge shoe left to be dropped on a matter like this. Republicans play to the middle by calling Democrats liberals. That's just how the game is played, it has basically dissolved into the fabric of a general campaign, it won't take anyone by surprise.

[JPhillips]

I'd take QS a step further. The crazy liberal charge needs some sort of evidence to stick. That's where Obama's inexperience in the Senate plays in his favor. He doesn't have the long voting record that kills most Senator candidates because of the ease of which it can be distorted. It was easy to beat up Kerry because of his long record of Senate votes. Obama doesn't have that baggage and the votes he does have are pretty innocuous as the Senate has been at an almost standstill for most of his term.

[Vegas Vic]

Despite your hammering this point over and over, I'm not persuaded that it isn't basically already factored into most everyone's perception of a general election.

I respectfully disagree.

In the early general election polls, many of those polled don't know anything about the candidates' voting records or their stand on the issues. This has been the case in almost every modern presidential election, and it seems to be the case in 2008. I guess we'll see when we compare the post Labor Day polls to the current polls.

[chesapeake]

By the sound of your friends, it sounds as if their minds are made up and the primary process means very little to them. The Democratic primary lasting six or ten weeks longer does not appear as if it will have much of an impact on them. In the end, I suspect the Republican or Democrat candidate that can get the most of these type of folks that are deciding whether it is better to sit it out or hold their nose while voting for someone who is not their ideal candidate but most closely matches their opinions on key issues will probably be our next president. If your friends literally hate Hillary or absolutely think Obama is not qualified to be president, whatever happens in the primary over the next month or two is not likely to have much of an affect on them.

I think you are "handing" the bid to Obama a little bit prematurely (even though I think he will eventually win--both delegate-wise and superdelegate-wise). I get the impression that you do not like the concept of the superdelegates and how they may be swayed and/or won over by the candidates, which I can understand. The race is still very, very close. Still, the DNC set up the (flawed?) system and, if Hillary remains close, why wouldn't she try to appeal to the superdelegates to get them to swing it to her? She obviously thinks she is the best candidate for the job, has been leading/organizing thousands of loyal supporters for nearly a year to try to reach the presidency, and is trying to win the nomination. It would be extremely gracious of her to concede at this point, but there is still some life in her campaign, so I don't mind her continuing on at this point. Again, in the end, I think too many of the superdelegates will be held accountable and, more importantly, I don't think there is any indication that enough super delegates would side with Hillary over Obama (I would suspect it will be pretty close to 50-50 if a deal is not brokered before the convention).

I think Hillary's ads were effective because they raised a legitimate point AND because they coincided with her very effective criticism of the media giving Obama a free pass, which lead the media to consider her point and act (overact?) upon it. The PAC ads in the general election are going to be 100x more cutting and negative than the most negative criticisms we have seen in the Democratic primary. As I mentioned, I think it is going to be good for Obama's campaign for him to take a few shots now to harden him, as well as getting some of his warts out now, rather than closer to election day when they may be impactful. I also think it will force him to sharpen his message on some of the areas where his views are not well known and/or still undefined.

I can understand your vantage point, but I think you are assuming the worst-case scenario much too early. I definitely agree that, should Hillary somehow get a tremendously unbalanced amount of the super delegates to swing things to her after Obama has won a majority of the states and their delegates, then the Democratic party will suffer major damage--most notably disenfranchising a lot of African-American voters that have traditionally been very loyal to the party (which would change the face of the party significantly). But, I honestly think too many of the superdelegates will be held accountable and that their voting will likely reflect that of the actual voters (where it will be very close to 50-50).

I wanted to quote this in its entirety because I think it is articulate and, in my opinion, very accurate.

If I may add something regarding superdelegates -- the pressure on Clinton's declared superdelegates prior to last Tuesday to switch to Obama was enormous. The pressure to switch the other way was non-existant. If TroyF's doomsday scenario comes to pass, where Obama wins a majority of pledged delegates but has not secured enough superdelegates to win, what I witnessed in the last couple weeks will be modest compared to what Clinton's and undecided SDs will face from their constituencies. Even exceptional politicians like the Clintons will be hard pressed to make headway against that.

[CamEdwards]

I'd take QS a step further. The crazy liberal charge needs some sort of evidence to stick. That's where Obama's inexperience in the Senate plays in his favor. He doesn't have the long voting record that kills most Senator candidates because of the ease of which it can be distorted. It was easy to beat up Kerry because of his long record of Senate votes. Obama doesn't have that baggage and the votes he does have are pretty innocuous as the Senate has been at an almost standstill for most of his term.

Ah, another place where I'd disagree. Obama's a product of Chicagoland politics, which as we've seen can pose some problems because of who you associate with. Rezko's gotten some attention. Obama's connection with Bill Ayers has been largely brushed off, but frankly, so has much of Ayers' background.

If I'm John McCain, at some point I take a look at all of the nanny-state measures that Chicago has passed over the past few years. Foie-gras bans, bans on free newspapers, smoking bans, bans on trans-fats, bans on street performers, (not to mention the ban on handguns that's been in place since 1982).

As a state senator, did Barack Obama have much to do with these? Nope. But as a resident of Chicago, what did he have to say? Did he complain? Did he talk to his Alderman buddies? What did he have to say about these invasive policies enacted by the city?

Now it could be that most Americans will look at these things and shrug their shoulders. But I'm guessing there are a lot of moderate Democrats and Republicans who see these as paper-cut infringements on rights and will be bothered by the fact that this is the political culture that bred Obama.

And then there are the votes Obama cast in the State Senate as well. Heck, there he faces two problems. Not only did he cast votes on issues, there were a number of times where Obama voted "present" instead of taking a side, including on issues like more jail time for criminals who shoot a gun near a school.

Certainly there are more votes in McCain's past than in Obama's. But McCain might be helped a bit by his "maverick" persona. I mean, McCain has been cast as the guy that many conservatives don't particularly like. He hasn't always voted the conservative position. Obama's persona, on the other hand, is one of pope-like infallibility. The voters already know McCain's a politician. It's Obama that they're treating like a religious figure, and when they are exposed to votes or positions that they disagree with, I'd argue their disappointment is going to me much greater than the disappointment they'll feel when they disagree with McCain.

[Vegas Vic]

As an aside, I like how
A) every Democrat that you can pick out "has a voting record identical to (implied Superliberal dig) Ted Kennedy


No, they couldn't pin that on Bill Clinton, because he actually had a track record as a centrist governor in Arkansas, with tax cuts and welfare reform. They wouldn't have been able to pin the "Ted Kennedy" label on Bill Richardson this year, but he never got out of single digits in the democratic primary.

[Young Drachma]

Wow, I'm amazed at the fact that the Clintons and Obama are descending upon Wyoming a week after I leave the state. Too funny. It won't matter, obviously. Wyoming is blood red. But hey...the state never gets any positive spin, so I suppose it'll be a day in the light for Wyomingites. All 10 Democrats o' them.

[CamEdwards]

You left Wyoming, DC? Where'd you move to?

[BishopMVP]

US News' Ken Walsh (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/03/06/exclusive-interview-clinton-looks-ahead-to-mississippi.html) asked Hillary Clinton about the possibility of "do overs" in Michigan and Florida. Clinton responded:
I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.Oh my."Senator McCain, you supported the surge...."

Good night, game over. Thanks for playing.Except that opinion on the war is changing back. Not the decision to go to war, which is still very unpopular, but whether to pull out or not. It's now basically a dead heat between pull out and stay in. While in reality the reduction in violence IMO has little to do with the surge, politically the surge is getting credit for a success.
I happen to agree with you that the current polls vastly understate the likelihood of a McCain victory come November.Even including the flawed WaPo poll where it was 60% Democratic, McCain is in a dead heat with Clinton at worst in the polls right now. Obama holds about a 5% lead on average. I don't think the polls are down playing the possibility of McCain winning as much as the pundits are.

[QuikSand]

In the early general election polls, many of those polled don't know anything about the candidates' voting records or their stand on the issues.

And the sort of shitslinging we have every reason to expect will occur during the general election will actually make people more informed about actual voting records or actual positions? Again, I also disagree with you here in the sense that there will suddenly be a newly well-informed electorate showing up at the polls come November.

I do not disagree with you, by the way, about this being a close election. I recently bought shares of a GOP win at 36 cents on the dollar, and felt like I was stealing money.

[Vegas Vic]

Wow, I'm amazed at the fact that the Clintons and Obama are descending upon Wyoming a week after I leave the state. Too funny. It won't matter, obviously. Wyoming is blood red. But hey...the state never gets any positive spin, so I suppose it'll be a day in the light for Wyomingites. All 10 Democrats o' them.

Not to mention it's another caucus state.

Another example of democracy in action, where probably less than 10,000 of Wyoming's 59,000 registered democrats will determine the delegate allocation, and the winner will proudly proclaim, "See, I can run well in a red state."

[Young Drachma]

Not to mention it's another caucus state.

Another example of democracy in action, where probably less than 10,000 of Wyoming's 59,000 registered democrats will determine the delegate allocation, and the winner will proudly proclaim, "See, I can run well in a red state."

This isn't a new system. It's been this way for a while now. Yes, Obama seems to be benefitting from it. But in terms of absurdities, it's hardly the most major of the American electoral process. If parties wanted to make prospective candidates wrestle a steer and call that the nomination process, that would be there business. Parties can conduct their private matters however they choose.

Unless you're a lifelong Democrat on the front lines and feel as if somehow this process offends you majorly, because your voice isn't being heard (and I can't see how, since these are the rules that have been in place for some time now) your gripe isn't well taken here.

[Young Drachma]

You left Wyoming, DC? Where'd you move to?I started a new job in Illinois this week.

Hillary (http://www.lccc.wy.edu/index.aspx?recordid=254&page=277) is conducting a town hall meeting in Cheyenne tomorrow where I used to work. The multipurpose room there holds about 1,600 people and the gym holds about 800. I'm curious mostly to hear the questions and to find out if the sense is the people they have in the audience were planted as has been accused in the past. I'll be able to find that out directly.

UW (http://www.uwyo.edu/news/showrelease.asp?id=21080) is hosting Obama tomorrow night in Laramie. I do love how they had to mention at the end of their little note telling people he'll be there that "this is not an endorsement by UW". Probably because the alumni have been calling in like crazy to complain about all of these Dems showing up to true-Red Wyoming.

I think that's pretty funny.

[JPhillips]

Oh my.[/INDENT]Except that opinion on the war is changing back. Not the decision to go to war, which is still very unpopular, but whether to pull out or not. It's now basically a dead heat between pull out and stay in. While in reality the reduction in violence IMO has little to do with the surge, politically the surge is getting credit for a success.
Even including the flawed WaPo poll where it was 60% Democratic, McCain is in a dead heat with Clinton at worst in the polls right now. Obama holds about a 5% lead on average. I don't think the polls are down playing the possibility of McCain winning as much as the pundits are.

Wording matters a lot in those polls on Iraq. If the decision is leave ASAP or stay until Iraq is stabilized you get a close to even split like the Pew poll in late February.

If you have leave now, leave within a year and stay as long as it takes over sixty percent is in the leave now or within a year groups like the LATimes/Bloomberg poll in late January.

If you just have approve/disapprove the split against is 2-1 like the CBS poll in late February.

As for the WaPo poll the actual split is 40/28/28. It gets to 55/36when independents are forced to choose, but that's what happens when independents prefer one party to another. Right now you won't find anything close to an even split if independents are forced to choose. Regardless, the 60% number is bogus.

[BishopMVP]

Wording matters a lot in those polls on Iraq. If the decision is leave ASAP or stay until Iraq is stabilized you get a close to even split like the Pew poll in late February.

If you have leave now, leave within a year and stay as long as it takes over sixty percent is in the leave now or within a year groups like the LATimes/Bloomberg poll in late January.

If you just have approve/disapprove the split against is 2-1 like the CBS poll in late February.

As for the WaPo poll the actual split is 40/28/28. It gets to 55/36when independents are forced to choose, but that's what happens when independents prefer one party to another. Right now you won't find anything close to an even split if independents are forced to choose. Regardless, the 60% number is bogus.I disregard the independents, so you have 40/68% are Democrats... which is 58.8 to 41.1%. That's a really wide split for a supposedly non-partisan poll. But if you want to argue that 59/41 or 55/36 isn't 60%, sure.

The polling the wording clearly matters, but regardless which poll you're using there has been a trend back to support for American troops in Iraq. And given that al-Sadr just agreed to extend his cease-fire for another 6 months, violence should stay low through at least September. It's not the slam-dunk issue in favor of the Democrats it was last year.

[Vegas Vic]

I think it’s kind of funny watching Florida republican governor Charlie Crist suddenly getting proactive and feigning indignation over the Florida delegates getting shut out of the convention, when after all, he was responsible for getting the primary moved up in the first place.

Of course, he knows that stirring this up now will prolong the chaos in the democratic party and help McCain.

[Big Fo]

Yeah it's disingenuous but the wise thing for Crist to do. Obama should offer to have his supporters fund a caucus.

[JPhillips]

Bishop: You can't disregard independents and then claim bias. On Iraq, you're right that it isn't the issue it was a year ago, but people still don't want a permanent presence in Iraq.

[TroyF]

This isn't a new system. It's been this way for a while now. Yes, Obama seems to be benefitting from it. But in terms of absurdities, it's hardly the most major of the American electoral process. If parties wanted to make prospective candidates wrestle a steer and call that the nomination process, that would be there business. Parties can conduct their private matters however they choose.

Unless you're a lifelong Democrat on the front lines and feel as if somehow this process offends you majorly, because your voice isn't being heard (and I can't see how, since these are the rules that have been in place for some time now) your gripe isn't well taken here.

I think Obama still has a 600,000 lead in the overall popular vote as well. (at least the last numbers I looked at show this)

It's not likely at all that Obama catches Hillary in the overall vote. It's essentially over in her catching him with the delegate vote. (hxxp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751)

From what I'm seeing, I think it is going to be at a minimum of a 125 delegate lead for Obama before the uncommited supers come in. There are currently about 330 super delegates who are uncommited.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the math is going to work for her here. She'd have to get virtually all of the uncommited supers or steal a bunch of Obama's pledged ones. That'll do just what I said it would, it'd split the party in two and McCain would walk in with little trouble. But it isn't happening. Obama will get the nomination. The only questions left for me are:

1) How long does Hillary fight this
2) How nasty does she get doing it
3) Depending on how long this goes, how will Hillary's voters vote in the GE
4) Will Obama stick out an olive branch and offer her the VP and give her an out before she makes herself look completely psychotic.

[bronconick]

All she's going to do now is fling shit at him and hope enough of it sticks that he's unelectable by Denver and the superdelegates go to her because they have no other option. It's almost crazy because I'd wager that she has more skeletons in the closet.

It'll be interesting to see a) How effective it is, b) how well Obama fights back and c) how long she's allowed to go before the party shuts it down, or even if they do.

[Vegas Vic]

Yeah it's disingenuous but the wise thing for Crist to do. Obama should offer to have his supporters fund a caucus.

I think you're on to something there.

Round up 20,000 Floridians to caucus and legitimize their state delegation, thus ending the controversy. It must be a caucus, though, as letting all registered Florida democrats vote in a primary would give Clinton an unfair advantage.

[cartman]

I think you're on to something there.

Round up 20,000 Floridians to caucus and legitimize their state delegation, thus ending the controversy. It must be a caucus, though, as letting all registered Florida democrats vote in a primary would give Clinton an unfair advantage.

Not sure what the laws are in Florida, but in Texas, if a party gets more than 20% of the vote in the previous gubernatorial or presidential election (among a couple of other qualifiers), that party must hold a primary for the next presidential election.

[TroyF]

I think you're on to something there.

Round up 20,000 Floridians to caucus and legitimize their state delegation, thus ending the controversy. It must be a caucus, though, as letting all registered Florida democrats vote in a primary would give Clinton an unfair advantage.

I don't think Obama has to worry a lot no matter what happens in FL or MI. I think his best bet is to come out and say there should be a revote in the two states. Hillary isn't going to gain a ton of delegates in those two. Essentially, blowouts are what matters now. Obama could lose the popular vote by 10 to 12 points in both FL and MI, and it still wouldn't put that much of a dent in his delegate lead.

I think the biggest danger for him is to fight it hard and act like he doesn't want those two states to have a revote. He's not going to make that mistake. Revote FL and MI, let Hillary gain 10 delegates. Whoop de do. It isn't going to make a difference at this point.

[Jas_lov]

All she's going to do now is fling shit at him and hope enough of it sticks that he's unelectable by Denver and the superdelegates go to her because they have no other option. It's almost crazy because I'd wager that she has more skeletons in the closet.


Yep. Hillary is going to drag this out for months delaying the inevitable. She's a monster.

[JPhillips]

The bigger problem with a revote is who pays. The DNC should fight like hell to avoid throwing thirty or forty million dollars away a few months before the general.

[Buccaneer]

Those that support Obama and his campaign really should hope that they take back the upper hand. In the past week including today, they have let the Clintons dominate expectations for both camps; from how we should viwe results to the unimportance of Wyoming et al to how the Democratic ticket should look like. Obama's inexperience in dealing with these is really showing.

[st.cronin]

"I offer a lifetime of experience."

Am I wrong, or doesn't Obama have more time as an elected official than Clinton?

[Raiders Army]

Obama wins Wyoming about 6-4.

[Vegas Vic]

Obama wins Wyoming about 6-4.

And that ratio is from the 8,753 of Wyoming's 59,000 registered democrats who participated in the caucus.

[Young Drachma]

"I offer a lifetime of experience."

Am I wrong, or doesn't Obama have more time as an elected official than Clinton?

He does. But she constantly cites her time as a First Lady as part of "working for change." It's a position she's gotten away with for the entire race, because no one wants to call her out and basically say "look, a free ticket to the White House doesn't somehow imply that the American people ever elected you on their behalf to do business for them save for your time in the US Senate.

But no one will say that. Instead, Hillary will continue to trumpet her experience.

[st.cronin]

It's a position she's gotten away with for the entire race

I guess I wonder if she really has gotten away with it, or if an emphasis on experience is a bad miscalculation on her part. At the very least, it seems like something that could backfire on her in the general, given McCain's status. One can imagine him comparing his experience to her experience, and really scoring big.

[Raiders Army]

He does. But she constantly cites her time as a First Lady as part of "working for change." It's a position she's gotten away with for the entire race, because no one wants to call her out and basically say "look, a free ticket to the White House doesn't somehow imply that the American people ever elected you on their behalf to do business for them save for your time in the US Senate.

But no one will say that. Instead, Hillary will continue to trumpet her experience.

In that case, Monica Lewinsky has experience as well. Not to mention all the others out there...

[JPhillips]

Vic: You keep ignoring that Obama still has a higher popular vote total than Clinton.

[Young Drachma]

Vic: You keep ignoring that Obama still has a higher popular vote total than Clinton.

Whether he considers himself a partisan or not, it seems to me that he just seems to hate caucuses more because Obama's organizations seems more suited to winning them. Their ground game is better and as a result, he's not having to do much to win them. He seems to imply they don't reflect the will of the people, but when have we ever had a Presidential race where that was a chief concern of anybody?

[Young Drachma]

I guess I wonder if she really has gotten away with it, or if an emphasis on experience is a bad miscalculation on her part. At the very least, it seems like something that could backfire on her in the general, given McCain's status. One can imagine him comparing his experience to her experience, and really scoring big.


At this point, it's all too clear that she is hell bent on becoming President. She doesn't care who she has to take in her wake, she feels like America needs her and can only benefit from her. She won't take no for an answer and his team is trying hard -- though Samantha Power's remark in the UK the other day about Hillary being a monster shows you the signs that they are losing it -- to make sure she doesn't force him into a gaffe that mobilizes white women to come in droves to vote for her JUST to get a woman in the White House.

Because at this point, that's the one linchpin she has in all of this. And it almost forces him -- as I figure he would anyway -- to pick a woman at the bottom of his ticket, to assuage all of those women who swear that this is just another "Man" show and that Obama doesn't really believe that America is ready for a woman President.

I've heard more than once and I tend to agree that the issue isn't "we don't want a woman President. It's that we don't want THAT woman as President."

I will say, that I do appreciate her innate policy knowledge. She tries to wield it as some sort of advantage she has over him too. But McCain won't be afraid to say what none of the Dems will, which is "being First Lady isn't experience that qualifies you by itself to be President."

The GOP will say it, Limbaugh will say it and her experience argument will dissolve quickly and she'll simply need to play up the whole "a woman in the white house" argument more if she manages to win..er..steal the nomination.

[Big Fo]

I was so pissed when the Dolphins hired Tony Sporano this offseason. I mean we could've had Bill Belichick's ex-wife and all her experience from those Super Bowl wins. What a debacle.

[DaddyTorgo]

He does. But she constantly cites her time as a First Lady as part of "working for change." It's a position she's gotten away with for the entire race, because no one wants to call her out and basically say "look, a free ticket to the White House doesn't somehow imply that the American people ever elected you on their behalf to do business for them save for your time in the US Senate.

But no one will say that. Instead, Hillary will continue to trumpet her experience.

+1

[Raiders Army]

It would be great if Obama took Lewinsky or Flowers as his Veep.

[Vegas Vic]

Vic: You keep ignoring that Obama still has a higher popular vote total than Clinton.

Since when does "popular vote" have anything to do with presidential primaries, or general elections for that matter.

Additionally, the "popular vote" number that you're citing is a co-mingling of primary votes and caucus votes (and double dipping, in some cases), so I don't see the relevance of the number to begin with.

[JPhillips]

You're the one that keeps complaining that Obama's caucus wins don't mean anything because it's so few people. I'm just pointing out that he actually has a higher total of votes than Hillary.

As for Hillary, I was neutral until this week. I'm an Obama supporter, but I would have been happy either way. Now that's she's carrying water for McCain I'm through with her.

[Vegas Vic]

You're the one that keeps complaining that Obama's caucus wins don't mean anything because it's so few people. I'm just pointing out that he actually has a higher total of votes than Hillary.

Clinton has a slight delegate lead in the states that have had full primaries. I'm not sure of the "popular vote" total in those primary states, but it is probably close to even.

As I mentioned, in the end it doesn't make any difference. Those are the rules that were agreed upon. The rules also stated that 4/5 of the total delegates would be elected from the primary and caucus states, and that 1/5 of the total delegates would be comprised of elected democratic officials who are free to vote for whomever they want to.

[JPhillips]

Agreed.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Obama leads popular vote by a good margin.
Obama leads in elected delegates by an almost an insurmountable margin.
Obama has won 29-13 in states.

The superdelegates will not rally around a nominee that is on the short end of the 3 things mentioned above.

Obama has won the nomination . . . . barring some terrible unforeseen circumstance of either his or someone else's making.

Book it.

P.S. Just thought I would save everyone the trouble of further debate in this thread. :)

[Young Drachma]

Story (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/120505162549970.xml&coll=2&thispage=1)

16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga crossed over and voted Democratic in primary

A staggering 16,000-plus Republicans in Cuyahoga County switched parties when they voted in last week's primary.

That includes 931 in Rocky River, 1,027 in Westlake and 1,142 in Strongsville. More than a third of the Republicans in Solon and Bay Village switched. Pepper Pike had the most dramatic change: just under half its Republicans became Democrats. And some of those who changed - it's difficult to say how many - could be in trouble with the law.

At least one member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections wants to investigate some Republicans who may have crossed party lines only to influence which Democrat would face presumed Republican nominee John McCain in November.

Those who crossed lines were supposed to sign a pledge card vowing allegiance to their new party.

In Cuyahoga County, dozens and dozens of Republicans scribbled addendums onto their pledges as new Democrats:

"For one day only."

"I don't believe in abortion."

A Plain Dealer review of thousands of records showed few of those who switched were challenged by poll workers.

Sandy McNair, a Democratic member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, said Friday that the manipulation of the system was troublesome.

"It's something that concerns me, that I think needs to be looked at further," McNair said. "This is not a structural thing by the Republican Party. If it's a problem at all, it's on an individual level."

[TroyF]

Obama leads popular vote by a good margin.
Obama leads in elected delegates by an almost an insurmountable margin.
Obama has won 29-13 in states.

The superdelegates will not rally around a nominee that is on the short end of the 3 things mentioned above.

Obama has won the nomination . . . . barring some terrible unforeseen circumstance of either his or someone else's making.

Book it.

P.S. Just thought I would save everyone the trouble of further debate in this thread. :)

Look above, I made the same point awhile ago. This thing is over. There is no way the superdelegates are going to rally around someone who is losing in the three things above without imploding the party.

On the positive side, Hillary has extended an olive branch to allow Obama to be her VP. This is incredibly nice of Hillary. I mean, she's getting her ass handed to her and she's willing to allow Obama to be her second in command. He's not fit to be prdesident, but he IS fit to be president if she dies. Nice Hllary.

This thing is over. Sorry, I should have written OVER.

[cuervo72]

Well, it's a pretty good ploy by her. And it's not just her dropping those hints, it's Bill too. It could sway voters who think this *is* her reaching out (not all will/can see through it). It could also make Obama look bad. If he doesn't accept her offer he's not playing along for the good of the party, if he doesn't say he'd do the same for her, ditto. He looks like the bad guy who isn't willing to bury the hatchet (one she put in his back in the first place...) or cooperate.

I don't know to what extent it will work, but it's getting some media coverage and I'm sure it will fool some.

[Young Drachma]

It's a smart move. They want appeal to all of those people that want the first woman President and they want to make them shame Obama into "waiting his turn." Act of desperation or not, it's pretty smart when your path to the nomination is all but blocked for good.

[TroyF]

If she were down 50? good call. With her down 100 even with pledged supers? Desperation. It's a bad move at a the wrong time. It makes her look conceited and desperate. She's done.

[albionmoonlight]

She's done.

We keep saying that (and I, personally, still beleive it), but the voters keep giving her reasons to say she is not done. Until she loses one of her hand-picked "important" races in a big way, I don't see her going away. And the longer she stays in, the better chance she has--just through sheer endurance.

[Young Drachma]

We keep saying that (and I, personally, still beleive it), but the voters keep giving her reasons to say she is not done. Until she loses one of her hand-picked "important" races in a big way, I don't see her going away. And the longer she stays in, the better chance she has--just through sheer endurance.

Yup. And the media laps it up like a dog drinks water in the summer. They just love to see a good train wreck.

[cartman]

I got a laugh out of this one:

"Saying Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko was a Beatle".

[TroyF]

We keep saying that (and I, personally, still beleive it), but the voters keep giving her reasons to say she is not done. Until she loses one of her hand-picked "important" races in a big way, I don't see her going away. And the longer she stays in, the better chance she has--just through sheer endurance.


Then she's still done. If the super delegates give her the win, there is no way in hell a majority of the Obama voters move to her side. They have a nice moderate (R) to vote for on the other side.

So she's done. It's likely going to end in June or in August on the convention floor. If she gets the nod, she's still done.

[stevew]

someone tell the bitch to pack her shit and leave.

[Dutch]

If the super delegates give her the win...


I don't see the value of these super delegates. If they vote with the majority, they are worthless and if they vote against the majority they are starting a Democrat civil war.

Obama deserves the win. Period. This crap should be banned.

[Vegas Vic]

I don't see the value of these super delegates. If they vote with the majority, they are worthless and if they vote against the majority they are starting a Democrat civil war.

Obama deserves the win. Period. This crap should be banned.

The super delegates were established to ensure that 1/5 of the total delegates to the convention would be elected officials in the democratic party. There didn't seem to be any outrage at the time this was instituted, but that seems to have changed.

Getting rid of the super delegates in the future would eliminate this mess from happening again. Additionally, "winner take all" primaries would have prevented this from happening, but the democrats didn't want to go that route.

[TroyF]

The super delegates were established to ensure that 1/5 of the total delegates to the convention would be elected officials in the democratic party. There didn't seem to be any outrage at the time this was instituted, but that seems to have changed.

Getting rid of the super delegates in the future would eliminate this mess from happening again. Additionally, "winner take all" primaries would have prevented this from happening, but the democrats didn't want to go that route.

Both VV and Dutch are right here.

Winner take all primaries would have almost ensured the race would be over now, Hillary would be winning it. Not only that, but the rules were agreed upon by all parties involved. Thing is, that doesn't stop people from bitching about it. Obama will throw a fit if the superdelegates decide it. Hillary will throw a fit if she loses because of her wins in the big states. MI and FL were also "rules" that everyone agreed to follow.

That's where VV is dead on.

Dutch? Exactly 100% correct by saying a superdelegate win for Hillary would fracture the party. I see no possible way Hillary could win if she went to the GE with a superdelegate victory.

The only way this ends well for the dems come November is if Hillary bows out right after the primaries are over. She won't do it. She'll try to get a backroom deal done. This won't end well. Oh, and she isn't getting the nomination.

[Vegas Vic]

Here's an excerpt from a National Review article that reiterates a point I've been making throughout this thread:

"Anti-Clinton liberal pundits are insisting that her campaign is still a lost cause, because of "the math," i.e., Obama will have more pledged delegates. That will supposedly force the super-delegates to go with Obama. But if the race is essentially a tie and Obama has won a lot of delegates in caucuses that are less representative than the primaries, why should super-delegates be bound by Obama's tiny lead in pledged delegates? It isn't written in the rules anywhere that that's what they have to do—in fact, the opposite. They can decide on whatever grounds they like."

Full Article (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDBkZmE0OWEzYjUxOTU2ZGY1MGNjNjgzNTI1YjBiYmE=)

[albionmoonlight]

The Democratic primaries are a great reflection of the Democratic party (for good and for ill).

1.) Very, very, very fair. Proportional primaries. No winner take all. If 33% of a state likes candidate X, then they should have a voice.

2.) But, as much as we like the people, we can't actually trust them not to do something stupid for themselves. So we will make sure that we protect people from themselves (by creating superdelegates who can overide the will of the people).

3.) But, when it is time for the superdelegates to take a stand and actually use their power for the good of the party, they are all too scared to actually do anything, so they just refuse to act and hope that things will resolve themselves.

[Vegas Vic]

The Democratic primaries are a great reflection of the Democratic party (for good and for ill).

1.) Very, very, very fair. Proportional primaries. No winner take all. If 33% of a state likes candidate X, then they should have a voice.

How are the numerous democratic caucus states fair, where in some cases 99% of the registered democratic voters are disenfranchised?

[JPhillips]

Vic: I don't think anyone here is arguing that the Supers can't pick whomever they individually choose. The argument being made is that the Super's should mainly consider what's best for the Democratic Party heading into the general election, not their own individual preferences. The role of the Supers was supposed to be to protect the party by having a mechanism to consider the electability of potential candidates. In effect the Supers were supposed to do what's best for the party.

Where we stand now, which could change, makes it clear to me that the Supers should choose Obama for the benefit of the party. If the current percentages still hold in early June it would be political suicide to take the nomination from the person who has the most votes, the most delegates and the biggest coattails. I understand the theoretical argument that Clinton has more strength among constituencies the Dems need, but in the real world picking Clinton under the circumstances I described would almost guarantee a loss in November.

Certainly the Supers CAN do whatever they wish, but in the end their goal should be to position the party in the best way possible for the general election.

[Young Drachma]

How are the numerous democratic caucus states fair, where in some cases 99% of the registered democratic voters are disenfranchised?

Disenfranchised as a term has been thrown around entirely too much in this particular election season. Even more than in 2000 when it actually carried more water.

If people want to vote or participate in caucuses, they should show up. No one is standing with guns at the door telling them they can't participate. If they have to work or are too tired after work or don't feel like it or don't have the convictions to stand up to their Obama-loving neighbors, that's no one's fault but their own.

[cartman]

Just as a note, the Republicans hold caucuses as well.

[Kodos]

Joe Biden admits that, yes, he is not faring well in this poll, but he hopes to start a rally any moment now.

[JPhillips]

Even if you can find people who can't possibly make a caucus due to conditions beyond their control, no way it's anywhere near 99%. My guess is only ten percent or so truly can't causcus. The others choose not to.

It's also important to point out that both parties have multiple caucus states.

[albionmoonlight]

How are the numerous democratic caucus states fair, where in some cases 99% of the registered democratic voters are disenfranchised?

I think that caucuses are more a matter of the states deciding to do them than the parties saying they must.

[TroyF]

Here's an excerpt from a National Review article that reiterates a point I've been making throughout this thread:

"Anti-Clinton liberal pundits are insisting that her campaign is still a lost cause, because of "the math," i.e., Obama will have more pledged delegates. That will supposedly force the super-delegates to go with Obama. But if the race is essentially a tie and Obama has won a lot of delegates in caucuses that are less representative than the primaries, why should super-delegates be bound by Obama's tiny lead in pledged delegates? It isn't written in the rules anywhere that that's what they have to do—in fact, the opposite. They can decide on whatever grounds they like."

Full Article (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDBkZmE0OWEzYjUxOTU2ZGY1MGNjNjgzNTI1YjBiYmE=)

You've brought up the point already in the thread. And I have agreed with you on it.

The problem is the voting public and what they think. The Supers can vote for whomever the hell they want. Seriously. They have the right, it's the dem's system.

This isn't a debate about what the dems should do or can do or what is fair. It's the reality of the situation. If Obama wins more states, popular votes and delegates and then gets left out, the Obama voters will be pissed off beyond belief. They will feel ripped off and a lot of them will not vote for the person they think stole their election. They'll either stay home or they'll go to McCain.

Some people dispute this and we'll just have to see how it would play out if Hillary gets elected this way.

My opinion is that:

1) Obama is going to get the nomination. The earlier it becomes official, the better chance he has to win the GE.

2) If Hillary does get the nomination through the superdelegate process, she may as well not even show up for the GE. I think she'd get crushed because she'd unify the GOP base as well as lose a large percentage of the Obama voters.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong. . .

[Vegas Vic]

Just as a note, the Republicans hold caucuses as well.

My opinion on caucuses has nothing to do with party. I think they're patently unfair, and in some cases they're not that much different than what we used to blast the former Soviet Union and some of the modern "banana republics" for.

[Young Drachma]

My opinion on caucuses has nothing to do with party. I think they're patently unfair, and in some cases they're not that much different than what we used to blast the former Soviet Union and some of the modern "banana republics" for.

Stuffing a ballot box is a hell of a lot easier than stuffing a caucus.

[Raiders Army]

Stuffing a ballot box is a hell of a lot easier than stuffing a caucus.

What about compared to stuffing a bra?

[JPhillips]

I don't know about every state, but many have chosen caucuses because it's considerably cheaper than a primary. In most years the Washington or Nevada or Wyoming caucuses don't mean jack, so why should a state commit to the large expense of hundreds or thousands of voting places? Unless there's some sort of agreed upon funding mechanism I don't ever see a lot of these states choosing to conduct a primary.

Look at it this way, caucuses are examples of the government being good stewards of taxpayer dollars!

And there is no comparison between a small turnout and a predetermined outcome.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

OK, I'll likely end up voting for a Republican in the general election. With that said, Obama won big points with me yesterday for telling Hillary off after her suggestion that a joint ticket is a possibility. Any time someone takes a 'who the hell do you think you are' shot at one of the Clintons, it's going to be something that the Republican and independent voters notice.

[albionmoonlight]

Regardless of whether one likes Clinton or Obama, I think that most observers can agree that, at this point, a drag-out primary will hurt the Democrats. Also, most observers can agree that the risks of the campaign getting ugly are increasing with each passing day.

And, most importantly, most observers can agree that the primary now lacks an obvious exit point. The three times when it may have made sense for Clinton to leave (after New Hampshire, after Super Tuesday, after Ohio/Texas) have all passed. And one cannot see any such backbreaking races left on the calendar.

All of which means that the next few days present an opportunity for the superdelegates to do something for the good of the party. Specifically, they can, after Obama wins Mississippi, break for him en mass, and make the new party line: "He has the most votes, the most delegates, the most states, runs better against John McCain, has brought new energy (and money) into the party, and should have all of these things hold true through the end of the nomination process. He is our best candidate, and he has the support of the majority of the voters. Beating John McCain in the fall is the only goal that matters, and dragging our primary out for months while he campaigns and raises money will cripple us in November. Accordingly, we are exercising our judgment as delegates to end this process now and start focusing on the general. And we ask Senator Clinton to respect the wishes of the majority of the people and the party and allow us to focus on beating John McCain."

These superdelegates are, of course, elected officials and party insiders, so they will not do this. Caution is the order of the day. But, if the whole reason for your existence is to prevent chaos and do what is best for the party . . . should you not at least consider doing that?

Also, they could make a similar move for Senator Clinton, but that does not seem to be the way that the wind is blowing. It would be a harder sell.

[JPhillips]

I disagree a little. I'll agree that an August floor fight will be bad, but I don't think carrying this through the primaries in May will be a disaster and artificially ending it before all the remaining contests, IMO, poses a greater risk for a nasty intra-party squabble. If there is a clear nominee going into June there will still be plenty of time to raise money and prepare. The outside groups (527s) will be the primary campaigners over much of the summer anyway and they'll be focused on tearing down McCain as opposed to building up the Dem nominee.

[Cringer]

I suggest a Bill/Hillary vs. Barack/Michelle tagteam cage match on WWE's pay-per-view Wrestlemania.

[Cringer]

Dola- I am dead serious.

[albionmoonlight]

I disagree a little. I'll agree that an August floor fight will be bad, but I don't think carrying this through the primaries in May will be a disaster and artificially ending it before all the remaining contests, IMO, poses a greater risk for a nasty intra-party squabble. If there is a clear nominee going into June there will still be plenty of time to raise money and prepare. The outside groups (527s) will be the primary campaigners over much of the summer anyway and they'll be focused on tearing down McCain as opposed to building up the Dem nominee.

Some people agree that it would actually be beneficial for the candidates to build strong operations in Pennsylvania and North Carolina--one being a state that they need to hold on to in November, and one being a state that the GOP needs to hold on to in November. Personally, I think that the money is not best spent doing that, and that the risks of negative campaigns outweighs the positives of strong ground operations.

That said, I am very much a novice at this kind of stuff, so take anything I say with a healthy grain of salt.