The Next Primary and Caucus Battles

Here are the next group of states to vote:

Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Maine, Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia, Wisconsin and Hawaii.

After 28 state primaries and caucuses from Jan. 3 to Feb. 5, the Democratic calendar now airs out a bit. Mr. Obama planned to head to Louisiana, Maryland, and Virginia in the coming days, while Mrs. Clinton intended to campaign in Virginia, Maine which holds caucuses on Sunday and maybe Louisiana, which she and Mr. Obama have often visited, in part to draw attention to the slow pace of recovery from Hurricane Katrina.

It's not over then because Ohio and Texas still have to vote. Hillary has a 20 point lead in Ohio and is expected to quite well in Texas.

Both campaigns are already looking ahead to March 4, when Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont vote, producing the second-largest single day total of delegates, 534.

Another biggie is Pennsylvania, with 158 delegates, whose primary isn't until April 22. [More...]

Even if Obama wins all of the next week's primaries and caucuses, it's still not settled, says Newsweek:

The next nine contests between now and March 3 are thought to favor Obama. They include Kansas on Saturday, where he has the endorsement of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius; Louisiana, where a number of local officials are backing him, and the so-called Potomac Primary on Feb. 12, when voters from the District of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland cast their ballots. Even if Obama wins all nine races, which is possible, nothing will be settled.

On the Superdelegates, think of them as "brakes" on a car:

Superdelegates were created after George McGovern's landslide defeat in 1972; they're meant to act as a brake on the passions of the people, much as the Senate is often described as the "saucer that cools" the impetuous desires of that populist rabble in the House. If the pattern we've seen so far continues, and the pendulum doesn't swing decisively to either of the candidates, Clinton and Obama could each emerge with roughly half of the delegates they need to win the nomination. Then the decision would fall to the superdelegates to decide the election.


In 1984, Vice President Walter Mondale, the party establishment favorite, woke up on June 7, the day after the California primary, without a majority of the delegates. The superdelegates saved him. He knew every one of them by name, and how to find them on short notice. If it weren't for their support, Gary Hart would have been the nominee.

Then there is Florida and Michigan. I disagree with those lobbying for new primaries to be held in those states. I also think their delegates will be seated, but most likely only after everyone arrives in Denver. The decision is up to the Denver National Committee credentials committee.

Obama and Edwards withdrew from the Michigan ballot, they weren't left off it. That was Obama's choice, as it was Edwards'. Obama, Hillary and Edwards were on the Florida ballot and everyone was free to vote. They shouldn't get a redo. The only issue should be whether and when they get seated in Denver. As to how that decision is made by the Credentials Committee, and who is on the committee, see this My DD diary.

< Gallup Poll: Hillary Ahead and Rising | New Mexico to Start Counting Provisional Ballots >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I concur. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:34:39 PM EST
    If the supers produce a candidate other than the one elected by the voters, there will be big, big trouble (what happens if the elected delegates go one way and the popular vote the other I can't even guess).

    But I think it would be much worse if the supers were to decide for Clinton when Obama was leading in delegates and popular vote.  The specter of party insiders taking the nomination away from a popularly elected black candidate would surely split the party.

    In the comments on a previous post we discussed the various, extremely confusing possible combinations (Clinton wins with Florida but without supers, with Supers but without Florida, etc).

    Connections, shmnenections! (none / 0) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:05:44 PM EST
    I'm talking about raw racial politics here, and a fracturing of the Democratic coalition.  People -- African Americans, but white people too -- will never forget something like that happening.

    In the medium term, I think the superdelegates have to go away, and delegate distribution systems must be changed to reflect the popular vote.  Or perhaps the delegate system should be done away with.  I'd also like to see caucuses eliminated and the scheduling issue solved.

    We're only making more trouble for ourselves if we don't get this stuff straightened out.


    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#19)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:09:47 PM EST
    Should be not be allowed to pledge before the convention.

    In effect they don't pledge. . . (none / 0) (#22)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:12:30 PM EST
    the just announce who they intend to support.  And I think you'd probably have a good idea even if they didn't come out and say it.

    But even if they don't announce until the convention, they could still vote then (in a close race) to deny the nomination to the popular vote or delegate winner.


    No one in my memory (none / 0) (#29)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:23:45 PM EST
    has ever said the Democratic party couldn't screw up a one car parade.  They're proving they can do it again.  Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory is a specialty.

    Democrats. (none / 0) (#32)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:25:36 PM EST
    We never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

    Even if they split them now. . . (none / 0) (#20)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:10:53 PM EST
    depending on the numbers in June, they could still have some kind of unforeseen effect.

    The best solution would be for the DNC to announce and start pressuring the supers to commit to voting for the winner of either the delegate or popular vote totals at the convention.


    We elected the Super Delegates, after all (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:19:24 PM EST
    -- I see so much badmouthing of them, the who-do-they-think-they-are vs. we-the people, etc.

    Let's remember that the Super Delegates ARE the ones, by and large, elected by us -- our governors, lieutenant governor, members of Congress, etc.

    And who are the pledged delegates?  A lot of them are the big donors to the local party.  Is that okay?  How does that make them we-the-people?  They are pledged, depending upon their state rules, through the first ballot or the second ballot, and then they're on their own.  And they don't have to answer to us when the next election comes around.

    Me, I'm all for longtime, committed Dems deciding who our candidate will be, not "Dems for a day."  But I'm also seeing a sort of odd misunderstanding that the Super Delegates are an aristocracy, that they're the big donors, when it can be the reverse.


    Doesn't wash. . . (none / 0) (#180)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:59:05 AM EST
    We elected the Super Delegates, after all

    for me.  First off, they were not elected to decide intra-party primaries, especially ones in which the candidates weren't even contemplated at the time they were elected.

    If all that necessary is that they be elected, we don't need to have, for instance, Senate elections (or Presidential ones) -- the State legislatures could select the Senators and the Senators select the President.  Would anyone be particularly happy with that?

    It's also true that only some of the supers are, in fact, current holders of popularly elected offices.  Others are former office holders (eg, people who may well have been unelected) or Party functionaries.

    The fact that pledged delegates come from the same general pool of people is irrelevant.  They're required to vote for the popular vote winner (or, at least, they required to vote as determined by the delegate allocation system, something else that probably ought to be addressed).  They're not free agents who have the possibility of denying the public will in an election.


    Sure, the pledged delegates can go their (none / 0) (#201)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:16:20 PM EST
    own way and not be accountable to us, as are elected officials.  If it's a brokered convention, pledged delegates are -- depending upon their states -- only bound for a round or two.

    And I knew, when I elected my governor, lieutenant governor, members of Congress, etc., that I also was selecting them as super-delegates.  Some don't know how the party works, sure, but Dems who do more than vote do.  And why shouldn't committed Dems be the ones to have the most say in picking Dem candidates?


    Too chicken (none / 0) (#139)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:53:38 PM EST
    These people are too chicken to do that. They will use the voters to cover their ass. No way.

    Cult of personality (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:52:00 PM EST
    this is getting to be a cult of personality

    what if (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:52:44 PM EST
    Clinton has the popular vote but Obama has the delegate lead?  Does he still see that as "the people have spoken"?

    The below was snatched from HuffPo during what I hope will be my last visit there.  It's Obama on the superdelegates:

    "If this contest comes down to superdelegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken. Those superdelegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination," he said.

    "The argument we would be making to superdelegates is, if we come into the convention with more pledged delegates then i think we can make a very strong argument that our constituencies have spoken and I think that's going to be pretty improtant when it comes to the general election," he says.

    ...okay, now, feel free to correct me, but this sounds like a thinly veiled threat to me, and it makes it seem like he means every one delegate difference would be a problem.  This, in conjunction with their leaked/not leaked statement about "havoc" at the convention with Obama winning in delegates (again, nothing said about popular vote) leads me to believe they are trying to strong-arm folks.

    I am totally open to opposing views from sane people, but I really see these two things, along with Michelle yesterday on Hillary's "tone" and not knowing if she would support her, as a sign that he is for the Obama party and not the democratic party.  Add in the healthcare mailer and the anti-Clinton rhetoric, and I wonder which party he thinks he is going to represent.  Also, let's add in the hubris of already assuming he is going to have the majority of delegates.

    I consider myself vaguely sane. . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:01:29 PM EST
    and I have to say that if the superdelegates override the popular election of a black candidate like Obama it will unquestionably have negative consequences for Democrats in November and for a generation to come.  At least.

    It would be a blunder of literally historical proportions.


    that wasn't the scenario (none / 0) (#15)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:05:27 PM EST
    Hillary has the popular vote.
    Obama has the delegates.
    They win all the states they are projected to win.
    Florida and MI are left out for now.

    Where should the superdelegates go--to the candidate with the popular vote or the one with the delegates?  Even if it's a negligible margin, like is being predicted.

    From my reading, Obama is saying the one with the seated delegates (keeping in mind that he is assuming he'll get the caucus votes)


    That scenario. . . (none / 0) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:07:47 PM EST
    makes my head hurt.

    In that case I'd wouldn't really expect either candidate to back down.

    I find myself in the unfortunate situation of hoping that one of the candidates (both of whom I like very much) makes a major screwup very soon.


    I think that's a very (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:48:58 PM EST
    likely scenario, I was thinking the same thing before. I'll repeat it:

    Hillary has popular vote lead
    Obama leads in delegates but not by much
    Neither has enough delegates to win

    Superdelegates up at bat.

    Why should they cast their vote for the one with more delegates rather than the one who won their states' popular vote or nationally has the total biggest popular vote?


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:52:21 PM EST

    And what I see is this: Obama will beat up more on Hillary, demanding her to play by the rules, saying that the machine is working against him, and meanwhile, Hillary will be vilified by the press as too ambitious and trying to split the party (she's the divisive one, by the way) and it'll go to Obama because the elite, liberal dems won't want to appear to be racist (never mind sexism, which is fine and dandy)

    They are already setting it up.  All we can hope for is some kind of misstep that actually plays or some kind of scandal the media actually supports.


    Yep, they want us to get Gored again (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:00:07 PM EST
    with all those pleas to rise above for the good of the order, yadda yadda.

    But this time, it's Clinton.  Let's just see what happens if Howard Dean tries a Ted Olson ploy. . . .


    don't hope for misstep!! (none / 0) (#148)
    by ghost2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:13:13 AM EST
    Fight like hell.  This is crazy.  They can't discount the votes of 1.6 million people in Florida and about 600-700k in Michigan.

    Well. . . (none / 0) (#73)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:01:29 PM EST
    first off, if they have some rational for how they cast their vote they're better off than how they normally operate -- which is to cast their vote for the candidate they prefer (which, since they're mostly players, means the candidate they're closest to politically).

    If they simply choose to cast according to the popular vote, they're already ahead of the game.

    However, I can see four "reasonable" ways in which a delegate could choose to support the popular vote: voting with the majority of elected delegates nationwide, voting with the popular vote majority nationwide, voting with the majority of elected delegates from their state, and voting with the majority of the popular vote from their state.

    If all four don't point to the same candidate, then obviously they can conveniently "choose" the candidate they preferred to start out with.

    And I can definitely see the national popular vote and delegate totals diverging -- since Obama will be racking up lots of delegates in relatively low participation caucus states.

    The only reasonable solution I can see (aside from having it decided clearly by the electorate) would be to get the supers to agree in advance (that is right now) to all use a single standard from among the four I laid out above.  That will be hard since using the national popular vote would, even now, appear to favor Clinton and the delegate vote would favor Obama.

    It's a real mess.


    and if it went the other way against a woman? (none / 0) (#28)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:20:53 PM EST
    that might just be a major screwup by the dems that won't be forgotten for generations either.

    Except that everyone assumes women will (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:21:50 AM EST
    try to smooth things out.  

    well at the end of the primary process, that (none / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:04:51 PM EST
    would be a good thing and is typical of most nominating processes. i have to wonder at times about the obama supporters.

    I also consider myself vaguely sane (none / 0) (#26)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:18:26 PM EST
    and if the superdelegates override the popular election of the first woman candidate like Clinton it will unquestionably have negative conseguences in November and for a generation to come.

    For proof, I just have to look to my own family. In case you don't believe the old adage of "Hell hath no fury", I strongly suggest you reconsider.

    It would be a blunder of literally historic proportions.

    This make come down to which historic blunder gets picked, Blunder #1 or Blunder #2.


    I agree, Ralph (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:55:46 PM EST
    Lifelong Dem faithful here, worked in campaigns since '60 although I couldn't vote for a decade (I turned 21 just as the age was lowered to 18!).  I was raised that way by one of the first two women to cochair my state party.  And my mother would not want me to just take this, believe me.  Nor my grandmother and great-grandmother who won suffrage in their state almost a decade before the 19th Amendment.

    Heck, I even would be haunted by the good ghosts of Susan B. Anthony who wrote the 19th Amendment -- as well as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone . . . and millions of women who, knowing they would not live to ever vote, fought for the sake of their "daughters' daughters" to do so.  And to do much more than vote, as the good ghost of Alice Paul reminds me, since she wrote the ERA in 1923 -- yet it still doesn't have a number, since it never got into our Constitution . . . so that good document still is gendered against me and other women.

    And now, 160 years after Seneca Falls, we finally see a woman candidate who could win . . . except that there are these rules again, you see.  Uh huh.  We're used to that.  They're called "boys' rules" -- the kind that keep changing as soon as we get close to getting there.

    No, women won't riot in the streets.  But many of us will stop working as the mainstay of volunteers in the party, stop donating our dollars we could spend on other causes.  I never could stop voting -- but some might, and then the Dems would lose whatever hope they had of winning some tough fights, since we have been the majority of voters since '52 and now are 55-60% of Dem voters.

    Hell hath no fury like us, indeed. . . .


    I'm deadly serious about it (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:14:14 PM EST
    My mother was a Democrat all her life and I hadn't seen her as excited about anything in years as Hillary Clinton running for President.  My daughter is also stoked about it.  She has volunteered for local campaigns and party functions.  I've talked to her and if she thinks Hillary doesn't get a fair shake, she's done with them.  I mean over and done.

    Frankly, I agree with my daughter.  There has got to be some way to resolve any issues fairly.  It not only has to be fair it has to be seen as fair or, either way, a good chunk of the Democratic base could be fractured for a long time.

    I hope it works out, but it'll have to be proved to me.


    My progeny are charged up again, too (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:10:59 PM EST
    and I'm so happy to see it -- as after 2000, they were devastated.  The li'l darlings were voting for the first time, and they voted for Nader.  I mean, what does their mother know?  I was so OLD.

    When they realized their part in the loss to Bush, when they watched the agony of what happened to Gore in Florida, they were done working for the Dems.  They voted in 2004, because it's what we do.  But they were done.

    And I thought that still was so, until a couple of weeks ago when my daughter started getting charged up again about Clinton -- remembering that she went with me to hear her speak years ago, which I thought she had forgotten.  

    And now, with our primary coming, they both are showing signs of engagement again.  Both were glued to tv last night, calling me often, etc.

    If this becomes a debacle, I will feel so sad for them.  They already can't get their heads around why the candidate with far more votes has fewer pledged delegates.  They already are wondering why  two states were dissed, including one next door to us where many of their friends go to college.  And I haven't even tried to explain super-delegates. . . .

    I remember my own disgust in the Watergate years, after working so hard for McCarthy, McGovern, etc.  I removed myself from political work for quite a while.  It could happen to a generation again.


    I dunno. (none / 0) (#30)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:24:30 PM EST
    I know a lot of women and a lot of black people and I just think blunder #1 would be bigger than blunder #2.  That's not probative I realize, but I think it's true.

    But the biggest issue I have with your comment is that blunder #2 isn't going to happen.  It's Clinton who has the superdelegate lead, so the only possibility is that the supers take it away from Obama and give it to Clinton.  If the other outcome were possible I'd probably be worried about it as well but it's not, so I'm not.

    That said, I think the party (and the supers) will be sane enough if it looks like blunder #1 is about to happen that a sufficient number of supers will switch candidates to take that possibility off the table.


    I really hope that Howard Dean is right (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:32:12 PM EST
    and that they come to an arrangement. I wonder how much clout he has himself. . .?

    Very little, I imagine. . . (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:36:38 PM EST
    if he gets caught in a fight between the Clinton machine and the Obama behemoth.

    Don't under estimate Hillary Hate. (none / 0) (#173)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:44:46 AM EST
    Think You May Not Be Looking At The Whole Picture (none / 0) (#184)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:47:54 AM EST
    Will Clinton supporters (women, Latinos, Asians, poor white working class folks) try to bring down the Democratic Party if the decision is decided strictly on racial grounds. No. Those who are firmly in the Democratic Party will be angry and most will finally pull the lever for Obama.

    What you fail to take into effect is that not all of Clinton's supporters are entrenched Democrats. IIRC one of the reasons Kerry lost in 04 was because he did not get a large enough share of woman or Latinos. Evidently groups of people in those demographics are independent voters.

    So Obama may win the battle by having the rules manipulated in order not to anger his supporters and lose the war in November.


    Agree...but worse than that... (none / 0) (#40)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:39:08 PM EST
    picture the streets of Watts, Newark, Detroit and points south...

    I hate what I'm thinking is possible...even if he loses "fair and square" when it is so close.  I'm not ordinarily an alarmist or a worry wort but I have not felt this uneasy for my party since '68 and '72.  

    I lived through those years but it took a toll...and just as recovery began for Democrats by electing Carter, the split was again reinvigorated. Teddy jumped in the primary against a sitting Democratic President...committing presidential political suicide when he couldn't remember/think/explain why he wanted to be president.

    We didn't recover from THAT until Bill Clinton pulled our chestnuts out of the fire...twice.  Now, the Democrats who couldn't win and hated those who could (not our sort) have set up the perfect storm for this election and the future.

    The only sure way to avoid it is to hand it over to them and Obama and hope to Hell there is some way to win with him.  Fight them and stick with Hillary and...well, you heard Obama (and his wife) suggesting that if Democrats choose Hillary, well....maybe their supporters and they themselves won't be able to give their all for Democrats this fall.

    I'd call that ominous...


    But, they have to say... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by CathyinLa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:40:59 PM EST
    ...these things about not supporting or complaining about being outrageously aggrieved.  I think the Clintons look at that after what's been thrown at them and cannot relate to the Obamas feeling like they've had everything thrown at them by the Clintons.

    I can't at this moment bare the suggestion that we should just let them have it for fear of alienating their supporters.  A fair solution needs to be constructed, I hope there is one.

    I like popular votes in your state determine where your super delegate vote goes.  Or, is Obama willing to give up super delegates in states Clinton won, if he wants her to give him hers?  How is that fair?  I know the popular vote model favors Clinton and I'd be open to something fairer.

    In the meantime, I've wanted very much to vote for Obama.  It's been a bi polar primary season for me.  But, I can't quite get over how angry I get every time I hear him say, "I'm certain I'll get her votes.  I'm not certain she'll get mine."

    It makes me react emotionally to politics, where I'm usually for the brilliant wonk, with appreciation for the big picture, inspirational candidates.

    It's making me determined to decide once and for all to go ahead and vote for Hillary.

    Why is he making it about being anti-Hillary?  Mr. "I'm about a different kind of politics."


    or for that matter bear it. (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by CathyinLa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:47:54 PM EST
    Hey, I had to do it.  I may become a Hillary voter.  Can't add to the perception of the "uneducated only" support for Hillary.

    Irritating, isn't it. I've got way too much educ. (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:34:56 AM EST
    to be voting for her but I'm female and certainly old enough.  

    Same here. Just do it. (none / 0) (#194)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    so... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:49:13 PM EST
    It's okay to disenfranchise the popular vote, which consists of Latinos, Asians and white women, but it's not okay to disenfranchise the aa's because they might riot?

    And yet again, women take a back seat so that men can get ahead and we can keep the peace.

    I am so sick of this.  I really am.  When is it going to be our turn?


    Well...ummm... (none / 0) (#68)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:56:23 PM EST
    ...do you have a girl gang ready to go into the streets?

    We could call the Ragin' Grannies...


    oldpro (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:00:15 PM EST
    Wouldn't that be swell?  Unfortunately, we tend to be a quiet bunch.

    When you think about all the working poor who are single women raising their kids...they are too busy trying to survive to take off time to march in the streets.

    Our voices generally aren't the ones that get heard.


    This might be a good time for those voices (none / 0) (#92)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:20:38 PM EST
    to be heard.  Unfortunately, you're right about the working poor.

    I really don't think anyone (none / 0) (#71)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:00:31 PM EST
    Is going to riot in the streets.

    It wouldn't be the first time (none / 0) (#89)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:15:25 PM EST
    and over much less than this.

    Do you remember or know much about the 60s and 70s, the WTO riots in Seattle in '99, etc.?  It doesn't take much to spark one if the right combination of circumstances come into play and people who feel powerless are agrieved.


    Let 'er rip (none / 0) (#93)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:26:23 PM EST
    Like Thomas Jefferson said, an occasional revolution is a good thing.

    Riiiiiight. (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:32:11 PM EST
    At 71, the rip would be my knee if I have to stand up for more than an hour...can you have a short 1/2 hour/45 min. revolution?

    I'm 61 so I strongly sympathize! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:36:27 PM EST
    That's about how long this generation would last (none / 0) (#99)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:35:38 PM EST
    then it would be off to the video games.

    I doubt anyone will be hitting the streets this time around.  The Democratic party may fracture, but if so, it's their own fault.


    Protests, maybe... (none / 0) (#107)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:08:34 PM EST
    I still can't see a riot happening.  Really, think about it.  Plus Newark and Watts are a far cry from the Seattle WTO protests.  Seattle = no dead.  Newark = 26 people dead, 725 people injured, and close to 1,500 arrested. Property damage of over $10 million.

    I think we can reconcile our differences no matter what happens much more, completely, peacefully.


    Now now now wait (none / 0) (#111)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:17:13 PM EST
    Let's not start bringing up the spectre of racial riots. There are a lot of AA who support Hillary, and a lot of AA who aren't so ready to jump into the streets. If there is any rioting to happen, it is likely to be the younger generation in general, cross-racial, looking for excitement, not justice. Think about the difference between Woodstock 69 and Woodstock 99. Those are Obama's base*.

    The decision would have to be Obama's: If he wanted to calm his supporters down, he could. But would he want to, or would he just fuel the fire and let the streets wash in blood as a surrogate for his personal tantrum?

    *Not to take away from the less ignorant supporters, but the truth is the young 'hip' generation is flooding the polls for one man, and that young 'hip' generation owns Woodstock 99.


    gee, I was with you there for a moment (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:26:21 PM EST
    when it seemed like you were holding back people from spiraling off into madness, talking about riots and all that.

    But you just wanted to make an argument that it would be Obama supporters rioting? He'll make the streets awash in blood?

    People PLEASE.


    Tantrum? (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:25:03 PM EST
    When people take to the streets and put their bodies on the line it is a akin to someone's tantrum?

    I am sure that the National Guard was thinking the same thing about VIet Nam protesters at Kent State before they let the bullets fly.


    tantrum (none / 0) (#125)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:32:28 PM EST
    I was speaking about Obama having the tantrum, not the people in the streets. sorry if that was unclear. (see below).

    You Were Clear (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:41:04 PM EST
    Both managing to belittle Obama and our children who would put their bodies on the line to fight for their beliefs.

    Apology accepted.

    There is no need to vilify Obama in order to promote Clinton. That is what Rove did and I, for one find it repulsive.


    Indeed! (none / 0) (#179)
    by ding7777 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:00:18 AM EST
    "Our view is that if you can't run your own house,
    you certainly can't run the White House."

    Yup I jumped the rails (none / 0) (#122)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:31:25 PM EST
    My metaphor was poorly chosen. 'Streets awash with blood...' how very shakespearean.

    I do warn people that riots happen, but not for any particular cause. The only riots I saw that I thought had some kind of merit were the Rodney King riots, and that was until I saw the white folks taking tv's out of storefronts and others pulling drivers from their cars.

    Tano, others, you have my apologies.


    Dean's statements (none / 0) (#56)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:52:16 PM EST
    sound like a big threat to me.

    The Obama Party (none / 0) (#106)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:08:21 PM EST
    Why not? There's a Connecticut for Lieberman party. A United for Obama party is NOT out of the question, especially since Joe was his Senate mentor.

    The question is, would that be seen as crassly arrogant as Joe's move? And what would people say if Hillary did the same?

    Actually, we both know the answers to those questions already.


    Speaking of both sides this is Funny (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:05:05 PM EST
    Clinton, Kennedy and Obama meet on the Senate floor

    (CNN) -- CNN's Ted Barrett reports that on the Senate floor just minutes ago, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, who has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, approached Sen. Hillary Clinton during the vote on the economic stimulus package. He shook her hand and said something that caused her to laugh loudly -- it seemed to be about her success in Massachusetts last night. Obama, standing two feet away talking to Sen. Tim Johnson, turned.

    After a few more comments that couldn't be overheard from the press gallery directly above them, Clinton laughed again and said to Obama. "I had a big sigh of relief when he [Kennedy] endorsed you." Everyone laughed, a little awkwardly. Sen. John Kerry, who has also endorsed Obama, took the Illinois senator by the elbow and walked away with him.

    HAHAHAHAHAA (4.00 / 1) (#39)
    by cdo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:38:16 PM EST
    thanks for that!
    Clinton laughed again and said to Obama. "I had a big sigh of relief when he [Kennedy] endorsed you."

    If you wanna know why i like the Clintons, thats why. You always get the feeling from them that, whatever is going on, they know most of politics is just so much bluster, and if things don't go your way today, there is always tomorrow.


    that is something the obamas need to learn. (none / 0) (#42)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:40:34 PM EST
    I would think (none / 0) (#49)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:47:40 PM EST
    a good sense of humor would be not only necessary but a requirement in politics

    yup, exactly! if one can't laugh at themselves, (none / 0) (#62)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:54:57 PM EST
    then they are in for a very hard time.

    it makes one wonder if kerry thought perhaps (none / 0) (#31)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:24:33 PM EST
    obama was getting upset!

    Holy moly! (none / 0) (#34)
    by phat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:26:59 PM EST
    If this party doesn't get torn apart by this it'll be remembered fondly by Democrats.

    [fingers crossed]



    Monday when I was calling (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:52:10 PM EST
    A couple of people said I will vote for Hillary but after this election I will be an independent, tell the Obama people they will break up the Democratic party.

    Oh, dear...happening (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:03:05 AM EST

    Hope all those new people he's bringing into the party are prepared to fund the party and handle all those boring committees and chores.

    I wouldn't hold my breath...

    This is not good.


    Wow (none / 0) (#150)
    by phat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:22:50 AM EST
    That's not the kind of story I expected.

    It makes a lot of sense, though.



    I saw this . . . (none / 0) (#175)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:54:24 AM EST
    But at first Obama walked away again, and Kerry put his hand on Obama's shoulder and steered him back so all three could talk to Clinton. Then Kerry and Obama walked away.

    We're screwed. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:13:29 PM EST
    We've managed to take a year in which we had several very strong candidates and an environment that favored us, and now we're facing a protracted nomination battle in which it's likely a huge chunk of voters will feel cheated when the other candidate wins. Then, of course, there are the FL and MI voters, who are probably pretty cheesed off already, and will be even more so if their votes aren't counted.

    Bloody hell.

    So ironic... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:47:38 PM EST
    We keep insisting on exporting democracy and we cannot figure it out here. Imagine what the poor Sunnis and Shias feel like.

    Caucuses and Obama people (none / 0) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:31:03 PM EST
    If the Obama caucus goer behaves like the Obama supporter online, no wonder they win caucuses. I wonder if someone has documented the goings on in caucuses.

    My anecdote (none / 0) (#4)
    by magster on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:42:29 PM EST
    Obama won our CO precinct 28-9, and an Obama supporter corrected the precinct captain for undercounting by one vote Clinton's support. Everyone also clapped politley for the Clinton delegate.

    All in all, a very civil and boring way to spend 2 hours.


    There were some really upset Iowans (none / 0) (#25)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:17:32 PM EST
    writing online on the DMR site of what sounded like serious problems in some places.  Occasional other outraged sorts elsewhere, but more often because it sounds like caucus captains were undertrained, inefficient, not assertive, etc.  

    Enough, though, that I'm never moving to a caucus state.  Maybe those with secret ballots, like Minnesota, but so many of those really were just six-hour-or-so primaries -- with similar problems of really limiting access for a lot of people, from what I see.  

    I like going to the polls.  Of course, I'm in a state where I've always had paper ballots or a paper trail. :-)


    Mainly... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:42:15 PM EST
    ...in both Iowa and Colorado, they simply weren't prepared for the record turn-outs.  It far exceeding anything they'd imagined.  That's a problem they should have every single time.

    BTW, Iowans don't get upset.  That's for the liberal coastal elites.  We get put-out.  


    Despite Garrison Keillor's decision to (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:42:33 AM EST
    endorse Obama, I must say, he is "spot on" in his characterization of the personality of upper Midwesterners.

    Heh..... (none / 0) (#79)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:04:49 PM EST
    And then you bring (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:07:43 PM EST
    a "dish to pass" and get everyone around a table 'til they're too full of casserole to argue anymore, and all is well?  That's how we do it in our side of the Midwest, across the river from you.  Always works -- especially if the next dish to pass is a pie.:-)  

    You mean... (none / 0) (#90)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:18:23 PM EST
    ...a covered dish?  No, we didn't really do that in Des Moines.  

    I've always found that a cold beer works well in pacifying the natives of the Land O' Cheese...


    Here is a transcript of Dean's remarks: (none / 0) (#6)
    by ding7777 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:51:27 PM EST
    "The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario. So, after the primaries are over, the last primary is June 8th in Puerto Rico - Puerto Rico I think, there may be another state with there - and after that if we don't have a nominee, I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don't, then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement. Because I don't think we can afford to have a brokered convention, that would not be good news for either party."

    i heard what he said, but it sure doesn't seem (none / 0) (#10)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:53:30 PM EST
    like obama did. his sense of entitlement is getting very old.

    "My supporters won't vote for Clinton" (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:13:35 PM EST
    and his wife won't work for Clinton, etc. . . .

    i notice you are trying very hard to make (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:46:47 PM EST
    comments on here have a racial tone. please refrain. that is so not needed. thanks

    Jay, stop it (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:00:52 PM EST
    I've already deleted some of your comments today. Stop race-baiting. Go to another blog if you want to do that.

    Jay didn't stop (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:27:25 PM EST
    in fact he responded by insulting readers of this site with a libelous tag. He's been banned and his 122 comments on this site have been erased.

    hello there's comment was directed to Jay (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:28:25 PM EST
    whose comment was later erased. It was not to Cream City.

    racism (none / 0) (#64)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:55:11 PM EST
    I actually read in one blog today that the results of the primaries fell along racial lines. Probably Huffington Post, those people are so over the top.

    bingo, you got it. sense of entitlement! (none / 0) (#27)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:19:27 PM EST
    Wouldn't you think Dean would have (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:44:51 AM EST
    a better grip of which primaries and caucuses are on the same date as Puerto Rico's?  

    Wisconsin CDs (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:53:05 PM EST
    1. (Ryan) 6 Delegates, split
    2. (Baldwin) 8 Delegates, 5-3 for Obama with big boost from downtown Madison
    3. (Kind) 6 Delegates, edge Obama, likely split
    4. (Moore) 6 Delegates, favors Obama, likely split
    5. (Sensenbrenner) 3 Delegates, 2-1 Clinton on Republican women crossover
    6. (Petri) 3 Delegates, narrowly favors Obama
    7. (Obey) 6 Delegates Obama wins, but tough to get that 4th Delegate. His very strong showing in Duluth, and huge 2006 student turnouts in Eau Claire and Stevens Point, plus my strong showing v Herb Kohl in the River counties give a chance
    8. (Kagen) 6 Delegates, small edge to Clinton, but delegates split.

    Moore's district is much more (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:12:27 PM EST
    than the couple of inner city AA neighborhoods.  For example, it includes the East Side, with a strong women's network.  It will split.  But I wouldn't count on the split favoring Obama.

    And Baldwin has endorsed Clinton -- as has Lawton in Madison -- and it, like the rest of Wisconsin, hardly has an AA population.  So don't you think that Baldwin, especially, would have significant influence with the LGBT and "women's studies set" that is so sizeable there?

    I agree on Kagen's district -- a lot of Latinos/as in Green Bay, as well we recall from the county board passing an English-only rule!  Lots of Latinos/as in Sensenbrenner's district, too, in Waukesha.  So that could be surprising, and add to the GOP women's crossover you see.  But recall that he was redistricted to also include some of the inner-ring, older burbs like Shorewood, not really like the rest of the North Shore, and Tosa which has been turning blue.  So there could be more surprises there, too.

    I don't know enough about the other districts -- but they are so white that, yes, they could (like Idaho, North Dakota, etc.) be good for Obama.  Most of them, though, will be red again in November, so they won't do Dems much good then.

    So we will see.  Interesting insights, Ben; thanks.


    No action on the Republican side. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:31:44 AM EST
    I notice Tommy's gone to McCain, with The Ghoul out.

    Brother Ed's behind Paul, but not actually working it.


    Rumors out of Michigan.... (none / 0) (#44)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:45:39 PM EST
    ..say that the DNC is pushing MI (and FL) to hold a causus to get their delegates seated in Denver.


    A caucus? Screw that. (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:47:33 PM EST
    They voted.

    It goes along with my saying (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:07:04 PM EST
    that Dean conveniently disenfranchised voters in MI and FL for the sake of his favored candidate.  Refusing to seat delegates is the death penalty.  Was it really warranted unless Dean had ulterior motives? (IMHO, no)

    Now he's talking about holding caucuses in the two states, even though they've already voted!  Again, advantage Obama.

    LOL!  Why bother voting!


    Well (none / 0) (#55)
    by phat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:50:43 PM EST
    I hope the DNC pays for it.



    Texas - I didn't realize that (none / 0) (#45)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:46:05 PM EST
    it is a hybrid primary / caucus state, with 2/3 of delegates chosen in caucus open only to those who have already voted in the primary that day.

    That shifts expectations, since it is going to greatly advantage him with the money and organization.


    Wacky. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:50:34 PM EST
    Texas Rules (none / 0) (#103)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:54:15 PM EST
    Texas will pick 126 delegates apportioned based on the Primary vote on Match 4th by the Precinct conventions held on that night.

    Then in June at the State Convention, 42 at-large delegates to the national convention are elected.  Further, 25 pledged and 35 unpledged super-delegates are also elected at the state convention.

    So any ground game will have to be waged on June 6-7 in Austin at the state convention.  In other words, lobby the state convention attendees.

    Do you have a headache yet?  I do.


    Never happen (none / 0) (#54)
    by tek on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:50:36 PM EST
    Dean said today he won't allow a battle right up to the convention, they have to "come to some arrangement" if there isn't a front-runner.

    Wouldn't allow? (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:02:58 PM EST
    What's the enforcement mechanism?

    Got a picture of them drawing straws?

    Scissors, rock, paper?

    Thumb wrestling?

    My spouse against your....

    I'm stopping now.


    thank you for not saying (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:19:11 PM EST
    "cookie bake-off"

    I considered it briefly (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:28:34 PM EST
    but I figured she might lose that one.  I'm going with strengths.

    That "coming to an arrangement" (none / 0) (#63)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:55:06 PM EST
    might mean Dean loses his head.

    I supported Dean in '04 (none / 0) (#60)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:53:42 PM EST
    and wanted him to chair the DNC but he's really screwed the pooch with this thing.  

    On top of this mess, out of all the Democratic election committees the DNC is the only one not out fundraising the Republican counterpart.  Maybe he should take a long walk off a short pier when this is over.

    I do like the 50 state strategy though.

    can folks explain (none / 0) (#67)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 09:55:47 PM EST
    why Dean is in the doghouse?  I mean, could any of us have predicted this happening?  Granted, I have come late to this, but I wonder if he is getting a fair shake.

    Because he made it a 48-state strategy (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:02:17 PM EST
    without Florida or Michigan.  Really bad move.

    It's apparently okay to (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:08:17 PM EST
    disenfranchise voters when it helps your candidate.  Even Dean thinks so.

    No he didn't (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:50:38 PM EST
    I realize it's fun to make things up on the Internet(s) but Howard Dean did NOT strip the states of their delegates.  A collective vote of ALL state delegates did.  

    You guys talk about disenfranchisement but what you really are concerned with is getting Hillary some free delegates.

    Oh the horror of the states having to revote!  Gosh that is so Unamerican.  It would be more more equitable to simply keep the current votes where only one candidate ran in one state and no one campaigned at all in the other.  Yeah that definitely gives the voters of those 2 states the most choices.  


    No, you don't (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:26:11 PM EST
    know what I want.  So stop it.

    I am all for re-voting -- if it is re-voting.  Another primary.

    I hate caucuses.  They're crap, they limit access to a lot of working people, some have limited access to people with disabilities, etc.  Some have been in workplaces with the perils of employer pressure.  

    Even without all that, I like secret ballots.

    As for your absolution of Dean, do you have a link?  That's not at all the process that I read about that resulted in this.  Which state delegates did this -- since they weren't selected yet?


    Caucuses and Obama people (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:49:52 PM EST
    Probably are male dominated. Women don't like that kind of confrontation, therefore advantage: Obama. Duh!!!

    The Democratic National Committee. (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:40:04 AM EST
    Elected at State Party Conventions.

    Exactly. Thanks, Ben. (none / 0) (#191)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    This was decided not by "delegates" but by a smaller group of people.  

    That's fine (none / 0) (#181)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:14:30 AM EST
    I can see why you prefer primaries.  I would be fine with that as well.  

    Good. And as primaries already were held (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:27:15 AM EST
    let's respect their results.

    And then we can get to the general-election campaign now -- and compete, since the GOP is already there, getting ahead of us by the day, while we are stuck in a debate because of a failed candidate from a past election now running the party.  What a mess.


    Right (none / 0) (#196)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:52:27 PM EST
    Warmed over "Why doesn't he just quit already!"

    I am fair-minded (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:27:41 PM EST
    and would consider the voters disenfranchised even if they'd gone to Obama.  A million voters voted in that election.  They should be represented.

    And who is the leader of the party?  Dean.

    And BTW, if we piss off Florida and Michigan, there's no way in hell we'll win.


    if I lived in those states and had to (none / 0) (#84)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:08:50 PM EST
    have a caucus because they won't recognize the previous votes, I would be highly incensed...

    well I do live in one of those states (none / 0) (#104)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:06:28 PM EST
    and I, and everyone I know is SEETHING angry at being disenfranchised, and not having the ability to vote for our preferred candidate, something we have been dreaming of doing for the last 4 years of this national nightmare.

    I would be estatic at the prospect of having a caucus in which I could particpate.


    How about another primary? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:22:09 PM EST
    Far more people participate in primaries.  How about another, one that would count?  

    Because it wouldn't favor (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:34:05 PM EST
    Obama (necessarily).

    Why do a do-over? (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:50:11 PM EST
    What kind of a playground are we running here?

    Another primary vote?  Why?  People voted.  They counted them.  If you do it over it will not be the same thing...different voters (some have died, some have become eligible, some are ...) and the stakes have changed on the landscape...so the candidates would have to rush off to Florida and spend, spend, spend.

    Then....imagine the fun we'll have if the results were markedly different!  Oh yeah...that sounds like a great idea.

    Nuts to that.

    Held the vote.  Counted the vote.

    Seat the delegates or don't.

    Take the consequences.


    I would be fine with that (none / 0) (#120)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:30:07 PM EST
    but it seems to be more complicated.

    I am not sure if this is true, but my understanding is that a caucus can be fully run, funded and operated by the party. A primary needs the approval of the state legislature and involves the Sec. of State etc. which allows the Republicans their chance for mischeif - to say nothing of all manner of legal issues.


    Democracy isn't simple (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:01:24 AM EST
    and yes, you're right that states have to pay for elections but not caucuses.  The state parties set up (Michigan) or went along (Florida) with this, so they can raise funds to reimburse the states for costs.  We know that wouldn't happen, though, and would only cost local candidates' the state party help for their campaigns.

    So -- I'm not persuaded by the argument, an economic argument, rather than one on principle.

    Thus, I'm with oldpro.  There were elections, they were legal, let's just make those votes count.


    So my vote will actually matter (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:14:29 PM EST
    In Texas I love it!

    Just as you would probably be... (none / 0) (#88)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:15:24 PM EST
    ...if you were a candidate who had already "won" those states.

    Hillary is getting (none / 0) (#101)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 10:40:01 PM EST
     a raw deal. O'reily just admitted that the media is backing Obama and that he wants Obama to run for the democrats. It appears as though the media wants to choose our next president and many Americans are not taking notice. No matter what Hillary achieve it will always be broadcasted as not good enough, and no matter what little Obama gets, it will be broadcasted as a huge victory. Obama already have his people in the caucus states, and is already running adds in March voting states (he does have the money). He will win Louisiana, DC, and Maryland due to the Black population in those states. The media is going to parade him around like the next king of Scotland. I am afraid that when March 04 arrives her supporters in Texas and Ohio will be so downtrottle that they won't vote. The media will crown Obama the democrat nominee before March 4th in order to lure Hillary voters away.

    What are you doing (none / 0) (#108)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:10:14 PM EST
    watching O'Reilly?
    and referencing his opinion as if it had any realtionship to reality?

    and stop with the snide little Idi Amin allusions - you are just giving ammo to those who are looking to trash your candidate and her supporters.


    See, pulling the race card or (none / 0) (#177)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:06:33 AM EST
    grossly misstating. . . There was nothing in that posters comments that justifies your response.

    Remember the sign on Hoffa's (none / 0) (#110)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:12:50 PM EST

    Illegitimi non carborundum.

    Don't let the bastards wear you down.


    just speaking the facts (none / 0) (#118)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:27:22 PM EST
       for the first time I believe the republicans have a good chance of winning. If Obama gets the nomination republicans will win. Obama lost in the huge democratic states and won in the red states where caucuses are being conducted. Why was I watching Fox? I am so sick of CNN and MSNBC bashing Hillary on every oppurtunity they gets, I cannot stand the Hillary bashing on those networks, I feel better to see the rightwing bash her instead of the so call non rightwing networks.

    you are, of course, entitled to your opinion (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:38:01 PM EST
    but I know few credible people, on either side, that thinks that Obama would be weaker candidate than Hillary.

    He lost some big blue states to another democrat. That does not indicate the slightest potential weakness when it comes to winning those states against a Republican.

    And to be fair to the other side, winning amongst democrats in red states does not necessarily indicate that he would win those states against a republican.

    But I do think he is the stronger candidate, and beleive me, most Republicans do to.


    He is stronger equals (none / 0) (#130)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:40:36 PM EST
    more electable.

    Why?  Spell it out.


    I see nothing about Obama that (none / 0) (#142)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:00:58 AM EST
    would cause him to do any worse than Hillary in any blue state. Even the demographic groups he loses to Hillary are not against him so much as they are for her. There is no reason to expect that they will not support him in Nov.

    In fact, I think one can argue that he would grow our majority in blue states, since some of his support comes from new voters and the young. Of course, there is the old caution that these kids may not show up, but they are added votes anyway, so if they dont show up, we have a normal turnout. But I suspect a lot will.

    As for the red states - well, you know the drill. He has an appeal to independents and Republicans. Is it enough to swing some states?

    First off, if the comparison is to Hillary, then I think the answer is that, at minimum, he has a better chance of swinging those states than she does. Red state voters dont like Hillary - to put it mildly. That may not be fair to her, but it is the reality.

    Secondly - everything I have heard, through multiple sources, is that actual dems in red states are very much of the opinion that Obama will do better in their states. They all feel that the antipathy to Hillary would drag down the rest of their ticket. They should know.
    I suspect that is why Obama is doing so well in those red states - our dems there want him at the top of the ticket, as much for their own races as anything else.

    I spend a lot of time visting and even participating in republican sites - my version of oppo research. I am fascinated by the question of how and why these people believe what they believe. So I read a lot of conversations amongst them, and they are absolutely unanimous. The propect of running aginst Hillary makes them salivate - they see it as a potential salvation of their party - the one force that can reunite thier very fractured party.

    Obama they seriously fear. They spend a lot of time trying to buck eachother up with hopes that they can find some way to win, or failing that, regroup for 2012.


    Ultimately He Is A (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:24:32 AM EST
    Super talent, and on our side whatever anyone says about him. If he gets the nomination he will be able to inspire people to vote for him and mesmerize the press. Everyone likes a true American story.

    I doubt that he has less chance against McCain than Hillary who I voted for. Both can beat him. America is sick of Bush, war, huge deficits and the Republicans own it all.


    Dreading my caucus this Sat. (none / 0) (#105)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:07:38 PM EST
    Four years ago we had 1400 show up at one location for our 5 small-town precincts...the two largest went OUTSIDE in FEB...no mics...the pco left in panic so I had to improvise for hundreds of confused and excitable Kucinich and Dean supporters while I was wearing a Clark button (" gosh-who's Clark?") Lost my voice and nearly my patience...two hours later...

    I'm not saving their bacon this year.

    Stop! (none / 0) (#113)
    by phat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:20:51 PM EST
    You're scaring me.

    We're having our first caucus on Saturday.



    Dress warmly. Gloves/hat. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:31:37 PM EST
    Fill your pockets with snacks &/or gum.  Take your own pen and paper.  Practice patience with the overly-thrilled younguns who are there to change history in two hours...oh, yeah...and stop the war(s).

    I have a new down jacket...just in case.  And wool socks.  And a folding chair.

    Are we having fun yet?


    Well (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by phat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:34:15 AM EST
    I am lucky and unlucky.

    Since we are short-staffed (imagine that) I get to sit in a room with high school students, who may or may not show up, manning a phonebank to tally totals.

    I am, oddly enough, having fun.

    I got into this to get people elected. I'm stuck dealing who can't agree on how to do that.

    I can run a ground game, if only local, I really like that.

    Can somebody please help me get a county board member elected? Please? Is that too much to ask.

    I am jazzed about the big time politics that we are getting a taste of right now. It hasn't come to Nebraska in a long time. But if it doesn't help the farm team, I'm not pleased.

    We'll see.

    Maybe I might make the jump to bigger ponds, but I'm a little bit too old, I think, to do that.



    WHAT? How old is 'too old?' (none / 0) (#197)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM EST
    Tell me and I'll tell you my story about being retired and finding myself at age 55 'dragged off to the state capitol' by my friend, the newly-elected state legislator from my district...to run her office...that was in '92.  Six years later I burned out and crashed but it was the most amazing (and useful) political experience of my life.  Gave me tools I have been using effectively ever since...

    I'm not that old. (none / 0) (#199)
    by phat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST
    But big-time presidential stuff might make my wife mad. Unless I get to do it all here in Nebraska.




    Ummm...never good to start at (none / 0) (#200)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:38:46 PM EST
    the top in politics....unless you have the Daley machine, Kerry, Kennedy and Daschle backing you!

    I suggest local.  Run for school board or city council or county commissioner or port commissioner...whatever...or help run a campaign for someone who is running 'locally.'


    Actually (none / 0) (#121)
    by NJDem on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:31:01 PM EST
    I believe HRC won the youth vote in CA, it was definitely a factor among the Latino vote going her way.  I don't think his #'s with them have ever been as strong as Iowa (where I think that it may be true a bunch of college students from bordering Ill. caucused).

    And, for what it's worth, Taylor Marsh announced that HRC has already raised 3M in 24hrs, surpassing her 3 day goal, and has/will announce to raise 6M in 72hrs.  The article said her loan will (should) be paid back in 48hrs.  

    Really? Good news... (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:34:46 PM EST
    or is it?

    Oh, god...an arms race in fundraising...

    I'm doubling what I intended to send in Feb and sending it tonight.

    She can't disarm now.


    Hillary should (none / 0) (#123)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:31:34 PM EST
    run as an independent if she is not the nominee and shove it in the face of the Democratic establishment. Will the Hispanics vote for Obama over McCain, I believe McCain. The democratic party is in trouble. Dean should resign. If Florida and Michigan were counted we would have had our clear front runner.

    Bite your tongue. (none / 0) (#129)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:38:13 PM EST
    I'm a Democrat and I'm staying a Democrat.

    Now, however, I'm imagining fanciful scripts on your theme.  Hillary vp on McCain's ticket 'cause they get along so well and the right hates him anyhow...hmmm...let's push them all over the edge!  A coalition they never dreamed of...that is, if he doesn't choose Lieberman, of course...


    Are you (none / 0) (#140)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:54:24 PM EST
      proud to be a democrat seeing that the media could decide our nominee? Seeing that Florida and Michigan voters were didenfranchised? I'm a liberal more than a democrat? I will hate to see the right in the White House four more years, and thats why I cannot support Obama, because I cannot see him winning a natioanal election when the swift boat adds starts coming. Hillary is being abused by her own party, and that makes me angry.

    Pride is based on what we (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:36:41 AM EST
    stand for and sometimes achieve.  Pride in our goals and standards...not in the mistakes we've made nor the individuals who fail us.

    A political party is made up of the people who show up.  I'm a liberal too...a progressive...a moderate...depending on the issue...and a practical activist.  To accomplish anything, though, I need others...hence a party.  

    Attitude isn't enough!


    why dont they... (none / 0) (#138)
    by txprog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:52:24 PM EST
    just split the superdelegates proportionally according to poular vote. to me it avoids all suspision of favorites and 'political elite' choosing the candidate regardless of who 'wins'.

    i think they should do away with superdelgates all together.  just stick with popular vote or current delegate system.  system exists so big name candidates who would do well in big states have to pay attention to small states also.  

    if in the end there is a tie....there is always paper, rock, scissors...mud wrestling... poker... arm wrestling... flip a coin... etc...

    If Hillary (none / 0) (#141)
    by talkingpoint on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:57:00 PM EST
    is not the nominee, we should be prepared for President McCain.

    We may be stupid but (none / 0) (#143)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:01:20 AM EST
    Look who is against us, the Republicans. They are seriously talking McCain/Huckabee. Run for the hills, or if we cannot beat them we need to give it up.

    Why are we Stupid? (none / 0) (#146)
    by talkingpoint on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:03:50 AM EST
    Why are we Stupid? (none / 0) (#147)
    by talkingpoint on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:04:04 AM EST
    Stupid with the bickering (none / 0) (#159)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:46:57 AM EST
    What if... (none / 0) (#157)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:44:23 AM EST
    the super delegates simply agreed to vote for the candidate that won their respective state. I know this is unlikely, but number wise wouldn't it be the most fair?

    I know this doesn't address Florida or MI - but just some thinking.

    I turned off my computer at about (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:59:46 AM EST
    5:30 p.m. PST.  Returned to this discussion, including premonitions of rioting in the streets if Obama doesn't get the nomination?  What happened in the interim except the "inadvertent" release of Obama campaign's spreadsheet?

    two answers (none / 0) (#162)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:09:23 AM EST
    First, my smart@ss response - People are waking up to the fact that Hillary will figure out a way to steal the election - whether it's with MI/FL delegates or with super delegates.

    Toned down answer - Nothing dramatic has happened; people have just had a chance to digest how close the race truly is and what it means for their candidate.  In the absence of a big swing, half the party is going to be pissed.


    No ban on conspiracy theories here that (none / 0) (#169)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:01:30 AM EST
    I'm aware of.  But you second response is probably closer to the mark.  But rioting in the streets?  

    oh, and another thing (none / 0) (#161)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:01:40 AM EST
    I don't get why people are against having Primaries again in MI and FL.  It seems to me that this would likely solve a lot - if not all - of the problems.  April 22nd would be perfect.  

    Let's face it, we see that in states where the candidates were allowed to campaign the votes were close.  Anyone really think that FL would have had the same turnout as the Rebublicans?  No way, it would have been double.  If we really want to let the people decide, new primaries should be called for in these states.

    At the least, the delegates would have been narrowly split.  Any victory for Hillary that's won using FL and/or MI delegates will be viewed as a stolen election by half the party.  Many disagree whether this should be the view, but I'm just saying that it would be.

    You simply can't argue that Obama wouldn't have been closer.  He's been within 10 points in almost every single state.

    Besides, if a candidate can't win fair and square in MI and FL do we want them as the nominee?  Mind you I say this as an Obama supporter not knowing for sure my candidate could win - but I know he could compete.  I suppose if they split those two states we'd still have the super delegate issue but we'd solve part of the problem.   It seems to me that what is best for the party and more importantly the country, is to have primaries in FL and MI on 4/22.

    Because they held primaries in those states (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:11:48 AM EST
    Why should Obama get a do-over in Michigan or Florida.  There's nothing wrong with the votes - neither candidate campaigned.  It was Obama's decision to take his name off the ballot, an informed risk since there's always been speculation the delegates would be seated.    And why on earth should two primary states hold caucuses, which will result in fewer Democrats participating, at least in Florida.

    The problem with MIchigan and Florida were never the votes.  It was the date and by stripping them of the delegates and campaigning - the DNC denied them what they wanted, early influence on the campaign.  Think how much different the state of play would've looked heading into Super Tuesday if Clinton's wins in Michigan and Florida had been counted as real wins with delegates attached.  

    Now, any influence they have will only be in their delegate totals, not the date they were held.  There's no reason to make folks re-vote.  


    right, (none / 0) (#165)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:29:09 AM EST
    but you are assuming that clinton would still have won in those states if they both campaigned there.  Now, think about how super Tuesday would have gone if Obama won MI, Edwards came in 2nd, and Hillary 3rd.  And, what if they virtually tied in FL?

    My point is this:  By not competing in those states Hillary had a huge advantage as it was essentially "whose name do you recognize"?

    Moreover, if influence on the election is what they wanted - having primaries that "count" on April 22nd would give both states exactly that.

    I understand your argument and it's why I wanted Obama to call for this as soon as Hillary said she would want the delegates seated.

    I realize that this isn't the ideal scenario - but VOTERS would choose.  And, it's the best of the bad options.  Would it really be better to have the committees vote to allow the delegates in states that the candidates didn't compete for?  It would severely disenfranchise voters for the General, no matter who won the nomination.  That in my opinion is much worse, and gives either candidate a disadvantage running against the Republicans.  The MI and FL delegates should not be seated - and if Hillary wins that way it will be viewed the same way Bush's presidency was viewed.

    But this all makes me wonder - will Gore get in and endorse before things get this bad?  


    There will be no do over primary (none / 0) (#174)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:49:14 AM EST
    It's too expensive.  Unless the DNC wants to pick up the expense there is no way the state will pay for another primary or the state party which is what you're asking for.  So that leaves one alternative which is the caucus.

    This is a much less democratic alternative.  It disenfranchises literally most of the people in these two states who have already voted which they will remember very well.  As everyone has seen Obama does exceedingly well in caucus' which I'm sure is the reason why Obama supporters are for them.  

    How do you think the people of Florida will look at this patently political ploy to reverse their vote?  Shades of Bush/Cheney.  First Obama works to deny their delegates seats at the convention and then as it becomes clear they may be the deciding factor works to change the decision in his favor.  

    I don't know what's going to happen but if caucus' are held and Obama wins by flooding them with young people without the family or work obligations the older constituency of Clinton has you're going to have another real problem.  The barn door is open and the horses are all over the place.  Because right now if the votes are accepted even though Obama had just as much a valid election as Clinton your side will scream cheat and we'll hear lies about Clinton campaigning and him not being able to as we have already seen but worse.  While having a caucus as a do over will be seen as an undemocratic give away of the states to Obama.    Especially after we've seen state after state of caucus' going to him.  

    Is that fair?  Is it valid?  Maybe so or maybe not.  But that will be the perception that Obama stole the Florida election at least.  Do you really want to go into the GE with half your party thinking your candidate is GWB junior?  Because he's already made himself look like a sore loser by his talk and his wife's talk about who will support Clinton if she wins the candidacy.  You better start hoping really hard that this breaks one way or another before the convention because it has the potential to tear our party apart and lose us this very winnable election.  You can't just throw peoples valid votes away.  The only way to have a redo would be to have 2 more primaries.  Caucus' are not a valid or acceptable alternative.  If they had held caucus' first you could hold another but not after having a primary first.  

    As for not seating them?  No way.  Your guy would go into the GE with a huge taint on him.  Everyone would know that Clinton was the real winner and he only became our candidate because he gamed the system.  As I said shades of Bush/Cheney and in Florida of all places.  Memories are long and emotions longer.  Do you really want a win that bad that you would put your guy in that position for the GE?  


    I agree with everything you said (none / 0) (#183)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:58:21 AM EST
    I don't want caucuses, I want primaries.  If Clinton wins w/ FL and MI she has a stain.  If Obama wins w/o MI or FL he has a stain.  We are in total agreement here.  I want real primaries.  As for the money, I don't care who pays for it but I have an impossible time accepting that we're paying a couple billion dollars a day "exporting democracy" to the middle east yet we cant scrounge up a few million to hold these in FL and MI?

    This is my point - we seem to agree that there must be FL and MI primaries to have a real result.  That should be the goal of the DNC.


    So where is the money going to come from? (none / 0) (#186)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:51:42 AM EST
    I know for sure the Republican dominated Florida congress will not pay for it.  They would rather have our party twisting caught on this one.  Michigan is probably going to be the same.  The DNC is low on cash and needs what it has to pay for state operations they have been building up for this election and worthwhile ideas like focusing on the Republican candidate while our two nominees are duking it out.  Where will the millions necessary for a primary come from?  Neither Obama nor Hillary is going to be willing to take their funds and pay for it I'm sure.  So where?  

    That is the problem.  Money.  The federal government won't give out the money the R's in the Senate will just make it a 60 vote minimum.  So where?  

    A caucus is unacceptable and affordable a primary is acceptable and unaffordable.  We're in a real bind here.  I really don't want to lose this election because of two states refusing to give up their unearned first place in the primary season.    Maybe though if this thing really falls apart they will be forced to give in as the anger about the foolishness of their intransigence causes us to lose.  That's the only silver lining I can see in this fiasco.  I really hope this solves itself in the remaining contests.  We'll see though.  


    maybe (none / 0) (#189)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    we could get bloomberg to pay for it  :)

    Somebody Else? (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:31:02 AM EST
    Presuming things really do end up that deadlocked, who might be acceptable to both camps?

    I Would Suggest Gore (none / 0) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:09:20 AM EST
    with a older VP (neither a woman or AA)  candidate. Maybe, an agreement to only run for one term.

    But I'm not sure how that would placate the two diverse groups since once again, we would have a white, male candidates.

    Why, oh, why does the Democratic Party have this need to find ways to implode?


    Somebody Else? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:31:28 AM EST
    Presuming things really do end up that deadlocked, who might be acceptable to both camps?

    what do you mean? (none / 0) (#168)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:39:55 AM EST
    If things are deadlocked entering the Convention, (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:09:31 AM EST
    a bloc of superdelegates, perhaps with the Edwards delegates, calls for a compromise nominee. Gore's the obvious, but not only, possibility.

    Good material for Gore Vidal, actually. (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:11:20 AM EST
    Do the Dem. party rules permit such a solution now?

    Pledged delegates aren't pledged (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:36:14 AM EST
    on the 2nd ballot.

    Yes, but do the rules permit (none / 0) (#185)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:49:29 AM EST
    a nominee who has not been on the ballot at any caucus or primary?

    Rules (none / 0) (#187)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 11:01:55 AM EST
    The rules tend to continue mostly the same from convention to convention but they can be changed, and some of them always are, by the current delegates which is why nominees try to make sure they have enough people on that committee along with others.  The Rule's committee goes over the rules and makes recommendations to the delegates which are then voted on for the rules of the convention.  So even if there were no rule allowing a new nominee they could add one.  The question isn't if they can it's if they should?  What would be the political ramifications of adding a nominee no one has voted on outside of the convention?  

    The political ramifications would depend (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:33:07 PM EST
    on the quality of the acceptance speech.

    The political ramifications would start the moment (none / 0) (#195)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:48:55 PM EST
    it was suggested.  The backlash of just the suggestion might be enough to stop it before any changes were even made.  No acceptance speech would make a nominee acceptable if s/he were seen as imposed by party elites.  It depends on how bad the situation was on if s/he would be accepted.  A speech could mollify people if there truly was no other way out but I doubt Obama or Clinton would just bow out gracefully and allow someone else to take the position they've worked so hard and long for and if they don't their supporters won't.  

    wow (none / 0) (#172)
    by andreww on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:12:46 AM EST
    something like that had never occurred to me - and would be unacceptable to the masses IMO.  I expect Gore's going to have to get into this thing and endorse, actively campaign, and commit to being VP for his choice for the good of the party at some point.

    No way (none / 0) (#176)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:02:49 AM EST
    Gore has been avoiding calls about this and will continue to stay out of the matter.  He has rebuilt his image after having it destroyed by the R's.  He's not going to jump into the middle of this and ruin all that work.  He has worked very hard to regain his reputation do you think he's going to risk losing all his newfound credibility?  

    He's built himself a position where he's seen as working for his cause and seriously non-partisan.  By injecting himself into this mess he would be seen as partisan again.  That would undo all the work he's done for his cause and for his personal life.  I really doubt he'll step into this one.  

    Nope there is no savior going to jump in and fix this political mess.  As for being VP why should he do that again?  If he were going to campaign for a position he would have jumped into the Presidential race and with quite the good chance of being the anointed candidate from the beginning.  

    No he's been VP and he's run for president.  No way he's going to step in as VP another time.  If he wouldn't step in for the presidency he sure as blank won't step in for the vice presidency.  


    How About A Real Primary Election Then (none / 0) (#178)
    by PSoTD on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:22:29 AM EST
    Obama and Edwards withdrew from the Michigan ballot, they weren't left off it. That was Obama's choice, as it was Edwards'. Obama, Hillary and Edwards were on the Florida ballot and everyone was free to vote. They shouldn't get a redo.

    What about the voters who didn't vote, or didn't prepare to vote, because they were basically told that the election was a beauty contest and wouldn't count anyways?  The Florida and Michigan primaries were incredibly screwed up affairs in all ways and I honestly don't believe the results were fair to anyone - but perhaps that is as fair as it gets, then.  

    Short of another election in those two states, I don't see how this can be made anything close to fair to all involved.

    You Wont Believe This! (none / 0) (#198)
    by LetMeDoIt90 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:42:16 PM EST
    Know matter what it comes down to the votes and if they keep their promises. I just came across "The Leagues" FaceBook page. They ask you to vote for your favorite presidential candidate and your three top issues. After you vote they give you the result of your city. The result surprised me. I thought that my city were complete democrats. Check this out heres the link Apps.facebook.com/theleague