Matthew Dowd: Obama Will Win the Nomination

By Big Tent Democrat

His theory is this:
In doing the math on delegates, it looks highly likely that Obama will end up with a pledged delegate lead when all this is finished by June. . . . [H]ow does a party who has protested and screamed and yelled about counting all the votes, that the popular vote matters most, that an election was stolen by the Supreme Court in 2000, go against the votes and participation by voters in the Primary process???

There are two big flaws and one unproven surmise in Dowd's theory. The surmise is that Obama will lead among pledged delegates. That remains to be seen.

The first big flaw is related to that surmise - Florida and Michigan do not enter Dowd's thinking. What happens with Florida and Michigan will likely determine who leads among pledged delegates.

The second flaw is equating delegates to votes. It seems very likely that in fact Clinton will have a significant vote lead over Obama in my opinion. The logic Dowd draws cuts exactly against his argument. How can the votes be ignored? The standard response is "it is about the delegates." Well then, Dowd's argument defeats itself. I do not know how this will play out but Matthew Dowd's argument on this is not convincing to me.

NOTE: The comment thread is now closed.

< Why We Need Krugman | Electability Strategies >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • I love Howard Dean- But how did he let this happen (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by katiebird on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:01:02 PM EST
    I can't believe we actually won't seat the delegates from 2 major (or any 2) states.  How do we (as Democrats) campaign in states that weren't allowed representation at the convention?  

    But how can this be worked out without causing a deep rift?  

    It's a serious mess.

    Bad planning (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:54:21 PM EST
    You plan for the worse case scenario. They hoped for the best. This is an embarrassment. If the Dems run their party like this, how will they run the country?

    Corollary to the Obama rules (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:01:39 PM EST
    Because we can't measure the popular vote in many caucus states, the popular vote doesn't matter. Votes in Florida also don't matter.

    That rule is not going to stick (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    It's the essence of the Obama argument (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:14:54 PM EST
    It's not going to stick (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:23:11 PM EST
    IT simply will not.

    I am in Florida and I can tell you that this issue will cost us Florida. They have to find a way to seat the delegates.

    Redo Michigan if you must. But Florida is a fait accompli.


    I believe FL (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:26:23 PM EST
    is one state where Hillary is much more competitive than Obama in the GE. Pennsylvania and Ohio are two other, frankly.

    And yes, I think that not having counted the delegates there will matter in the fall.


    After this. Obama would have no chance (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:32:48 PM EST
    in florida imo.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:41:03 PM EST
    Howard Dean screwed the pooch on this one.  

    If Obama doesn't back seating the Florida delegates, he's going to have a very difficult time carrying the State in November.  If my parents are any indication, Florida democrats are absolutely furious (and, actually, my mother is a dem leaning independent and she's angry at Democrats over the issue even though she wasn't eligible to vote in the primary).  After 2000, Floridians are a bit touchy.  Understandably.


    Not gonna redo Michigan (none / 0) (#37)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:27:30 PM EST
    the delegates are already ratified.

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    We're screwed then.

    Dean should be figuratively shot for this.


    I'm in Florida too... (none / 0) (#43)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:30:27 PM EST
    I know several people that did not vote as they were told their votes would NOT COUNT as expressed by the DNC.

    I'm sure thousands went this way.

    If any FL or MI delegate is to be seated, the DNC should fund another vote. So ALL people can be counted.


    1.6 MM (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:32:11 PM EST
    an all time record voted.

    Obama lost be 300,000 votes.

    He lost. There will NOT be a new selection process.

    Obama was ON the ballot.

    Throw these results out at your peril. Florida will be lost to us.


    If seating Florida costs Obama (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    then you will lose the GE.

    Mebbe (none / 0) (#165)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:52:44 PM EST
    That Is why I am so pissed at Howard
    Dean about this.

    Just for my edification (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    Can you please inform me of

    1. where does Obama stand on issues?

    2. what DOES his record look like?

    what was the FL vote? (none / 0) (#57)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:37:55 PM EST
    And how many delegates would be awarded to each Clinton and Obama if they counted?  Anyone know?

    Florida vote (none / 0) (#216)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:59:02 PM EST
    Clinton   856,944
    McCain    693,425
    Romney    598,152
    Obama     568,930

    Obama  couldn't   even beat  Romney, let  alone  McCain.   Clinton beat  them  all.  

    Disenfranchise   Florida,  and you  LOSE  the  general  election, period.


    The DNC (none / 0) (#59)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:38:37 PM EST
    made it loud and clear the delegates would not be seated.

    So, since we don't like the election outcome we should change the rules.


    I do not know what we do (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:54:46 PM EST
    It is an efffing mess.

    1.6 million people voted. You can not ignore that.

    OR I guess you can, but if Dems do kiss Florida goodbye in November.


    Whatever happened to compromise (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:58:13 PM EST
    Penalize their by delegates by 50% and move on. They broke the rules, but the results also represent real voters. Perfect case for a compromise.

    Hillary going to Florida was good (none / 0) (#180)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:12:46 PM EST
    I have written elsewhere how my friends in Florida are pissed because their votes have been discounted. I was told by many that it was not Howards fault but the State Legislators. If that is who is to blame, what are you suppose to do with all the Dem Reps? Throw them all out? Maybe that was the GOP idea.

    People complained that Hillary was Grandstanding when she went to Florida after the polls closed. Thank goodness. By cutting off Florida, Dean made another mistake. The MSM was only covering the GOP all night. They got all the publicity. They only broke away when they went to Hillary speaking, but Dean gave up a whole night of free time for the Democrats. This was poor planning.


    DNC (none / 0) (#217)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:00:32 PM EST
    Maybe,   but  Obama   announced  loud  and clear  before  the  Florida  vote  that he  supported  their  reinstatement  at the  convention.    

    When  he  lost,  he  changed  his  mind.  

    If  he  doesn't  keep  his promise, he loses  Florida.


    DNC (none / 0) (#218)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:00:39 PM EST
    Maybe,   but  Obama   announced  loud  and clear  before  the  Florida  vote  that he  supported  their  reinstatement  at the  convention.    

    When  he  lost,  he  changed  his  mind.  

    If  he  doesn't  keep  his promise, he loses  Florida.


    you wanted Obama to break the rules? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Josey on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:06:14 PM EST
    by campaigning in Florida.

    you wanted Obama to break the rules? (none / 0) (#112)
    by Josey on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:08:14 PM EST
    by campaigning in Florida.

    Your premise assumes voters in FL (none / 0) (#183)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:14:04 PM EST
    either don't have access to TV, newspapers, internet, word of mouth or they pay no attention to any of it.  

    I hear this as an excuse for Obama's (none / 0) (#58)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    showing in FL...but if voters stayed home because their votes would not count, I would argue that there was a normal distribution of these voters across the three candidates.

    In essence, the percentages of the win would not have changed much for any candidate, the total vote tallies just may have been larger...


    FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by allimom99 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:54:20 PM EST
    ALL the candidates knew what the rules were going to be in both states and made their own decisions. The party made a mistake in saying they would not seat the delegates. You know damn well we need both these states to win in Nov. If they try to have a do-over, this tells the prople who bothered to come out the first time that THEIR votes don't matter.

    If we don't like the rules (and I don't - we need a national primary of some kind; caucuses should be ABOLISHED as they disenfranchise working prople, the poor, disabled, elderly etc; superdelegates need to be looked at as well.) then by all means, let's get the party to change them! But you can't just start changing the rules in the middle of the game. Obama doesn't get a do-over just because he doesn't like the results.

    I am an independent and an Edwards supporter - don't much care for Hillary OR Obama - but this posturing game is ridiculous - a real turn off to getting involved in the party again! Don't make the mistake of assuming that blue state progressive independents won't look long and hard at the Greens if the Dems don't get it together.


    I never suggest Obama is trying to change (none / 0) (#163)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:51:48 PM EST
    the rules...

    I just stated the above...that if it had counted, there is no evidence to suggest that the vote distribution would have been any different percentage wise


    Fupa (none / 0) (#219)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:03:18 PM EST
    He   IS  trying  to  change  the  rules,   AND  to  break his word  to  FLoridians.  

    He  told them  before  that  election  he'd  support  their  reinstatment  at  the  convention.

    After  he lost,  he  changed his mind.  


    here is a good link about this (none / 0) (#109)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:06:58 PM EST
    In reading the comments on that post (none / 0) (#135)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:23:15 PM EST
    I learned something.  I didn't know that the Clinton years '92-'00 were a horrible debacle ;-)

    I rather enjoyed the peace and prosperity myself.  Takes all kinds to make a world I guess.


    Still my favorite article (none / 0) (#154)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:40:21 PM EST
    I remember that. Always holarious and true. (none / 0) (#158)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:46:27 PM EST
    This is a toss up... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:02:26 PM EST
    I don't think good old H. Dean is getting much sleep at night.

    It will come down to Texas and Ohio. If Clinton loses either...Obama wins the nomination.

    There Is A Good Chance (none / 0) (#6)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:05:18 PM EST
    That Clinton will win the popular vote in Texas and lose in the delegate count.  

    What a mess.


    A good chance? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:10:50 PM EST

    Depends on those delegates which (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:25:36 PM EST
    are selected during the caucus phase of this stupid mess here in Texas.  I fully expect her to win the primary, and most delegates there, but those additional delegates chosen in the "precinct conventions" could hose it up.

    This primary election is an absolute travesty all the way around.  From undemocratic caucuses to the stupid rules in WA and TX.  If Howard Dean had any say in this mees, he should take a long walk off a short pier!


    When is this caucus phase? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:30:45 PM EST
    Texas caucus (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:35:31 PM EST
    The caucus in TX is the same day as the primary, only in the evening.  At rural votes they explain this process pretty well, and have also gone to the trouble of breaking down the senatorial precincts by both primary- and caucus-wise trends for each candidate.

    In essence, Texans will get a chance to vote twice, as I understand it.


    I hate this but there (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:43:33 PM EST
    are essentially separate primaries in each of 31 state senate districts.  Delegates in each district will be assigned by that individual primary vote outcome.  There are 126 delegates there.

    Then after polls close, caucuses will convene to assign 67 other delegates.  Just god awful!


    Part of me wants (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:48:47 PM EST
    Hillary to win the primary by 20 points and lose the caucuses.

    Then will we hear about the will of the voters ebing thwarted?


    Yep (none / 0) (#92)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    That's why I've changed my mind about Washington state.  I hope Democrats come out in droves on February 19th and Hillary wins.  I don't think it's likely, but caucuses must be changed to primaries for 2012.  

    The one other thing that could help kill caucuses is if Clinton's people somehow manage to outmaneuver Obama's in the state conventions and pull delegates away.  I'm not sure her campaign has the resources to do it or the ability, given how she lacked a presence in some of these states, but it would then give the Obama people a reason to hate caucuses to.

    Unity, baby.


    Couple of points of agreement (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    between even the most fervent Clinton and Obama supporters are:

    1.  The sequence of states holding their primary/caucus events has to be fixed, possibly at a national level to give greater uniformity.

    2.  Caucuses, as a whole, have turned a lot of people off of the nomination process.  Again a plea for greater uniformity.

    I think they may end up disagreeing over the continued use of super-delegates. But, I wonder if people will still care once the GE is over.  Will there still be a will to change?

    Same here... (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:19:27 PM EST
    ...and I'm hoping it comes out that way in the WA primary vote on the 19th.

    Ours doesn't 'count' in delegate selection but it may send a message...particularly to our undecided/unannounced superdelegates.  Announced elected supers, it stands at 6-3 favoring Hillary.


    Predicting Delegate/Vote Split (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:02:39 PM EST
    That website and its linked analysis is very interesting.  They're predicting that Clinton wins the popular vote by about 5% and loses delegates, primarily because of the caucuses, 98-95.  

    Again, I say, nicely done Democrats!  Way to make everything as confusing as it can possibly be.  Clusterf$*k to the White House, indeed!


    Well, if HRC wins the popular vote by 5% and Obama (none / 0) (#105)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:04:03 PM EST
    wins the delegate pledge by 2%, then HRC wins because her margin is larger than his.  heh

    WTF? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:47:31 PM EST
    The DNC approved this bizarre mess! (none / 0) (#100)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:00:51 PM EST
    I get lost just reading how this thing is going to play out.

    Also read they haven't had a contest caucus like this since 1988.  

    Hypatias Father:  Any idea how this thing went down?


    Unfortunately not. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    Truth is, I wasn't old enough to vote in 1988, but in any case we've never had national scrutiny of the system here.  Mostly this stems from the fact that the nominees are pretty much in place by the time they reach Texas, so turn-out is low.  Ironically, the Dem veterans I talk to tell met that the current system was put together in an attempt to make more voters feel more enfranchised vis-a-vis the addition of a caucus.  

    HaHaHa (none / 0) (#201)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:36:48 PM EST
    I'm sure the leaders thought voters would feel more enfranchised with a primary and a caucus.  If I had to guess, the real story is that those leaders wanted to hold more power over nominations for themselves and the party regulars, who go to the precinct meetings.

    If they didn't want more power, what's the point of appointing the last drab of delegates at the state convention in June, with no input from voters?

    Turn-out is historically low in Texas for all elections.  When Bush was re-elected governor, it was a massive 12% of registered voters.  Tons of people here are not registered to vote, though with motor voter I'm sure that's higher now.

    No matter how this primary turns out, it won't take much to get a record turnout in Texas :-)


    More on Texas caucus rules (none / 0) (#127)
    by joejoejoe on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:19:09 PM EST
    Marc Ambinder reports on the Texas "primacaucus" on his Atlantic blog with links to more detail from the Burnt Orange Report and the Star Telegram.

    Because William Kristol says so? (none / 0) (#188)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    HRC dumps her Latina campaign mgr., panders to AA vote by putting Maggie Williams in the slot.  HRC loses Texas.  Plus Obama has momentum, more money, he intends to push "a more robust econocmic message," and DK says so too.  

    I'm... (none / 0) (#25)
    by doordiedem0crat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:22:24 PM EST
    not so sure about that scenario. It will be close.

    But for Clinton to survive March she needs a WIN. She's in a slump. Ask Guliani how that worked out.

    Also, as with NY and California, she needs a large margin in Ohio and Texas to hold off Obama and swing momentum back to her side. Claiming both wins would be huge for her.


    Yup. Shall we all head for (none / 0) (#132)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:21:46 PM EST
    Wisconsin?  Brrrrr...

    Everyone heading for Wisconsin except (none / 0) (#147)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:31:55 PM EST
    for Clinton herself, it seems.  She's heading straight for El Paso.

    Is this part of a bold move to push victory through here in TX?

    If anyone in her campaign is listening, let me say that you must nail Obama in two areas:  the rural votes and the DFW area.  Rural voters in TX are liking their little moment in the primary season sun, and they won't like a candidate who ducks debates.  Push that issue.

    As for DFW, push the KERA-13 debate and go public with why he apparently has not responded (if in fact, that's the case).  Liberals in N. Texas LOVE their PBS affiliate, and the thought that Obama may be cheating them of seeing the two candidates duke it out in their home arena will be very influential in their decision.


    Sounds like CNN got (none / 0) (#171)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:00:05 PM EST
    the debate for Texas...or so they said on TV a bit ago.  Obama finally agreed.

    Gotcha, but (none / 0) (#174)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:05:57 PM EST
    that's the one in Austin, right?  So, I'm going to being to chalk up the KERA Dallas debate simply as a listserv rumor.

    I hadn't heard that Obama agreed.  Thanks for update.


    Not so; Clinton coming here (none / 0) (#198)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:32:24 PM EST
    to Wisconsin in two days.  Chelsea here already today, tomorrow, heading all over the state -- good coverage of her campus visits on local tv and CNN.

    Hillary Clinton was first to confirm she will do the debate (Obama won't) in Milwaukee, will speak at the big annual Dem event (Obama won't confirm), etc. . . .

    And more, but I've written this so many times here that you could find it if you wishes.  Where do you get your misinformation?


    Hi. Thought I had posted the source link (none / 0) (#210)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:50:00 PM EST
    in my first response above.  But I got my information here and then checked it here.

    C'mon to Wisconsin -- warm spell (none / 0) (#203)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:37:37 PM EST
    coming!  We'll be in the 20s in two days in time for the meetups, in the 30s when Hillary gets here -- on Susan B. Anthony's birthday, btw:-) and not far from where she and Elizabeth Cady Stanton founded our state suffrage association in Milwaukee City Hall in 1869. . . .  Then join us for a big welcome to her in downtown Milwaukee for the Founders Day dinner,  her ABC debate (a debate of one, since Obama won't do it), etc.

    But we'll still have our several feet of snow for sledding along our beautiful lakefront -- and then the best part, the hot chocolate afterward. . . .

    Chocolate, a lake that looks as big as a sea, and Hillary -- you can't beat the combination.  C'mon!


    Michigan and Florida (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:26:15 PM EST
    I think I always come back to this not because I don't understand why the delegates were stripped or care about the primary schedule, but because I honestly cannot envision a democratic convention where Michigan and Florida are not allowed to participate.  

    And I think that's Obama's problem.  It's that it's these two states.  If it had been Idaho and Utah, he'd be okay.  But you have two incredibly important states to the Democrats.  Michigan has a lot of blue collar, union, main-line Democratic voters, not to mention African Americans.  And it's in desperate economic straights.   Florida has a growing hispanic population, is one of the largest states in the nation, and is the ultimate swing state.

    I'm somewhat sympathetic to the rules are rules argument (at least if it's applied evenly across the board and not just where it hurt Clinton), but I just cannot envision a Democratic convention without these two states.  No matter the rules.  

    And I suspect that's Obama's real problem.  It's not that the rules don't favor him, it's that they lead to an outcome that is hard for Democrats like me to imagine - that these two big, important states won't be counted.

    The rules (not the Obama Rules but (none / 0) (#204)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:40:56 PM EST
    the Dem Party rules, if he would read and heed them) certainly allow for Michigan and Florida to be seated.  It's up to the other delegates, and we need to start hammering at them to see the sense of this, the need to not alienate two states we will need no matter the nominee.

    This isn't about Obama, it isn't about Hillary -- it's about needing Michigan and Florida to win the White House.  Clinton has that long view, so why doesn't he?  Oh, that's right.  Obama Rules. . . .


    Haha! From MYdd (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:30:10 PM EST
    Proving the point:

    The much lauded AP poll showing Obama up 46 to 41 against Clinton is actually wrong.

    It's Clinton 46%, Obama 41%

    So, everything that has come out today, all the pundits, all the prognosis, all the calls for Clinton to bail...have been based on a lie.  Let's see how many in the press pick up on this and admit to the lie.

    What's it BTD says about "your lying eyes?"

    Holy crap,l talk about only seeing what you want to see.

    Richard Pryor (none / 0) (#148)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:33:45 PM EST
    It the voters of Florida and MI (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by hillaryisbest on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:52:09 PM EST
    that are "clamoring" for the votes to count.  Major distintion.

    Shilling much - from MyDD (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:54:23 PM EST
    Some have wondered how far the media's love affair with Obama would go.  Apparently, it's reach the depths of mis-reporting poll results.

    AP/IPSOS has released new national poll numbers today.

    AP reports it as:

    "The poll shows Obama leading Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination, 46 percent to 41 percent."



    IPSOS provides the numbers and it shows:

    CLINTON leading OBAMA 46%-41%.


    This FALSE AP story is being picked up and run in local papers and trumpeted on the blogs.  Mark Halperin at thepage.time.com heralds the numbers on his page.  It seems in this case numbers CAN LIE when you want them to.

    Ahhh, the status of journalism today.

    Set up (none / 0) (#175)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:06:11 PM EST
    Simply no better way to state it. They're doing everything to sink Hillary -- because so far they can.

    It's too late now to rally disgruntle conservatives over, too. I'm trying, but Bill is the reason they stay away. It's the reason they can hate Hillary so much. They're scared because Clinton was the Dem they would've liked Bush to be, but without the affair issue.

    What a mess.


    I just sent an email to AP (none / 0) (#177)
    by hillaryisbest on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:08:02 PM EST
    and cc:d other media outlets asking them if this was a lie or negligence?  Either way it's pretty shoddy journalism.

    If KO doesn't report this tonight (none / 0) (#205)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:42:47 PM EST
    he goes even farther down in my estimation. . . .

    Heh. Hillary the victim (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Egypt Steve on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    can only win by changing the rules, I take it.  And that's ok, and if anyone objects, they are a venomous, hateful, invading alien from Nixonland.  Got it.

    You seem to not remember that Obama said (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:27:52 PM EST
    prior to the FL election that he believed all delegates should be seated.  But he apparently changed his mind after he lost FL.  Obama's Rules again.

    That is at best (none / 0) (#48)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:33:07 PM EST
    a distortion.

    ?He said something to that effect (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    I'll put it this way - It is a LOT fairer to say Obama said that than it is to say Hillary demanded Shuster be fired.

    He did say it (none / 0) (#74)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:47:20 PM EST
    back in September.  I don't see how that is relevant since he also agreed to not campaign in that state.  Also David Plouffe, his campaign manager said this back in September...

    "To become the Democratic nominee for president, a candidate must secure a majority of delegates to the national convention. Because states that violate DNC rules will not be allowed to contribute to the delegate tally, we urge all states to ensure their compliance with DNC rules so they can participate in our Democratic nominating process. Our campaign will work within the rules established by the DNC to earn the support of Democrats across America and run a grassroots campaign to unite Americans around Senator Obama's commitment to challenging the conventional thinking in Washington."

    Certainly not exactly a ringing endorsement for reinstatement.

    I haven't really paid much attention to the Shuster scandal.  Scandals involving pundits are utterly boring to me.


    So you agree that he said it? Okay. Now he wants (none / 0) (#84)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:54:16 PM EST
    to take it back.  Typical of him.  It's what he does on a regular basis.  Obama's Rules, remember?  And, well, what I really, really, really meant was......

    Also, he agreed not to campaign in Florida, but he came really close in September by giving a "PRESS CONFERENCE" after a fundraiser.  When asked about it, Obama replied "I was just doing you guys a favor. ... If that's the case, then we won't do it again."  So he breaks a campaign pledge and excuses it by saying he was just doing the press a favor. One of many reasons I can't stand the guy.  He is a phony.  He is exactly like every other politician with the exception that he gives a good speech written by someone else.


    That's the spirit (none / 0) (#110)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:07:09 PM EST
    Any other names you would like to call him?  

    FTR, the situation you referenced was a situation in which he was leaving a fundraiser and some reporters came up to him and asked him some questions.  It happened 2 days after the pledge was made.  He said he didn't realize that answering questions was a violation and said he wouldn't do it again.  It happened in September.  How much of an impact do you think that had?


    Thats not how I heard (none / 0) (#151)
    by IndependantThinker on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:37:33 PM EST
    it. Obama walked across the street to talk to the reporters. Quit lying.

    Its the equivolent (none / 0) (#113)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:09:04 PM EST
    of "vocally supporting" a bill after voting no (or vice versa) in the Ill. senate...

    Have your cake and eat it too...


    You can keep twisting his comments (none / 0) (#124)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:15:25 PM EST
    if you like.  Not sure what you think it will achieve.

    If you want to be outraged or think Obama was cheating because he talked to a handful of reporters  back in September, more power to you.

    Just don't get your knickers in a bunch when the same kind of twisting is done regarding Clinton's comments.


    My knickers aren't in a bunch (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:27:39 PM EST
    not even close...never said Obama was cheating either! (let me guess, rose tinted glasses?)

    However, the press conference WAS against the rules (whether Obama knew it or not doesn't matter...the fact is the fact...)

    It is also a fact that Obama did voice support for seating the Florida delegation...and it is a fact that he no longer feels it appropriate to seat them before a nominee is named...why did he change his mind...well there is no fact on record about that, but politics is a likely guess...

    Because he did support it when asked, but his ACTIONS of working against seating them say otherwise, the analogy stands...

    He did similar things in the Ill. Senate...that is a fact...he would voice support against something, and then vote for it, changing his "vocal" vote to be against, while the recorded vote (the one that counts) was opposite his "vocal" vote...it is having one's cake and eating it too...those are the facts...

    Motives and politics are a whole different argument and are subject to our speculation, opinions and disposition...


    I hadn't realized (none / 0) (#153)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:38:16 PM EST
    you were so in tune with Illinois state politics.  I guess I'll just take your "facts" at face value given your clear intimate knowledge of Illinois state politics. (let me guess you read a blog about it once?)

    Who cares if he made some small violation of the rules 5 months ago?  Why does that matter other than for Hillary partisans to use it as a gotcha?

    He supported seating the delegates PROVIDED he was the presumptive nominee.  Why do you Hillary supporters continue to ignore this point and distort his statement?  


    I'm not ignoring anything (none / 0) (#161)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:50:06 PM EST
    actually...to the contrary, I am trying to play fair on both sides. I give Obama credit when it is due, but it always seems to me that I end up having to go to bat for Hillary more often because the distortion generally comes from the other side more frequently than Hillary's side (don't get me wrong, there is distortion from both camps).

    I laid out the facts above, and you chose to insult, and condescend rather than bring up the facts, or argue within them...fair enough...speaks volumes about how you ACTUALLY view Obama's campaign, and your need to go out and spin for him...its just a shame we can't have a more earnest discussion, instead we have to wallow through half-truths, distortions and Democratic fratricide...


    No you did not (none / 0) (#199)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:33:11 PM EST
    lay out the facts.  You parsed his comments to fit a narrative.  

    If you wish to say that he was dodging the question, that's fine.  But to suggest he is reneging on a promise is pure silliness.

    Here's the thing.  I have said nothing negative about Hillary Clinton.  Yet I am constantly having to defend Obama on this site.  And the excuse given is almost alway "well Hillary gets it so much worse so it's only fair".  No it isn't only fair.  

    Krugman claims that Obama supporters allow the Clinton smearing to go on.  Perhaps if they didn't feel like the Clinton team and supporters weren't smearing Obama so much they would be more upset about it.


    what does that mean? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:01:04 PM EST
    He will seat the delegates so long as he is the presumptive nominee

    As far as I've read, ONLY the presumptive nominee can seat the delegates.  Is Obama saying that if he is winning by five delegates, he will seat MI and FL, thus giving Hillary the win?

    Or is he saying so long as he has a majority to win even if MI and FL are seated, he'll seat them?

    Honestly, I really don't understand how he gets it both ways.  If you can explain "what Obama meant" I would appreciate it.

    As for IL politics, he was NOT asked to vote present by NOW, He either did not remember or told a lie.  As has been stated by the president of NOW at the time Obama was in the senate, they actually wanted him to vote their way and could not understand why he did not.


    He's basically avoding the issue (none / 0) (#192)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:26:20 PM EST
    He doesn't want to upset the Florida voters but he also has no interest in simply letting Hillary get a bunch of free delegates.  So he basically says that he will seat them once he is determined to be the nominee.

    If you want to get upset about that, go for it.  I don't believe that either candidate is being terribly upfront in this whole mess.  Truth be told, I would respect Hillary's argument a lot more had she pushed for seating the delegates before the election.  She had a huge lead in Florida, as she did in most states early on.  She could have pushed to have the delegates seated in December.  Instead she waited until after she won.

    As for the present votes the strategy was Planned Parenthood's, not NOW's.  They asked him to vote present and he did.  Honestly is this REALLY a debate that needs to be had?  Obama receives perfect scores on abortion rights.  


    It's an important issue to me (none / 0) (#206)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:43:02 PM EST
    because it is yet another case of Obama saying he did one thing when he actually did another.

    He won't stand up for politically hard issues.  


    How so? (none / 0) (#209)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:46:51 PM EST
    One more time.  Planned Parenthood asked him to do it.  He has been 100% supportive on abortion rights.  

    What are the tough issues that either candidate is taking up?  Health Care?  Hardly a tough issue for Democrats.

    I would say that Obama's stance on immigration reform is a tough stance, once that is very unpopular with a lot of Americans even if it is the right choice.


    WORM (none / 0) (#221)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:17:24 PM EST
    Correct , Kathy.  

    We  all have  to  play  the  WORM  game:  What  did  Obama  Really  Mean?    

    Said he  wanted superdelegates to   stand with  state  delegate  counts,  didn't  he?  
    Well,  except  for  Kerry  &  Kennedy ,  who  would  have  to  vote  WITH  Massachusetts.

    WORM:  What did Obama  Really  Mean?  

    Hard  to  tell  sometimes.


    To be fair (none / 0) (#117)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:10:25 PM EST
    it was an impromptu press conference...

    What did OBAMA say? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:58:13 PM EST
    And WHY did he say it?

    HE was campaigning dude.

    Breaking the rules in the parlance of Obama supporters.


    HE said (none / 0) (#101)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:01:40 PM EST
    that if he was the presumptive nominee he would advocate to have them seated.  

    Bit of a reach to suggest he is reneging.


    Now he says he is (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:19:45 PM EST
    the presumptive nominee.  So where is his statement in favor of seating those delegates.

    Oh no, not the Obama Rules again, when nothing he says sticks. . . .


    You have a quote for that? (none / 0) (#140)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:25:28 PM EST
    I haven't heard him say that he was the presumptive nominee.  Any sort of link to back that up would be great.

    Yes he does (none / 0) (#222)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:19:18 PM EST
    Once  again,  we're  playing  the  WORM  game.    

    Cake  and  eat  it  too,  eh?


    How is this a distortion? Please explain. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:36:52 PM EST
    I believe (none / 0) (#65)
    by muffie on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:41:43 PM EST
    he has said that he would seat the delegates if he is the nominee.  In other words, their votes for the Dem nominee wouldn't make a difference, but they could still vote on party platform, and do whatever  else it is delegates do.

    Oh that's right (none / 0) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:48:14 PM EST
    My memory was off.

    He said that if he is the presumptive nominee he would seat them.


    Citation, please (none / 0) (#155)
    by Egypt Steve on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    This is funny considering (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:29:10 PM EST
    the argument for why Obama wins requires changing the superdelegate rule.

    Man sometimes Obama supporters could not be more obtuse.


    Not really. . . (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:37:37 PM EST
    requires changing the superdelegate rule

    I think what Obama would rely on in this case would be various forms of suasion -- moral and political -- to convince the enough superdelegates to vote his way.  This kind of lobbying is perfectly within the rules as, I suppose, are the making of various political threats and deals.

    It might violate the spirit of the superdelegates, but not the rules.


    And if the Supers do not go his way (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:44:34 PM EST
    How does Obama propose to put the PArty back together again?

    This is borderline threatening.


    Well, it ain't beanbag. (none / 0) (#89)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:55:04 PM EST
    You were expecting Kumbaya?

    Wait up (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:57:04 PM EST
    You see threatening to split the PArty as a legitimate tactic?

    I sure do not.


    There's an awful lot. . . (none / 0) (#138)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:24:14 PM EST
    of suasion that can take place without "threatening to split the party".  Both abstract moral issues and political hardball (endorsements, money, patronage).  Obama is a Chicago politician, he well knows how all this works.

    And if it comes down to it, Obama has a good argument to make about how denying him the nomination in the face of an electoral victory would split the party without any action on his part.  I believe that, and I'm hardly an Obama partisan.  That's analysis, not threat.  As in "an analysis the Democratic Party can't refuse".


    Axelrod on Super Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:14:53 PM EST
    VIa Taylor Marsh:

    AXELROD: I think that the role of the superdelegate is to act as, sort of, a party elder. These are elected officials from across the country and they're supposed to exercise their judgment as to what would be best for the party. And as they look at this, they need to decide who would be the strongest candidate for the party...

    LAUER: David, you're not answering. Should those two senators vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?

    AXELROD: I think they and all the superdelegates should vote according to what they think is best for the party and the country. And I think that we need the strongest possible candidate against John McCain...

    So now camp Obama is back to urging Super Delegates to vote however they want, for the good of the party.   Man, I can't keep their spin straight on this issue.

    So far Clinton appears to be doing most of her Super Delegate lobbying in private.  A better approach I think because it does not split the party and it doesn't require all the double talk.

    I also wonder if some Super Delegates aren't going to resent the Obama camp trying to put public pressure on them.  Oh, wait, they're Democrats, they don't have any backbones so I don't think that's going to be a problem for Team Obama.  

    Oh, wait, they're Democrats which means the no backbone rule doesn't apply to other Democrats, only to Republicans.  They love screwing over fellow Dems in service of their egos, so maybe that is a worry for Team Obama.


    Not arguing for changing the rules (none / 0) (#62)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:40:34 PM EST
    But advocating that they abide by the pledged delegate count as a matter of not destroying the party or its chances in November.  It's a sales pitch based on principal (aka: guilt).

    Um (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:43:39 PM EST
    Very convenient. Why not by states as Obama himself advocated?

    Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick announciong their support for Hillary anytime soon?

    Here is what I hate, the sheer gall of the disinegnuouness of your argument.


    As posted above (none / 0) (#87)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:54:27 PM EST
    that favors Obama.  

    But I agree that that is stupid.  To me, if Obama is ahead in pledged delegates (factoring in MI and FL), and popular vote, then SD's should pledge not to overturn that verdict.

    If Obama crushes tomorrow and the rest of the month and essentially ties or narrowly wins OH and TX, his supporters will be in a position to demand Hillary cave.


    That is changing the rules (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:56:18 PM EST
    How about they agree to support the person who has the most votes?

    Do you like that better? I bet you do not.


    He needs popular vote and pledged (none / 0) (#119)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:11:24 PM EST
    to carry the moral high ground.(Reverse is true for Hillary).

    If Bowers projections are accurate, Obama can be ahead with a little bit of "upset" in TX & OH.  I'm framing all this in Obama terms because I think he's got an advantage.

    If Hillary has a big upset in February and leads these same metrics after TX and OH, I'll want Obama to quit for the sake of the party.

    I'm that noble.........


    Why should Hillary cave (none / 0) (#121)
    by allimom99 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:13:24 PM EST
    because the Obama supporters DEMAND it? Last time I checked, it's up to the candidate to decide if and when to call it quits! This attitude is one of the things that bothers me about his campaign. I won't get into others as ot would be off-topic.

    I'm a donor and I DEMAND that she (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:20:55 PM EST
    stay in the race for a long time yet.  

    Why should Hillary cave? (none / 0) (#139)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:24:43 PM EST
    Because if she's losing by all metrics and her only path to the nomination is to strong-arm superdelegates to ignore the will of Democratic  voters and fracture the party, then it's the right thing to do.  Same goes for Obama.

    The rules are what she says (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:09:26 PM EST
    and I believe you have been told them, so this is the last time:

    The rest of the delegates vote on accepting, or not, those states' delegates.  (This has happened before, this is not a new thing, and it is a very old rule.)

    She says that to keep her promise to those states, she will encourage -- that's all she can do -- her delegates to vote to accept those states' delegates.

    Obama is the one saying to break the promise he made to FL to encourage accepting its delegates.  Obama is the one saying that super-delegates should not do what they are supposed to do.

    What part of that don't you understand?  This is not harrrd worrrk.


    I bet you are one dyn-o-mite teacher! (none / 0) (#150)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:36:11 PM EST
    Aw, thanks -- but I'm much nicer (none / 0) (#208)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:45:41 PM EST
    to my students.  They know better than to blather about what they don't know, they know better than to make an argument without evidence.

    Some of these posters would barely earn a D -- and about the writing, the spelling, the punctuation?  We won't go there.

    I think we could fix a lot of things in this country by reinstating a literacy test, but for all of the country:  Only those who know the correct use of the apostrophe, a sign of adulthood, get to vote.


    Outlook fuzzy (none / 0) (#4)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:04:29 PM EST
    try again later.  Nobody should be guessing anything till there's more information about where TX and OH are currently trending.

    Well then (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:10:21 PM EST
    I guess I can shut the blog down until March 4th.

    We'll have info from those states soon... (none / 0) (#13)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:11:33 PM EST
    We have info now (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:21:58 PM EST
    You seem to be waiting for Zogby.

    BTW, whatever happened to Zogby? NEver hear about his polls anymore.


    give it a few weeks... (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:40:02 PM EST
    I predict a March 3rd poll showing Obama in a landslide victory as king of the universe (and one showing the same for McCain)

    King of the universe. (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:42:36 PM EST

    It actually reminds me a bit of my fraternity (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:52:29 PM EST
    and college days...its like a drinking chant...


    either that or a Tony Robbins or some other corporate motivation conference...


    Zogby? (none / 0) (#55)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:37:08 PM EST
    Just anything that's not a month old...

    Where is Zogby? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:46:59 PM EST
    Filing for a name change after CA (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by reynwrap582 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:07:53 PM EST
    Zogby's apologia to (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    Los Angeles Times:



    Not at all... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    This and other blogs may be scrutinized even more by persons living in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, etc., who have not had a chance in recent memory to be courted by candidates and their supporters.  

    I expect lurkers and new commenters, especially those who have recently lost their own candidates, will want to know more about why they should support Clinton on issue X, Y, and Z.


    I agree (none / 0) (#8)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:08:38 PM EST
    And here is a pretty detailed analysis of how my home state of TX is shaping up for the candidates.  I cannot believe I will soon be voting in such a byzantine nomination process as we have in Texas.  I hope people will still be as interested in making this process more democratic AFTER the dust has settled as they are now.

    per houston chronicle, hillary leads (none / 0) (#17)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:16:42 PM EST
    obama $4,542,503 to $2,527,547. i don't have the latest poll number right at my fingertips, but last i looked we was significantly ahead.

    Which way is the best way to tally (none / 0) (#5)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:05:14 PM EST
    the popular vote so far, do you think?

    Here they have posted at least four ways to compute the majority popular vote per candidate.  Despite Dowd's prognosis, Clinton is far from out yet.

    Can we quote you on that? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:06:41 PM EST
    Texas or Ohio--if Clinton loses either, Obama wins the nomination.

    How do we define "lose"?  She has more of the popular vote?  She has two more delegates than him?

    Let's pin it down now because I am getting sick of the goal post moving.

    Before Super Tuesday, it was: he has to win one of the big states to stay in.  He has to win two of three: MO, CA and NJ.  He has to win MA and humiliate her "in her back yard."

    The day after, it was, "he won more states!" as if Utah was on par with NY.  "He pounded her in his home state by 30%!" as if she hadn't beaten him by 50% in Arkansas.  He humiliated her in CT, "in her back yard."

    So, please tell me, without equivocation, what the rules are for her to win now?

    Those moving goalposts are (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    the Obama Rules.

    You can quote ME on that (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:09:32 PM EST
    quote you on which one? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:24:00 PM EST
    Which scenario means a win vs a loss?

    BRAVO! (none / 0) (#225)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:14:05 PM EST
    Open Left (none / 0) (#15)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    has some varying popular vote totals that are interesting.

    Also a commenter posted this calculation on the hypothetical of SD's voting vote with the will of their states caucus or primary (I'm accepting calculations at face value):

    "Wikipedia says superdelegates are allotted per state, so using their primary page I added up all the superdelegates in states that have voted. If each SD were to support the winner in their own state, the current spread would be:
    Obama: 230
    Clinton: 251

    If Obama wins all 3 on Tuesday:

    Obama: 300
    Clinton: 251"

    If Obama can be ahead on any and all metrics after 3/5, Clinton should bail.

    That post is not clear at all (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:19:06 PM EST
    I confidently predict this, by the time all the votes are counted, Clinton will have the most votes.

    Popular vote? If so, then I agree. But how does (none / 0) (#26)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:22:39 PM EST
    one calculate the popular vote in caucus states where they did not go to the polls and vote?

    Estimates (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:24:25 PM EST
    Based on delegate take and turnout.

    Though I believe you can actually do a raw count in most caucus states.


    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:19:51 PM EST
    Your suggestion at the end is nonsene.

    PEnnsylvania votes in April.


    Schmensylvania (none / 0) (#45)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:32:04 PM EST
    If Obama has his February sweep and wins either Ohio or Texas, Clinton could not win PA by a big enough margin to make a difference.

    Well (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:46:12 PM EST
    I agree with that.

    But you did not say Obama had to win Ohio or Texas.


    What's a Texas Win? (none / 0) (#81)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:52:25 PM EST
    Popular vote or delegate count.  Because the way they divide delegates in Texas is screwed up in the extreme.  

    I agree Clinton probably needs both states, but if Texas is incredibly close and she wins Ohio soundly, I think she might still be in it because Ohio is like Florida - a democratic obsession.  If Obama sweeps this month and wins Ohio, Clinton has real problems.


    A Texas win is whatever Obama says it is (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:59:15 PM EST
    Hillary takes home both...Obama Wins!

    Hillary takes home the popular vote...Obama Wins!

    Hillary takes home the delegates...Obama Wins!

    Hillary takes home neither...well you know the answer...Obama Wins!

    Them's the rules...love them or hate them...


    Any metric? Or ALL metrics? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:27:15 PM EST
    If Pennsylvania is still in a position to decide the vote, I'd say let it go through Pennsylvania.

    At that point, if either candidate is behind by all (reasonable) metrics, they ought to retire.  But if your position really is that if Obama manages to stay ahead by any single metric, notwithstanding he's behind in all the others, then Clinton should quit doesn't sound either fair or realistic.


    All (none / 0) (#50)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:33:52 PM EST
    How far ahead? (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:54:14 PM EST
    Why on Earth would you want to disenfranchise Pennnsylvania voters?

    Is pissing off Florida and Michigan NOT ENOUGH?


    Now, does all. . . (none / 0) (#63)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:40:39 PM EST
    include seeing whether pledged delegates plus a committed supers plus uncommitted supers could get a majority?

    No (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:45:31 PM EST
    The onyl metrics that matter are the ones that favor Obama.

    and vice versa if hillary is ahead. (none / 0) (#19)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    if obama is behind in the delegates, let him get out and not mess up the convention.

    Agree (none / 0) (#29)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:23:46 PM EST
    Howard Dean said this too (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:26:24 PM EST
    Either Dean also forgot Penn (highly unlikely) or Dean wants to unjustifably declare an early winner.

    That is obvious (none / 0) (#102)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:02:24 PM EST
    the DNC would LOVE to have had this wrapped up either way on 2-5...then they can put the party to work behind a candidate earlier...and get to work defending the oncoming RNC attacks

    But a continued fight to the convention just drains party resources, sours the base, and probably hurts the down ticket candidates (the MSM isn't focused on them in the least)...


    True (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:15:02 PM EST
    But if you stop the primaries before the election is settled, isn't it a little like 2000 when the Supreme Court stopped the vote count before the election was settled?

    No, not apples and apples (none / 0) (#146)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:31:25 PM EST
    We're talking about having a primary wrapped up...the remaining primaries are meaningless # wise for delegates...

    You're talking about a recount that was halted...

    But I would like to remind everyone that if Al Gore had won his home state...FL wouldn't have mattered...so much for taking "home states" for granted aye?


    Not true (none / 0) (#212)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:52:58 PM EST
    Pennsylvania won't be done in March, it's set for April.

    The Boxer rule. (none / 0) (#18)
    by CathyinLa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:17:40 PM EST
    Sen. Boxer said her super delegate vote would go to the person who won her state.  How did we lose the notion that this is what should happen?

    Sen. Clinton shouldn't win super delegates in states she lost.  Sen. Obama shouldn't win super delegates in states he lost.  He should get them because he has a delegate lead because he won Nebraska or Utah?
    If Clinton wins three more big states, I can't imagine that we're going to weight, "but I won Utah!" as more valuable to us in the general. If Clinton loses those big states, the headache is over.

    You'll not see me switching sides and trying to claim she should hold on the super delegates in states where she lost.


    I'm the decider.

    The rules do not require that (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:20:45 PM EST
    And the idea of forcing Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick to vote for Clinton is a funny one.

    Then it's funny to force.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by CathyinLa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:25:37 PM EST
    ...Boxer and Feinstein to vote Obama based on the argument that he has a pledged delegate lead.

    They are either all independent or they should vote with their state, come what may.


    It's a ridiculous argument all around (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:28:09 PM EST
    The point of the super delegates is (none / 0) (#106)
    by Virginian on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:04:35 PM EST
    to play moderator and tie breaker...they are the "senate" the the state's congress

    Then why have them? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:05:51 PM EST
    Why the redundancy?

    What you want is not why the Dem Party set up superdelegates.  You weren't in the party then and don't remember?  Or since and haven't seen them follow the rules re their role many times since?

    Enough of this changing the Dem Party rules to the Obama Rules.  Enough of him setting up a third party within the party, benefitting from it but not paying it back for what it did for him.

    It will be harder than ever for me to vote for him, if he's the nominee, because our ballots take two hands -- and one will be holding my nose.


    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by CathyinLa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:21:08 PM EST
    I'm not trying to favor Obama here.  I don't understand why this is so controversial, except perhaps I am not being clear:  I am perfectly fine with the "they are all independent" argument. But, if not, I don't want to see Obama get super delegates from states he lost.

    Whey is though so contentious?


    Nonsense. (none / 0) (#28)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton shouldn't win super delegates in states she lost.  Sen. Obama shouldn't win super delegates in states he lost.

    That is certainly not the way that superdelegates were envisioned.  If there were meant to be awarded to the winner of the state popular vote, they'd be apportioned that way as part of the regular process.

    If superdelegates are expected to vote according to a formula, they should be appointed according to that formula.  Otherwise, their function is to vote whichever way they want to -- even if that is against their state's popular vote and/or the national popular vote.

    I say, get rid of them.


    Yep (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:27:43 PM EST
    That is exactly what I said. (none / 0) (#190)
    by CathyinLa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:25:37 PM EST
    I'm astounded that no one understood it.

    but, I take the blame ;)


    MI/FL (none / 0) (#24)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:22:19 PM EST
    We'll never get those delegates seated unless we march in the streets. Hillary won those states and the Democratic Party doesn't want Hillary.

    Kathy, you said... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:29:06 PM EST
    in response to another thread post:

    "I am a southerner (which is why I know Texas is not the south) but y'all do have manners over there and I think that Obama committing to debates then backing out, or refusing to debate at all, is going to be seen as arrogant and disrespectful.

    I don't know if it will have enough of an impact, but I think it will give some folks pause."

    You are absolutely correct, it will have a large impact.  And losing in Texas would certainly throw off Dowd's prognosis.

    That's why I'm currently trying to get confirmation re. the rumor that Obama has either backed out of or refused a debate that was to be hosted in Dallas by KERA-13, the local PBS affiliate.

    However, the venue of the debates DOES matter.  No one will care if Obama backs out of FOX debates, and in fact any Clinton push to debate there will result in backlash.  That's my two cents.

    Thanks for checking on that (none / 0) (#136)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:23:21 PM EST
    These perceived "snubs" are not politically wise, I think.  Must be Chicago manners coming out.  

    I will be interested in finding out what happened with Edwards, too.  I don't see Edwards being the one to call off the meeting.  You allow someone to say their piece before you make your decision.


    Best I can find of evidence... (none / 0) (#197)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:31:52 PM EST
    The debate will be in Austin, not Dallas, hosted by CNN and Univision.

    I'm looking forward to it, though wish it was hosted in Dallas by PBS, a more neutral venue to be sure.


    Obama can not lose (none / 0) (#60)
    by SecondAve on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:38:44 PM EST
    It is like this. Ohio, Texas, Penn - they will end up very close and so will the delegate count from those states. Obama will have the most because of his huge victories this past weekend and tomorrow.

    The End. No way the Dems take it away from Obama following the largest overall turnout of voters (when all is done) in the parties history has just said that it is him that they want. Not after Florida 2000. No Way, No how.

    It is over. Obama can not lose.

    Why do people (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:26:57 PM EST
    insist on giving Obama all of the credit for large turn-out, especially as in the largest state, Clinton got the majority of votes?  It defies logic.  If we want to give anyone the credit for the large turn-out on the dem side, we need only look at George Bush.

    Now, Kathy, you know it's another of (none / 0) (#211)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:50:12 PM EST
    the Obama Rules.

    I so agree with you -- the turnout of women, already voting more than men have done for more than half a century, has been up even more now.  With 51% of the population, and 54% of the voters last time, women are averaging 57% of the voters this time -- and even soaring above 60% in some states.

    Some certainly are there for Obama -- but most are there for Clinton.  There 'tis.


    Okay then (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:42:13 PM EST
    IF Hillary gets the most votes, the will of the voters will be thwarted as I understand your logic.

    Well done.


    Florida redux (none / 0) (#79)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:49:09 PM EST
    So you object to Florida 2000 (as do I), but you don't object to Florida 2008?  If Sen. Obama wins the nomination because he has a one delgate majority and refuses to seat Florida, Dems will lose Florida and the general.  Dean et al. had better figure this one out, and fast.

    Allow me to say HAHAHA (none / 0) (#80)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:51:43 PM EST
    No way (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    ..if that were the case then McCain will be President, surely you jest.  

    Best Thing I've Read for HRC All Day (none / 0) (#76)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 03:48:07 PM EST
    I've been a little down as a Clinton supporter.  Sure I expect her losses this month, but that doesn't make them any more fun to sit through.

    Then I read Dowd.  If Matthew Dowd, Bush enabler extraordinaire, is predicting Obama will be the nominee, then I think Clinton is still in this thing and has a decent chance to win.  Now, if only I could get Tom "FU" Friedman to say that Obama will be the nominee in six months, I'd be sure we're looking at Clinton as the nominee.

    popular vote lead? (none / 0) (#99)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:00:30 PM EST
    The second flaw is equating delegates to votes. It seems very likely that in fact Clinton will have a significant vote lead over Obama in my opinion.

    Just wondering where you get that from.  The press reports that he already has a lead of 200,000 votes.  Virginia and Maryland, coming up, while not the size of Ohio, are not chopped liver either -- together the total pop is 12 million.

    So why do you think it's "very likely" that Clinton will have a "significant vote lead" ?

    Here's a link (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:34:12 PM EST
    about the LOW turnout at caucuses:

    "Kansas with a participation rate of 8.5%, Maine at 11.6%, Colorado at 11.9%, and Minnesota at 13.8%...You can add up all the participants in Washington, Alaska, Kansas, Maine, Colorado, Nebraska, Minnesota, Idaho, North Dakota, Iowa, Nevada, throw in the party-run primaries in New Mexico and Utah and you'll still only have 1.3 million participants, or about 450,000 fewer than Florida."


    Link? Which "press"? (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:11:02 PM EST
    Not what I've seen.

    200,000 vote lead (none / 0) (#134)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:22:41 PM EST
    I gotta run, but so as to leave you with at least one cite: Newsweek's Romano writes today: "Barack Obama had a good weekend. For starters, he opened a lead of 84 pledged delegates and 200000 popular votes..."

    delegates (none / 0) (#111)
    by allimom99 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:07:12 PM EST
    May I just point out that ALL of the delegates are entitled to change their minds if they so choose. ALL of the delegates should be seated from MI and FL to recognize the value of those voters in the GE. Fix the rules once this mess is over. Play by the rules you have and learn from your mistakes for God's sake. The Repugs are laughing thir a**es off at all of this!

    Word to MY candidate, John Edwards - don't endorse anyone now. Your 24 votes might let you drive policy discussion the way it's been going.

    BTW, forget about the polls - haven't we already seen that they are meaningless this year?

    Not as much as you think (none / 0) (#159)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:46:38 PM EST
    The Repugs are laughing thir a**es off at all of this!

    Not as much as trying to cream McCain (and boy do I do my share!). The divide between conservatives on him is deep.

    If Hillary supports believe McCain is their friend, might as well GIVE him the election. As he's the one bleeding off Hillary's votes.

    And damn, come to this blog to get away from him, and sure enough there's a smiling pick of him here....AGGGGGGGH!!!!! >:(


    Back off of Dean (none / 0) (#116)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:09:28 PM EST
    Yeah he's the head of the DNC but not seating MI and FL wasn't a one person decision. The primary dates and rules were passed by the rules and by-laws committee and full DNC by an overwhelming margin.The decision to strip the states of it's delegates was made by a large margin DNC votes as well.

    Why is this not the fault of the party leaders of MI and FL who remained defiant, insisting on holding the primaries on the dates they chose? They were the ones who weren't looking out for the greater good of the party.

    MI and FL were specifically told not by the DNC not to jump ahead. If the votes that were recorded on a day in which are allowed to stand and change the course of the race, what's to keep other states from doing the same in the future? If party rules can be ignored without penalty, then having the DNC is pointless.

    Florida's Primary (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:18:29 PM EST
    was moved by the Republican-dominated Florida legislature.

    And there were half-measures that Dean and the DNC could've taken, like stripping Florida of half its delegates like the Republicans did (you remember, the party who controlled the legislature that moved the primary).  They did not have to go for the nuclear option.  That was a choice.

    More to the point, keeping your primary schedule intact isn't worth a hill of beans if you lose the GE because you've alienated voters in swing states to do it.  And, the problems with the primary schedule came about because of a legitimate complaint from states about the primacy of Iowa and NH, an issue that the DNC should've dealt with before it became a crisis.  This is not the first time in recent primaries states have skipped ahead.


    Why Dean is to blame (none / 0) (#133)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:22:24 PM EST
    There were other options to biting you nose to spite your face. Amateur.

    Amateur? (none / 0) (#167)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:57:00 PM EST
    Let's see, putting aside the doomsday scenarios that are being bandied about here since it's all speculation, what has happened under Howard...

    A huge reclamation of seats in the House and Senate, largely in part to his 50 state strategy. The DNC bringing in more donation money than the GOP for the first time in most anyone's memory. Record turnouts  for Democratic primaries in 08.

    Some amateur. I'll take that any day over the McAuliffe days of losing elections, writing off good red state candidates, and always being second fiddle cash wise. Oh and by the way, the person who came up with the idea of not seating delegates for states that jump in line...yes that's right Terry McAuliffe in 2004.


    Of all the campaign committes on both sides (none / 0) (#173)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:04:49 PM EST
    the RNC is the only republican group which has outraised their democratic counterpart the DNC.

    Do you have any evidence that McAuliffe came up with the idea to not seat MI and FL?   Hard to imagine since he was not part of the DNC this time.


    Yes I do (none / 0) (#195)
    by dwightkschrute on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:28:38 PM EST
    Well there was the time McAuliffe hardballed DC.

    and here's what Terry McAuliffe said to Carl Levin in 2004, as reported in his book -

    Move your primary too early, Terry McAuliffe warned, and Michigan will lose half its delegates to the 2004 Democratic convention.

    "The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television," McAuliffe vowed. "I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules."

    As a result, McAuliffe set up a commission which created the rules in place today.


    FL legislature (none / 0) (#125)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:17:35 PM EST
    Wasn't the FL primary date set by the FL legislature, not the FL Democratic party?

    Also, whoever is in charge gets a disproportionate share of the glory when things go right and a disproportionate share of the blame when things go wrong.  I don't feel sorry for Dean, and anyway, he seems like a pretty tough guy to me.  I'm sure he can stand the heat coming at him from some blog posters.


    The DNC isn't pointless (none / 0) (#156)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:42:09 PM EST
    it's much worse than that.  It's an active impediment to winning elections.

    This I belive is true (none / 0) (#184)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:16:36 PM EST
    ...Chalk it up to voter disenfranchisement, Fla Mich using cheap caucuses that do no determine base support..

    This situation absolutely must be reformed (none / 0) (#189)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:25:23 PM EST
    for future elections.  Regardless of the outcome this cycle, it's obvious that we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

    No more caucuses, not even in Iowa, and the calendar should be arranged so that different states go first each cycle to break the outsized influence of Iowa and NH.  Lovely as they may be, they are not really representative of US demographics anymore.


    If the DNC (none / 0) (#178)
    by badger on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:09:45 PM EST
    is going to promulgate rules disenfranchising two significant states and possibly costing the Dem candidate the election, I'd also wonder what the point of having a DNC is.

    At any rate, it's up to the credentials committee and convention whether they get seated, but that's going to be a little late. So all the DNC has accomplished is to muddle the outcome and make a close nomination race impossible to resolve.

    Dean should have anticipated the problem (and the big problem is the disenfranchisement) and had a solution worked out before the first primary vote was cast.


    They can... (none / 0) (#185)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:18:16 PM EST
    because the opposition won't be rioting.

    The wing that they're worried about is the one that is fueling the "change", and pumping in the cash -- and most vocal. If the situation was reversed, they would open both states in a heartbeat.

    I'd be more than POed if Hillary loses because the one state that cost the 2000 election, AGAIN, losses this election (I honestly don't believe Obama can win against McCain -- these are all primary votes being cast, but they never reflect the number of votes cast in the GE. And the GE is where it really counts).


    Legislatures in Fla not. Party (none / 0) (#181)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:13:05 PM EST
    Hate to say this, BTD... (none / 0) (#152)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:37:41 PM EST
    But if you can't see how Black women can be divided among choice between a Black male candidate and a female candidate, I think you can oversee that Obama could gain the super-delegate votes for "party harmony".

    This is playing out exactly the same way across the aisle with, McCain. Both sides want unity, and will throw whatever principles away to not be a "spoiler".

    Sad, but true.

    I'm not so angry at the voters, but I'm pissed at the media calling votes early (hurts when western voters can know who's voting in the east, and folks like voting for winners prevails when doing that) and it's pumping of Obama as if he needs life support.

    Not what I said (none / 0) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:45:33 PM EST
    I doubt that black women are being called "traitors" for voting for Obama is what Siad. And I sTILL doubt it.

    If... (none / 0) (#162)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:51:23 PM EST
    those on the bus would talk politics again, I'll carry a recorder and put it on disk. Would that be evidence enough for you, getting it straight from their own mouths?

    The bus is a good cross sample, and the rhetoric isn't "coached".


    Hi Are Black women being called traitors (none / 0) (#168)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    for voting FOR Obama or for NOT voting for Obama.  Sorry If I missed the original point.

    Explanation (none / 0) (#179)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:10:38 PM EST
    BTD, doesn't believe Black women are pressed between voting for a Black man or a woman. To me that's a little blinded, because it's true for any woman in such a situation. Do you do it for your own ethnic group; or do you do it because you want to help your sisters advance?

    He's steadfast on his belief it isn't true.

    External optimist?


    I'm not an optimist (none / 0) (#186)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    I absolutely believe that Black women are torn and probably pressured from all sides.  Not a good position to be in at all.

    NOT what I said (none / 0) (#194)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:28:36 PM EST
    Please stop saying I said that.

    Then explain yourself fully (none / 0) (#207)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:44:42 PM EST
    A one liner isn't a clarification.

    If you don't believe Black women aren't in a pickle over the position, then what was that comment about that you don't believe it's true?

    Come on, BTD, you can do better than that! ;)

    And it's a valid question, because this time you're forecasting about the delegates.

    One thing to believe in your candidate, but to blow this over to be peachy....come on, BTD. Reality is what's needed, not just pep talk. It's the pep talk that blinded the Clinton campaign, and why it's in this pickle, when it should've been a shoo in.


    I don't think they are in a pickle at all (none / 0) (#215)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:56:04 PM EST
    They are voting for Obama by 4-1. No one is calling them traitors.

    this was some Oprah BS.


    Third problem (none / 0) (#160)
    by Grey on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:48:18 PM EST
    Clinton leads in the popular vote by more than 430,000 votes.

    The argument does not fly no matter which way Matthew Dowd wishes to spin it.

    Problem is... (none / 0) (#170)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:59:52 PM EST
    this is the primary vote, not GE.

    Historically primary votes are for the partisans. But what happens in the GE they disappear, just like the votes from the 21 and under crowd. That leaves the status quo to vote (and that vote leans to Hillary).

    But the problem in all of this is the bleed of otherwise status quo voters going for Clinton, to McCain. With white voters, they'll be more inclined to vote for the familiar, and that's a WASP (gray hair doesn't hurt, either).

    To me Obama is the spoiler. He'll "get out the vote" early, but that vote won't be around in November. So even if he does win the nomination, the votes he needs won't be around.

    It's almost like handing over the election to McCain (agggggghhhhh!!!). If that happens, the Democrat Party just might as well mail their votes to the Republicans as "thank yous".


    In conversations with some republican voters (none / 0) (#182)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:13:52 PM EST
    here in Texas, I've heard anecdotal evidence of the same thing.  People who say they will vote for Hillary but will vote for McCain otherwise.  I have no idea if it's widespread though.

    The Republicans... (none / 0) (#200)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:35:00 PM EST
    Seriously don't know what they're asking for.

    The GOP is fractured due to the party leadership isn't there to hold them in line anymore. The one time the Dems can reach out and grab them, is the time the radical element just wants to burn them alive. Every Obama headline draws that Dem base, but it expells the crossovers.

    I don't like any of the candidates on my side. Can't vote on them in good conscience. Can't vote for Obama. Hillary is it. Will be POed beyond belief if McCain gets it, because Dems should know they have to bleed the other aisle dry now -- just like Reagan did in 1980. They're not doing it, because the kids want to be radical and ruin it all. They're the ones that are going hurt the chances and drawing this race so close. Hillary should've been a shoo in, now look at it.

    One of the worst managed elections I've seen since 1980, on either side.


    And brought to you by Teddy (none / 0) (#213)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:53:34 PM EST
    Kennedy again.  I so admire the man in the Senate, but he really has got to keep his speeches there, not out on the campaign trail.  He brought us the conservative revolution, and now as Obama's advisor, mentor, annointer, he's going to lose us the White House again?

    Could happen (none / 0) (#220)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:11:58 PM EST
    Many conservatives are angry over McCain signing that bill with Ted. That's the biggest sticking point causing the WWVI within ranks. When Ann Coulter was saying she'll work for Hillary over McCain, it's because we can't trust him, and compared to Obama, Clinton is the safer bet.

    Conservatives like order. They gravitate to it.

    So there's a fraction of the conservative base that simply won't vote for McCain, nor Huckabee -- and wouldn't dream of voting for Paul. So they either have to sit out, write in or cross over. The ones that are angry with McCain (like me), will cross over or write in.

    What Hillary needs is that fraction. But it's not going to be a warm crossover, we're poles apart on ideology. This is a protest vote.

    BTD name is very correct, as the Dems will need that "big tent" mentality to hold it all together.

    Can you imagine true conservatives crossing over to vote for Clinton, in this day and age? That's how messed up it is on the Right, now.


    Radical? (none / 0) (#214)
    by ROK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:54:42 PM EST
    Unless you define "radical" as finally getting involved, then I'm just not seeing this at all. I think by supporting Obama they are staying away from radical and simply testing the political pool for the first time. Kucinich would have been their radical horse. And I don't buy it that they will not come out in November either.

    In-fighting like this is what is going to hurt our chances in November.


    This is what I mean by poles apart... (none / 0) (#223)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:19:54 PM EST
    I can't explain to you conservatism in a soundbite, and it wouldn't even help here. But we consider this surge of new voters as kids without a clue. It's a main reason the crossover protest vote on the Right (not the moderates or independents) are going to Clinton, and not Obama. Clinton has the experience and more stable. We're not into social experiments, or radical thought, we want stability.

    If Hillary can tap into this fraction, she can stop the bleeding and actually gain. But that's her decision, I'm voting for her with or without the endorsement.


    Let's also not forget that you don't want to (none / 0) (#169)
    by hillaryisbest on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 04:58:43 PM EST
    disefranchise voters in a swing state that hasn't swung in the Dem direction for quite some time and definetly will not if their votes are not counted.

    Also, two prominent civil rights attornies (one an Obama supporter) stated that it is a civil rights issue to have the delegates seated.

    Let's support democracy folks!  Enough with all the twisted logic just because you support one person or another.

    At this point the dam* Dems deserve to lose!

    Delegate Doghouse (none / 0) (#191)
    by Joike on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:25:58 PM EST
    Most speculation is projecting.  We think how things might turn out based on how we want things to turn out.

    We can't predict how a GE would turn out with or without the Florida and Michigan delegates.

    Dean warned the states what would happen if they moved their contests up.  They went ahead and did it and he stripped them of their delegates.

    That's it.  Those were the rules everyone played by leading through all the contests.  Elections were held with the understanding by all parties that the delegates were not being awarded.

    If the rules were different (say Dean had taken the GOP approach), all the candidates would have played their hands differently.  Perhaps it would have worked to Clinton's or Edwards' advantage.

    Regardless, Michigan and Florida played a game a chicken with the national party and lost.  It is their mistake.  The delegates cannot be seated since that would be changing the rules after the game is already half over.

    To be honest, I can see the Republicans trying to use the issue against the eventual nominee particularly if it is Obama, but I don't think it is particularly powerful.

    If Clinton wins, it is a non-issue since she "won" both elections.  If Obama wins by a hair, it might have more traction, but it wasn't Obama or Clinton that made the decision; it was Dean.

    Maybe people in Florida and Michigan are going to pissed, but is that anger going to hold on until November?  Will some Dem voters stay home or vote for the GOP?

    Dean should start framing the issue about how the states themselves acted irresponsibly.  Throw it back on them.

    It5 was DEAN's mistake (none / 0) (#193)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:27:47 PM EST
    He should have followed the GOP example. Half of the delegates.

    I suggest that blaiming Florida and Michigan is a stupid strategy for the GE on this isuee.

    I certainly hope no one is listening to you on this.


    And punish the very voters TWICE? (none / 0) (#202)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 05:37:12 PM EST
    DNC did it. Now the voters can't do their duty because of it?? It wasn't their fault.

    If I was a Floridan, I'd be more than POed, I'd sue -- especially after 2000.


    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:19:15 PM EST
    on this thread, they are over 200. Thanks for your thoughts.