Maine Caucuses Today Amid Heavy Snow

It doesn't look like this in Maine today, but the picture is so pretty I'm using it anyway. There's heavy snow in Maine but it's not expected to deter turnout.

The Washington Post reports that older women will be key for Hillary in Maine.

The delegate count is small, the state has 24 pledged delegates and 10 superdelegates, who can support the candidate they prefer and make the decision at any time.

As to who is eligible to vote in the Maine caucuses:

Caucuses are held by each municipal Democratic committee. Any enrolled Democrat within a municipality can attend the municipal caucus. New voters and unenrolled voters can also attend by registering as Democrats at the caucus. Voters registered as Greens or Republicans must change their registration by Jan. 26, 2008 to participate in this year's Democratic Caucus. Young voters who will be 18 by Election Day, November 4, 2008 can participate in the caucus.

I'll start another thread on Maine when the results and exit polls are in.

< What Is Obama's Position On Superdelegates? | Writers Strike To End, Settlement Reached >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bad Weather Is Bad for Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    Hard enough to get older voters to caucus because of health and other issues, add bad weather and it's a nightmare.

    Possible (none / 0) (#4)
    by spit on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:12:32 PM EST
    Honestly looks the worst in southern maine at the moment. Midcoast and the Bangor area shouldn't be too bad, though of course that's easy enough to say from over here in CA where today feels like early summer.

    Maine allows absentee ballots for their caucuses, too, but I believe those had a deadline earlier this week.


    Today In California (none / 0) (#21)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    Is absolutely beautiful, so was yesterday.  It's funny but I was telling someone yesterday that we deserved some nice weather after the bad weather of the last few weeks.  Unfortunately, that someone was back east and did not think 65 and cloudy with occasional rains qualified as bad weather.  Heh.

    We pay for it in other ways, heheh (none / 0) (#70)
    by blogtopus on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    Rent, earthquakes, crazy governor races, hippies, haha

    Mainers are used to it. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:20:38 PM EST
    If they can't function in horrible weather, they move.

    Doesn't bother me (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by mexboy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:51:03 PM EST
    Obama said that if he won Florida, he would fight to seat the delegates. If it's good enough for Obama, it should be good enough for Clinton.

    Everyone was on the ballot, almost nobody campaigned there (she didn't) and she won.

    I say seat those delegates.

    Seat Them (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by dissenter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    Besides, his commercials ran all over Florida. But he wasn't campaigning there. It is laughable.

    I may had said this before (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:22:40 PM EST
    when I started reading progressive blogs rather than the right wing ones on my party because of their objectivity and reason based arguments unlike the right wing blogs who's answer to all our problems seems to be to blame Bill Clinton who has not been president for 7 years.  Now in the Obama supporters I'm seeing the same kind of rhetoric and and anti-clinton spew that the right wingers put out.  That leads me to conclude that either Obama is attracting a lot of right wingers or his followers are just like them except the are left wing. I don't like to insult people but I would appreciate your point of view better if you based on the good things your candidate says and does rather than in attacking his/her opponent.  I still get the feeling that there are moles in the garden and true Democrats who believe in Obama better beware of the way some of these people attack the Clintons.

    Well said (none / 0) (#40)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    you are right on point.

    Hmm? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:13:20 PM EST
    You've heard about the trade agreements that Bill Clinton pushed through during his Presidency?

    It's not blaming him for what's happened the last seven years. It's giving him the responsibility for what he did back during his time.

    I was writing op-eds for my union paper back in 1992 about what those trade agreements would do. And they did, thanks to Clinton. They weakened that American working class. A lot of good-paying union jobs were lost and the remainder of blue-collar jobs have been devalued. Organized labor has been further broken.

    And, please, forget the left-wing/right-wing falderol. There isn't any left-winger running.


    Thats true (none / 0) (#80)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:15:38 PM EST
    but I heard that Hillary was against NAFTA at the time.  

    Bernstein book says re NAFTA, yes (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:44:00 PM EST
    -- that she vociferously told Bill it was bad.

    I agree with you on that (none / 0) (#84)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:22:43 PM EST
    but I was not talking about the candidates but about the posters.  But to the subject, my worry is that many of Obama's current advisers come from big business as they do for Clinton.  Including, some ex-advisers of Bill Clinton.  I just feel that to continually bring the Bill Clinton subject up is not going to help the intelligent discussion.  By the way as I said in an AFL-CIO organizers convention back in 1998 I think we wasted our political funds then.
    But heck  our Pro-union man was really Gore not Clinton.

    Is a MOLE a TROLL? (none / 0) (#89)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:42:55 PM EST
    To Jeralyn and/or BTD:

    I concur with "Florida Resident" above, on the likelihood of right-wing "moles" raiding, not just the Democratic Primaries, but also Progressive blogs. Does that come under the definition of TROLLING here at Talk Left?

    I am a faithful reader of Talk Left's editorial writing and it is superative.

    I just started reading the COMMENTS section  a few days ago and, on the whole, that too, is a breath of fresh, bright air.

    On the other hand, it does appear that there are a few people who aren't debating in good faith.

    It gets tricky, but I'm sure most of us can intuitively sense the difference between honest dissent and ill-intent. Hell, even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked.

    I may be off base but, certain commentators look like they're playing both ends against the middle: under the pretext of being 'even-handed' they are stealthily undermining both Obama and Clinton. Some seem to be arguing relentlessly with the intention of wearing down other people who are self-evidently sincere in their comments. In the latter case, disengagement can be a life-saving strategy.

    Curious to hear your take on whether, and when, MOLLING can be construed as a form of TROLLING. Thanks for reading.


    The reason I use Mole (none / 0) (#95)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:45:32 PM EST
    and not Troll is because mole indicates a planned intention to infiltrate and misdirect a given organization or group.  Like moles in the FBI or in Peace organizations back in the 60's and 70's.  To me trolls seem to be people who want to disrupt and misguide but moles have a plan in this case (my personal opinion) to create a schism in the Democratic party that they hope can not be fixed by the November General Elections.

    MOLES vs. TROLLS (none / 0) (#97)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:59:36 PM EST
    Florida Resident,

    I'm fully on board with your analysis. I'm just thinking: since Moles are potentially far more destructive than Trolls - can't something be done to circumvent their dirty tricks on this site?

    Please, BTD or JERALYN, any thoughts here.



    I think they do a better Job (none / 0) (#99)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:24:24 PM EST
    on this site than others.  I like BTD's rules he punishes himself if he breaks them.

    Hillary have (none / 0) (#2)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:00:55 PM EST
     a good shot in Maine and Wisconsin on the 19th. I'm gonna be depressed after the three primaries on Tuesday. For all the Hillary supporters, dont let this coming tuesday get you down. keep your head up and we'll start seeing sunshine on the 19th.

    I don't expect (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:09:36 PM EST
    Hillary to have any wins in February -- I think it will be March and Texas and Ohio where she'll have her next shot.

    No chance in Wisconsin? (none / 0) (#6)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    She has a very good shot in Wisconsin. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    Very even matchup.

    It Would Be (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:56:20 PM EST
    If not for the Republicans urging their supporters to cross over and play in the democratic primary since the Republican one is over (whether by hook or by crook it appears based on what happened in Washington with McCain last night).

    You forgot to (none / 0) (#45)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:34:33 PM EST
    tell Geekesque (who is a big time Obama supporter) that the Republicans are told to choose the Democrat they think they can beat.

    Yep, see jsonline.com (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:08:57 PM EST
    yesterday for the front-page "Advantage for Obama" story, a how-to manual reminding Republicans to crossover to pick him as best to beat in fall.  But it has good historical data on Wisconsin's crazy primaries past and probably present, with our wide-open primary, same-day registration, etc.

    See also today's jsonline.com for another good analysis of the primary to come by Gilbert -- and see also Eugene Kane's always-good column on racial issues in Milwaukee, one of the most segregated cities in the country, called the "Selma of the North" in the '60s.  And nothing changes fast in Milwaukee.  

    But because of that, 95%-plus of Wisconsin's AAs are in one congressional district (mine, the one with our first AA member of Congress ever) -- although mostly in only two neighborhoods, so even how my district will go, I dunno.  With the GOP wanting the vote to go for Obama, though, at least it ought to mean that we will see less of the desperate voter-suppression efforts of the recent past in Milwaukee.  And maybe our despicable ADA Biskupic won't be manufacturing voter-fraud cases to put more African-American grandmas in prison.


    Maggie Williams fired (none / 0) (#83)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:21:22 PM EST
    per CNN.

    Losing February is not acceptable to Clinton.


    Strike that. William promoted (none / 0) (#86)
    by magster on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:25:45 PM EST
    Solis Doyle out.

    I am feeling demoralized... (none / 0) (#5)
    by HypeJersey on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:14:48 PM EST
    I'm such a hardcore supporter of Clinton.  Yesterday's caucuses were hard to take.  You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the pattern here - caucus v. primary.  Caucus is so undemocratic.  

    Clinton should win here. Demographics line up (none / 0) (#8)
    by Geekesque on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:22:47 PM EST
    perfectly for her--it's a beer track state--lots and lots of working class voters, no college students, no African-Americans, political establishment lined up behind her.

    Clinton also has a real shot at winning WI--the question will be whether she can turn out her vote in the rural and working class areas as opposed to Milwaukee and Madison, where Obama should run up the score on her.

    College students (none / 0) (#11)
    by spit on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:27:17 PM EST
    that's not entirely true. Portland and Bangor/Orono are crawling with them. And places like Camden aren't "beer track" by any stretch.

    But a lot of the state also trends older and working class, it's true.

    A lot will depend on turnout, as always.


    Obama is coming to Madison but (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:01:43 PM EST
    won't confirm coming to Milwaukee, as Clinton is -- for the big, annual Dem event next Saturday and for a debate (on local tv and radio, folks, but if it goes forward, we'll tell you how to link to it).

    That could have an impact.  Like Nebraska, we like our candidates to come here, suck a brewski, and bowl a lane or two in our Dem Valhalla, Serb Hall.  (You may remember when Bush I tried it and fell on his face on the bowling lane, a howler for us.)

    Obama will do well in Madison; they're Easterners on the faculty and in the hospitals, two of the three major constituencies in the town (the other is the leggies), and it has fewer Wisconsinites among the students than the other large campuses in the state.  Lots of Minnesotans among Madison students, with the tuition reciprocity, and lots of Illinoisans, Obama's base in Iowa, too.  And of course, same-day registration favors students.

    So GOP crossover vote will confound our primary here, as usual.  There will be interesting counties to watch, as the JS says -- and as I had on an earlier thread, re the GOP crossover vote that the neocon JS called for on its front page yesterday.  But with a bit of a rise for Huckabee yesterday, too, I may have to revise a bit to note that large red county I wrote about is filled with white-flighters who will fear Obama, yes -- but they're also fundies, so they could come out big for their evangelical hero, the Rev. Huck.

    Above all, though, watch Wisconsin for signs of what could come in swing states in November -- as this was the closest state in 2004.  How women will go matters, as women vote here more than in almost any state.  How the youth vote goes will matter, as it was second-highest in the country in 2004 and highest in 2006 -- although those were after massive GOTV efforts on campuses, by national organizations such as NOW, that are not happening here.  And as ever, watch the weather -- with almost two feet of snow this week and with wind chills last night of -35 in Milwaukee. . . .


    Hillary is (none / 0) (#10)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:26:02 PM EST
    currently leading in Wisconsin by 10 points. Obama will win Milwaukee (large African American population) and Madison (college town), but Hillary will win everywhere else. There is a good article in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel explaining this. go to www.jsonline.com.

    9 pts, and it's ARG, not best pollster (none / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:51:45 PM EST
    but first poll in two months, so we'll see.

    But the JS does not necessarily say Milwaukee will go for Obama.  I'm in Milwaukee, and in the district with the first AA member of Congress here, but it is the only majority-minority city in lily-white Wisconsin.  AAs are still a minority in Milwaukee, as there also are Latinos/as, Asians, etc.  And it is one of the most segregated cities in the country for AAs (see today's JS for Eugene Kane's column, too) -- so AAs actually are dominant in only two neighborhoods.

    The article is a good analysis overall, though, with good historical understanding of Wisconsin's wacky primaries, too.  So thanks for linking it here -- I planned to do so, if no one else did.  

    But again, also see Kane's column at jsonline.com -- he is a good read on racial issues, and often, in my sadly, seriously racialized city I love.


    i'm just afraid (none / 0) (#12)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    that the average american voter will not realize the demographics in these upcoming primaries on tuesday and begin to believe that Obama have this huge advantage and become discaurage from voting for Hillary in the primaries following. Thats my only concern.

    if the "average american voter"... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Dadler on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    ...can't turn off "suvivor: micronesia" for awhile and do some actual civic homework, then they don't deserve a good result.  very few people in this country work so hard and long that they have no time for their occasional democratic responsibilities.  that consumerism lulls many into a highly distracting material daze and polticical apathy is another issue.

    when will we have the results? (none / 0) (#13)
    by NJDem on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:35:56 PM EST
    Anyone know?  

    No statewide times (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by spit on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:41:39 PM EST
    each area has its own. Should be all be wrapped up around 6-7 local, I would think.

    Here's a link with links to all the caucus sites and times, if you're interested.


    Party Unity, anyone? (none / 0) (#14)
    by child on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    Sorry to bring this up on this pro-Hillary blog, but doesn't it trouble anyone that Senator Clinton, by going after the Florida and Michigan delegates, seems willing to sacrifice party unity for personal gain?  

    I've been trying to defend her against her rep of bald self-interest and Rove-style politics, but this is becoming increasingly difficult.  Would someone help me explain her (prima facie distasteful) tactics?

    Are you (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:42:13 PM EST
    saying that the people voices in Florida should not be heard? are you saying that their votes were for nothing and votes are below party rule? if it was on the other hand, Obama would be saying and doing the same thing. Your candidate is not the saint that his media (CNN, MSNBC,ABC,REUTERS) make him out to be. Any other questions?

    yes, their votes should not count (none / 0) (#48)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    at least that is what Hillary said (specific reference was to Michigan, in explaining why it really didn't matter that her names would remain on the ballot).
    That was then...

    And Obama Said (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:03:24 PM EST
    If he won, he'd seat the Florida delegates.  He's not arguing against seating them because of some sort of hyper fidelity to rules.  He's arguing against them because Clinton won those states.  That's clear from his prior statements.  And, since I'm not blind and can see my candidate is a politician and not some savior, I'll concede Clinton would be on the other side if Obama had carried those states.

    Neither side has the moral high ground here.  It's politics.  


    unity (none / 0) (#24)
    by tek on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    Does it trouble you, an Obama supporter, that Obama is willing to destroy the legacy of one of the greatest Democratic presidencies in history to benefit himself? That he is willing to tear the Democratic apart to get the nomination?


    I thought so.


    Please clarify (none / 0) (#37)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:20:25 PM EST
    What does "Obama is willing to destroy the legacy of one of the greatest Democratic presidencies" mean?

    You mean, he should let Clinton violate the rules and take the nomination because she's gonna be great? If you are smoking something that good please pass the pipe.

    It's not Obama's doing. At least half of the Democratic Party is against switching the rules to allow the faux primaries to stand. It's a question of what can be done to give Michigan and Florida some representation at the convention (see above). Anyone who insists that the only way that can be is to break the rules or refuse to cooperate is destroying the Democratic Party.


    i dont think it means much more than (none / 0) (#56)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:43:16 PM EST
    "i like hillary", therefore everyone else should get out of her way, so as not to divide the party.

    Where on earth (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    Did you get this:

    At least half of the Democratic Party is against switching the rules

    Can you cite a reliable poll?  Is this based on what your friends down at the garden center said?  Or maybe you polled some folks at an Obama rally?

    Just because you say something is true does not make it so.  You are a walking "Mission Accomplished."


    Half the party (none / 0) (#81)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:16:06 PM EST
    is supporting Obama. Then throw in a percentage that thinks that cheating should not be rewarded. That's where I get my number.

    And your ad hominem may make you feel better, but it doesn't make Holbrooke go away.


    over 75% (none / 0) (#90)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:10:00 PM EST
    of all of Clinton's supporters and 75% of all of Obama's supporters say they would be happy with either candidate on the ticket.  The only people who are deathly invested in this are the upper echelons of the party and people like us who have way too much free time to post on the internet.

    Thinking your statistics hold up does not make them so.

    Mission Accomplished.


    Tell that to Florida (none / 0) (#91)
    by dissenter on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:28:46 PM EST
    First he was for seating the delegates. Now he doesn't want to. He claims he didn't campaign in Florida but he ran commercials all over Florida during the SC primary. I know my mother watched them in Florida as is pissed off at his comments. She is really pissed off that by no fault of her own her vote might not count. She won't accept a caucus.

    Obama can't get over 22% of the senior vote in a primary state (probably because of his republican social security talking points), wants to throw out the Florida primary results - where he lost by 17%....and he is going to win Florida...How? He can't get a majority of the white vote in a primary state. He can't get much of the Hispanic vote. White women are getting increasingly pissed off at that campaign. And finally, if you can't peel off some of the cuban vote (Cubans by the way like Clinton) you lose. I don't think his promise to go meet with hated dictators all over the world is going to get the Cuban vote. Not even 5% which could matter. It won't get the senior vote either. They think it is a crazy idea.

    I hate to tell all the Obama people but the man can't win FL. And if you can't win FL, you can't win. The SW strategy is out the window with McCain which brings us back to red state/blue state and anyone that thinks differently is delusional in my opinion.

    Plus, with McCain, we might lose NH and Maine. Where are you going to get a new set of states.  Somebody show me the math how this adds up to Obama presidency cuz I don't see it. He lost Florida by 17% in a primary, only carried 3 white counties in Missouri and Latinos like Mccain.

    Show me the math. I don't care about poll numbers that mean nothing. This is simple mathematics whether anyone wants  to recognize it or not.


    I'm not so sure (none / 0) (#92)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:44:13 PM EST
    that half the party is for Obama.  I'd like to see how the numbers compare once you subtract the "I'm only a Dem if Obama is the nominee" folks.

    As an Outside Observer (none / 0) (#17)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    I don't understand how any Obama supporter can talk about party unity Child.  I guess you have not read the postings by Obama supporters around the net and some of the things the Obama's have said.

    thanks Spit (none / 0) (#18)
    by NJDem on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    I guess we'll know the results about the same time BO and HRC are on 60 Minutes.  I hope today is a win for HRC, but is VA really as competitive as they're saying on CNN.  

    For all you Obama people (none / 0) (#26)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:02:20 PM EST
      if you like to hear smooth talking rhetorics then Obama is your man. If you care about the issues ans who can fix the economy and healthcare, then Hillary is the only candidate. As for Florida, am I forgeting something, because i'm almost sure that Obama name was on that ballot, and people could of voted for him if they wanted to. Obama is supposed to be the so call anti-establishment candidate, but because he lost Florida now he is saying that party rules triumphs american votes. Who is the hyprocrite? The people of Florida voted and it should matter.

    Did WTO and NAFTA (none / 0) (#42)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    fix our economy?

    And, yes, you are missing something about Florida. Florida violated Party rules and the election was null and void. Nobody won Florida because it wasn't counted. Remember?

    See above for how ways to give people in Florida their voice.


    Last time I looked (none / 0) (#53)
    by lisadawn82 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    That was Bill Clinton's White House that did that.  Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton will just do what Bill tells her to do or are you attributing Bill's actions to her?

    Like in any marriage or partnership there are two completely different people involved.  Just because one on them does something, tht doesn't mean that the other person approved.


    Come on... (none / 0) (#67)
    by mindfulmission on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    ... if Hillary wants to use the Clinton Presidency as part of her campaign, then it is fair game to attack the bad parts of the Administration.

    You can't have it both ways.


    I hate to keep repeating (none / 0) (#54)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    myself, but you clearly do not understand, so please read slowly. American votes should triumph party rules. The people voted and their vote should matter. We still live in a democracy. You want the people of Florida to be disenfranchised for the betterment of your candidate. We do not believe in totalitarianism in this country.

    Cream? Athyrio? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:07:30 PM EST
    Who was it who said it seemed like these Obamaphiles were taking two hours shifts on TL to do the Lord's work?

    Whoever said it, I think you're right.  It's like clockwork.  

    Hey now (none / 0) (#43)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:30:32 PM EST
    we have to eat and go to the bathroom sometime. Our overlord schedulers follow union break rules ya know :-P

    yeah they seem to be working in pairs LOL (none / 0) (#73)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    but what they don't seem to realize is the more they try to spin the facts, the more they turn people off...If Obama succeeds in winning the nomination by using only certain facts to his advantage, he will really burn his reputation with the democratic voters in this country...and that isn't good for any future with the party....

    All these new young (none / 0) (#77)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    voters that Obama touts as one reason why he is the better candidate. I can assure you they will disappear either before or right after the November election.

    Rules are rules (none / 0) (#35)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:14:35 PM EST
    except when they're not. Gee, where did I hear that?

    There is no way that seating any Florida or Michigan delegates based on the faux primaries will not destroy the convention. Here are some alternatives:

    1. The Dems run caucuses in both states. Cheaper than primaries, but Clinton backers apparently don't think she can do well in that venue.

    2. The Dems run full on primaries with real campaigning and both candidates on the ballots. There are problems with the cost and with the logistics, but with agreement now it should be able to be done.

    3. If the Clinton campaign now won't agree to either 1 or 2, then the DNC should award equal delegates to both candidates. That way no one benefits from violating the rules, but people can still go to the convention, wear straw hats and exchange bodily fluids after long evenings at the bars.

    Well Same Play Book (none / 0) (#36)
    by Salt on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:18:51 PM EST
    The 2006 campaign Axelrod Patrick for the Massachusetts Governors was at first seen as a dark horse candidate, facing veteran Massachusetts campaigners Tom Reilly and Chris Gabrielli in the Democratic primary. The Patrick campaign gained momentum at the Democratic State Caucuses, where it organized their supporters, many of whom had never been involved in such party processes before, to win twice as many pledged delegates as the Reilly campaign.

    True, but the differences are telling (none / 0) (#41)
    by dk on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    1.  Deval Patrick's competitors lacked charsima and new ideas (unlike Clinton); and

    2.  Deval actually had plenty of experience under his belt.  He had been Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Bill Clinton, and had been General Counsel for CocaCola...thus, years of experience in running large, complex agencies (unlike Obama, who has essentially no experience running anything).  

    OH BTW (none / 0) (#44)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:33:28 PM EST
    For those who want the Fl Democratic party Comitee to hold another primary.  Who's going to pay for it?

    Well Michigan (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by athyrio on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:23:48 PM EST
    has answered that question about caucauses and they have refused and said that holding a caucus and ignoring their already held event is like living in Russia and they wont do it...

    Caucuses (none / 0) (#51)
    by BDB on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:40:52 PM EST
    Interesting post about the dynamics of caucuses favoring Obama, in part, because of gender and age dynamics.   Now, I don't think these issues are the only reason Obama does well in caucuses, but it's something the Democratic party needs to consider when it looks at caucuses over all.  

    Yep. But I can't help but think that the (none / 0) (#93)
    by kangeroo on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:55:54 PM EST
    social approval factor (or "inverse Hillary effect" as someone put it yesterday) is more of an issue--at least wrto the intimidation factor in caucuses--than sexism.  Sexism is certainly tied into it, but a lot of Dems are, quite frankly, timid.  They're more easily bullied.  I think that's a huge problem.

    INVERSE HILLARY EFFECT (none / 0) (#96)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:49:52 PM EST

    In my experience, Democrats tend to be generally less outspokenly belligerent than average Republicans - who've been given a very loud voice, and a sense of overarching entitlement, by Hate Radio and the Establishment Media - going back to the Reagan era actually.

    Here's a recap of the Inverse Hillary Effect that I posited yesterday. It pertains to errors in pre-primary polling and the subsequent observation that so-called "late-deciders" are breaking for Hillary:

    In the current climate, it's decidedly uncool to openly declare oneself a Hillary-supporter.

    So, many of those self-professed 'late-deciders' may be Hillary supporters who've been effectively ridiculed/shamed/bullied/ intimidated into silencing their support - until they're in the voting booth.

    That may also help explain why Democratic POLLING has become so un-predictive, as in California, New Hampshire, etc.

    Forget the "Bradley Effect", whereby voters presumably profess support for a black candidate then vote for the white candidate.

    I suspect there's an Inverse Hillary Effect: whereby many voters tell pollsters they're undecided but, in truth, they fully intend to vote for Hillary.

    I expect that this phenomenon produces an overall, and ongoing, underestimation of the full extent of Hillary support. In other words, pollsters and pundits won't know that she'll thoroughly SWAMP McCain until the day after the General Election.

    This may prove wrong, but a gal can dream, can't she?


    "The Embarrassed Voter Effect" (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:03:29 PM EST
    as it was called in a study on pollster.com -- see if you can see it still there on the left-side list.

    But I like your name for it better. :-)


    And what? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:41:04 PM EST
    No sense of reality? No. I don't happen to be buying your happy horsepucky.

    Kucinich's positions matched mine. I supported Edwards because his RHETORIC is closer to my position than the other two candidates. I voted for Obama when Edwards dropped out. If Clinton wins the primary I will vote for her.

    I suspect from Clinton's record that she will continue to be the corporatist that she's been. I also suspect that Obama will not be much better.

    Healthcare and other social issues will be modulated by the votes in Congress. The last Clinton in the White House used a coalition of right-wing Dems and the Republicans to push through NAFTA and WTO. I haven't heard anything from Clinton apologizing for that.

    Clinton also has a staff of foreign policy advisors who are thuggish (Richard Holbrooke, for one). If her policy advisors support the invasion, the surge and the thinking behind the war in Iraq, and Clinton can't bring herself to say that she was wrong for giving Dubya war powers, then by what formula do I arrive at for supporting her?

    Don't get me wrong. I'll vote for any Democrat before I vote for a Republican or Nader. But I just don't know where you folks get your magic dust. She's a reactionary Democrat.

    So its true then (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:52:20 PM EST
    Your support for Obama is really anti-Clinton. You didn't like some of the policies and actions of BILL, and so you reject Hillary. The fact that Obama has done zero as a leader doesn't trouble you because 'you are wonderful, can make a difference and change the world if you vote for Obama'.

    no more caucuses (none / 0) (#58)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:46:17 PM EST
    and winner take all states would be a great start. Furthermore, Hillary is winning most of the big blue states that democrats need in november and Obama is winning in these red state caucuses where maybe 10,000 people votes that democrats don't have any fighting chance of winning in November.

    Thread Cleaned (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    I have deleted a comment that inaccurately stated one of Michelle Obama's comments, and the responses to it.

    Please don't spread misinformation here.

    I also deleted a comment with an overly long url that skewed the site.

    Keep it civil please.

    She's got to learn, then, that (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    every sentence matters and may be the soundbyte.

    (When I was in PR, I learned to never say more than a soundbyte -- so that I was picking it, not media.)


    I saw Colin Powell (none / 0) (#68)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:59:58 PM EST
    in a interview today. It was really disappointing. He starts off by saying he is not ready to endorse anyone, and how Americans need to example the record of all the candidates and then goes off on a love fest on Obama. Geez he was so obvious. He has the right to endorse who ever he wants, but this lack of integrity is shameful. His comments were so transparent he should just endorse Obama and be done with it. But, he is trying to play that objective statesman and yet he was so obviously an Obamatron.  One thing he said that I think we will hear more of, after they figure out a way to spin it, Powell said that "Obama's campaign is exiting Americans and PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD".  Of course the reporter didn't question what this meant. I see Colin Powell giving Obama international experience soon. LOL!!

    I mean "examine" the record of (none / 0) (#69)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:00:33 PM EST
    Geez, I mean exciting Americans. I (none / 0) (#74)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:04:14 PM EST
    must be tired.

    This being a Maine Caucus Thread (none / 0) (#71)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:00:43 PM EST
    Does anyone have any information on what's happening in Maine?

    Results threads (none / 0) (#75)
    by andrewwm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST




    Looks like things are breaking somewhat for Obama, but not as big as Washington was. Still lots of results still out.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#78)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:10:06 PM EST
    I looked up (none / 0) (#82)
    by IndependantThinker on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:17:32 PM EST
    Maine demographics, and I don't see why Hillary can't draw more from this state.