Puerto Rico, Obama and Clinton

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:19:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

There are some interesting developments in Puerto Rico, One of which is a poll Jeralyn writes about. But I think more interesting is the shifting alignments on the island. The most significant development was the endorsement of Barack Obama by Pedro Pierluisi, the Statehood Party's (PNP) candidate for Resident Commissioner in the upcoming November election in Puerto Rico. This could be quite a coup for Obama.

Why does this endorsement matter? I think the endorsement COULD be decisive in Puerto Rico if it signals that the Statehood Party machinery will be mobilized in favor of Obama. At the least, it is clear that it likely will not be completely mobilized for Hillary Clinton. And that is certainly a blow to her.

More . . .

The key to all of this may be the attitude of the Statehood Party's candidate for Governor, Luis Fortuno, a Republican who has endorsed John McCain. Will he get involved? Or will he permit Pierluisi to activate the Statehood Party machinery? Fortuno is the prohibitive favorite to win the next election (the Commonwealth Party incumbent, Anibal Acevedo Vila, is under indictment. Acevedo Vila has endorsed Obama.) He appears to be headed towards being the undisputed political power on the Island. Will he put a thumb on the scale, for either Obama or Clinton, inside the Statehood Party? It will be interesting to watch what he does. But there is another interesting aspect to the Puerto Rico contest.

Puerto Rico matters more to Hillary of course, but it also places Obama in an interesting dilemma. Will Obama argue that Puerto Rico does not matter? That the popular vote is irrelevant? Consider this possible scenario for the final ten days of May. Obama has won North Carolina but lost PA, WV, KY and IN. He holds a solid lead in pledged delegates but his popular vote lead is then precarious.

Will Obama and/or his surrogates argue that Puerto Rico should not matter? That Puerto Rico is not a state therefore its votes should not count to the popular vote? Will the Obama camp be trying to shut down the contest BEFORE Puerto Rico? How will that play there?

An interesting question I think.

< Puerto Rico Poll: Hillary Ahead by 13 Points | Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Puerto Rico, Obama and Clinton | 102 comments (102 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I've Wondered About PR "Not Mattering" (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by BDB on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:26:51 AM EST

Even though under the rules it does matter. And if it weren't meant to matter, it shouldn't be given a vote. But this election, rules are rules unless they aren't.

Of course, if you argue that PR doesn't matter because it doesn't vote in November, it becomes kind of hard to argue that Michigan and Florida also don't matter when they definitely will vote in November. Not that I expect the Village to call out Obama on any hypocrisy. I think we've established that's not going to happen so long as Clinton remains in the race.

It is an intriguing possibility (5.00 / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:28:12 AM EST

And quite a dilemma for Obama really.


: Possible dilemma (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM EST

Question: (none / 0) (#10)
by BlacknBlue on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:30:09 AM EST

Who's claiming it doesn't matter?


It's the story of his campaign trail (none / 0) (#16)
by blogtopus on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:36:08 AM EST

PR is just a more extreme example. Whereas most of his victories have been based in states that have little to no chance of voting DEM in the GE, PR has no chance of voting PERIOD.

PR is more monopoly money for Obama to wave around and impress the media with.


A while back, didn't Obama (none / 0) (#52)
by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:58:40 AM EST

endorse PR as a commonwealth as opposed to supporting statehood? Or did he do his usual equivocation so that he could choose the most politically expedient side?

The Clintons have a lot of friends in PR for obvious reasons. I wonder if machines matter as much. Of course, I defer to our darling Armando in all matters PR, but so many of the "usual" paradigms have been turned on their heads this season.

Who, for instance, would have thought Obama would lose MA so big after all the Kennedy crap?

(as for what argument O and his peeps make--it'll be the one that lets him win, of course)


: I think...... (none / 0) (#67)
by michitucky on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:10:52 PM EST

I think he's of two minds about it......

Don't you think (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:28:42 AM EST

Obama has already been trying very hard to shut down the contest? He does not want to face the scenario of losing all those big states to HRC.

I think he will indeed argue that PR's votes shouldn't count. He's already been doing so with MI and FL.

Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:35:18 AM EST

I don't believe "Democrats Abroad" are entitled to any electoral votes, but I don't recall Obama objecting to receiving their delegates.

They will definitely try (none / 0) (#1)
by rooge04 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:24:46 AM EST

to shut down the contest before then IMO. However I think this endorsement will matter as much as Kennedy's, Patrick's, and Oprah's...meaning not at all. If HRC is polling well in PR before the primary as she is now, Obama will argue that PR is not a state (I've already seen this on the blogs) and therefore should not count. I guarantee that will happen if she's ahead in the polls coming into June.

After PA and KY and WV they will start calling for her to drop out yet again.

I respectfully submit (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:27:22 AM EST

That you do not understand Puerto Rico politics if you think it is like Patrick Kennedy's endorsement.


I have to assume (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:33:51 AM EST

he meant Ted Kennedy and Deval Patrick, not Patrick Kennedy.


That also betrays a lack of understanding (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:39:38 AM EST

imo.


I am not sure if anyone outside of PR really (none / 0) (#79)
by 0 politico on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:27:21 PM EST

understands the whole politcal dynamics of the island. Further, are the dynamics impacted by relations (relatives) on the mainland? My understanding is the both New York and Chicago have large Puerta Rican communitees, though I believe New York is the bigger one. Will the voting blocks on the mainland have any influence on how voters choose in the PR primary?


: Not really in my opinion. (none / 0) (#82)
by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:36:07 PM EST

The decision in PR will be made based on what the parties perceive will be better for their local agenda. So if he has said that he favors commonwealth it will hurt him with pro-statehooders and vice versa.

I don't think it's the same thing. (none / 0) (#21)
by rooge04 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:42:08 AM EST

Simply that the effect will be the same. IMHO. Meaning I don't think it will matter much.


: the effect will be the same? (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:43:41 AM EST

There you go. Let me be respectful, tell me what you know about Puerto Rico politics?

I only (none / 0) (#58)
by rooge04 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:01:11 PM EST

know as much as what my NY PR friends tell me. Which is to say, not much. This is only complete and utter speculation on my part.


Considering that (none / 0) (#5)
by BlacknBlue on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:27:23 AM EST

the primary is months away, and Obama has yet to campaign there, a 13% lead isn't polling well for Clinton, imo. Wasn't he behind by over 25% in PA less than a month ago?

And Oprah's endorsement had more impact than you give it credit for.


Sigh (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:30:12 AM EST

You may want to consider that even if you TRULY believe the Obama clippings on polling (I suggest you look at the results in California, Ohio etc and see if it is as true as some of you want it to be) Puerto Rico is NOTHING like those jurisdictions politically.


In what poll was Obama (none / 0) (#20)
by ding7777 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:41:00 AM EST

behind by over 25% (the Obama's campaign "We paid for a bamboozle underestimated Obama poll" doesn't count).


Pierluisi endorsed Obama April 1st (none / 0) (#48)
by Chimster on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:56:09 AM EST

Was this current poll taken after then?


: Yes (none / 0) (#70)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:14:11 PM EST

I think too many of you are making a lot out of this poll that it does not deserve.

True (none / 0) (#49)
by cmugirl on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:57:21 AM EST

But Obama hasn't been good for Oprah. LINK


You're right (none / 0) (#57)
by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:01:10 PM EST

And Oprah's endorsement had more impact than you give it credit for.

Ellen Degeneres is becoming more popular and has taken a chunk out of Oprah's viewership.

Degeneres is a Clinton endorser, but she's had Obama on and talked and kidded with him. It's called being fair, I suppose.


Hilarious! (none / 0) (#32)
by indy33 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:48:25 AM EST

Sorry rooge04 but just yesterday you made a comment titled "Leaving out those southern states" he won. He has a chance in VA and CO.

I dont know how many times I have seen comments from pro-Hillary commenters that have suggested not counting some states because they are so Republican or caucuses, or have a huge African-American population Do you think we should just give up half the country? You claim Obama will want to leave Puerto Rico out when by your own estimates you leave out CONTINENTAL states just because their southern or not set up for Clinton to win. The "only" states that matter are big states and Obama hasnt won any right? Like Missouri, right! I know us mid-western hillbillies like Iowa, Nebraska,Illinois, Wisconsin and others dont mean much to the Clinton campaign but they mean something to us!


Just curious (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:50:01 AM EST

I noticed you didn't include Michigan on your list of Midwestern states that mean something. Any particular reason for that?


States that have voted (none / 0) (#64)
by indy33 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:09:08 PM EST

and count. Why should I count Michagan. I agree that this wasnt the most prudent decision for the DNC (not Obama) to make but the rules were agreed upon. If you really think that if Hillary didnt desparately need these states to count now, that she would be fighting for them is wrong.(imo) Where was she in the days leading up to the primary their? Why was she saying that Mich. doesnt count? If Hillary had won Michagan without all the sanctions, of course this state would count. Any state she wins does count. Any state she LOSES doesnt count. Once again I compare this MI and FLA stuff to the NFL coach complaining about overtime AFTER they get beat. They deserve no moral high ground unless they were fighting to change the rule BEFORE the game, not after they lose. In both cases I think the rules are stupid, BUT ITS TOO LATE NOW TO CHANGE THEM!


: Okay (none / 0) (#91)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:03:56 PM EST

I'm pretty sure my point has been made, notwithstanding the litany of excuses.

What? I've never said that no state (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by rooge04 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:55:06 AM EST

should not count. Ever. When looking at the GE, it is reasonable that many of those southern states won by Obama will be voting Republican. This isn't to say I don't think they should count. I count those for Obama just as much as any of the blue states Clinton has won. Do not misinterpret the GE with the current primary contest. In the GE those states I mention yesterday will be in the R column to be sure. PR and the primary and what states count/don't count is an entirely different matter. They may affect the GE (FL & MI) but I've never held the belief that none of those states matter. Ever. You are conflating two different points, actually.


Scuse the above should (none / 0) (#51)
by rooge04 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:57:49 AM EST

say that I don't think any of those states shouldn't count in the primary process. All should.


Your claim (none / 0) (#76)
by indy33 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:23:12 PM EST

was that Obama would try to make Puerto Rico not count because its not a state was it not? The title of your thread was "Leaving out the southern states". I understand the context you are saying this in but it sures seems like a similar argument. You were referring to Puerto Rico in the primary right? Not the general election. You claim he will not want to count this state in the primary. You claim that wins by Obama in the PRIMARY shouldnt be counted in the south because they will go Republican in the fall. Seems similar to me! Have we not figured out yet that for all the states that you claim have been disrespected and disenfranchised ie: Florida and Michigan, just as many if not more have been disrespected by Clintons "big state strategy" and constant disrespect for caucus states. I dont know how many times Penn and other Clinton surrogates have said that only certain states should count.


You continue (none / 0) (#89)
by rooge04 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:57:09 PM EST

to conflate two different issues. For the GE, many of the Southern states that Obama has won cannot reasonably be counted on to turn Democrat. Do you disagree with this? This was my argument in that previous post, since it was about the GE and not the primary. Obama has already decided that FL and MI don't count toward the primary. I've already stated that I think all the states should matter toward the primary. And IMO, Obama will try and discount PR as "counting" if he does not win it. Count on it.


: Okay (none / 0) (#92)
by indy33 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:08:05 PM EST

Im not sure why you have this opinion because it is wild speculation period. The only states that he has resisted to counting is FLA, and Mi., but so did Hillary until she needed it. Her campaign has been quick to say that Obama hasnt won any "significant" states. So I would say that the Clinton campaign has a much more steady track record of discounting states, including completly ignoring all the caucus states after Feb 5th because according to her it would be over by then.

It's an empty strawman (none / 0) (#80)
by blogtopus on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:28:15 PM EST

to say that because we don't think that Obama can win the states that have historically gone deep red in the GE, that we believe those states don't matter.

Ideally, we'd have a candidate who can make inroads into those states, a little at a time, and turn them from red to purple / swing states eventually. Obama may be able to do that with those states. But for purposes of the GE, 2008, those states' dem voters are not going to turn the tide.

That Obama may believe that those voters will change the polarity of a state based on his hope campaign is naivete at its finest. Either he believes that, or he cynically wants to win as many delegates at any cost to win the primary, no matter how empty a victory it is. He's either drinking his own koolaid or he is a particularly cynical pol, take your pick.


: I pick (none / 0) (#99)
by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:54:51 PM EST

option number three: he is arrogant enough to think he can charm them into it.
You don't pout like that unless you take every loss personally. Clinton, by contrast, rolls up her sleeves and goes to the next battle (after making the perfunctory phone call, which O has been pretty uneven and petty about doing when she wins)
There is nothing wrong with being ultra competitive. There is something wrong with not learning from your losses. Only one campaign in this race has shown its adaptability, and it's not O's.

Again, the Schroedinger Candidacy (none / 0) (#2)
by blogtopus on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:25:50 AM EST

He doesn't want votes to matter / He does want votes to matter. The 'opening of the box' on this dead cat is whether said votes are for HIM.

Barack Obama, your Dead Cat President (TM).

So BTD, (none / 0) (#9)
by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:29:40 AM EST

...now that the Republican party has co-opted the Statehood party, does it make it any more likely that Puerto Rico could ever become a state? I think not, but its kind of interesting since I always thought that the one reason why Puerto Rico would never become a state is that the Republicans would never stand for it.

: Nope (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM EST

Not for decades at best.

Yes. (none / 0) (#13)
by Faust on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:33:01 AM EST

You do pose an interesting question.

It's funny because all these things are so fluid. Each contest going forward will influence subsequent spin. The better Obama does the less these things will come into play.

Conversely the better Clinton does, the more likely FL and MI will rise again (within the main stream media)as well as the scenario you propose here.

It seems like this would be a very bad strategy for Obama to pursue though. Currently they can hide behind legal "issues" with MI and FL, but if they come right out and go after Puerto Rico voters it seems like it will provide the Clinton camp with huge rhetorical ammunition for the "Obama doesn't care about voters" meme.

Bit of bias showing here (none / 0) (#17)
by BlacknBlue on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:38:29 AM EST

No one involved with the Obama campaign, AFAIK, has suggested that PR shouldn't count, or shouldn't have a say. An equally credible hypothetical: 'Will Clinton try to argue that North Carolina shouldn't count?". Both equally absurd.

It seems like BTD (none / 0) (#19)
by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:40:58 AM EST

is just extrapolating possibilities, given Obama's stance on MI and FL.


MI and FL have nothing to do with what I am saying (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:42:44 AM EST

: All righty then...my mistake. :-) (none / 0) (#27)
by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:44:44 AM EST

Hmmm (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:42:24 AM EST

Have you been watching the same campaign I am watching?

Actually, let me ask you this - should Clinton quit? should she have quit if she lost Ohio and Texas?

Did you ever hear anyone suggest that?

Do you know who David Plouffe is? Have you read his Media memos?


Pretty sure the one that matters (none / 0) (#29)
by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:46:09 AM EST

namely Obama has said no, she should not quit, anyone else who says otherwise, doesn't speak for Obama and they don't matter.

we can all agree that people will have different opinions, I say she should drop out, you say she shouldn't its each our own opinion.

Obama has said no, she should stay in, others disagree. no 2 people agree on everything.


: Ha ha (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:48:39 AM EST

I love how Obama's trial balloons from campaign staff and surrogates just magically get erased from the history books the moment Obama himself decides to take an opposite position. Yeah, his campaign manager was totally talking out of turn. Go on thinking that.

: NO...... (none / 0) (#39)
by michitucky on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:50:37 AM EST

He didn't say she should stay in the race...He said she CAN stay in the race as long as she wants. HUGE difference!

: His campaign spokesman Plouffe (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:53:14 AM EST

does not matter? that is truly a singular viewpoint. A ridiculous one to be sure.

All I'm saying is (none / 0) (#30)
by BlacknBlue on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:46:13 AM EST

That there is one candidate who has tried to argue through surrogates that DNC sanctioned contests don't count- and it isn't Obama.


: Actually No candidate has argued that (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:51:20 AM EST

Again, your refusal to answer my question tells me you know exactly what I am talking about.

No one is saying that. (none / 0) (#24)
by rooge04 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:43:10 AM EST

This is speculation and theorizing. It's quite clear in the post.


what are we asuming that the (none / 0) (#26)
by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:43:51 AM EST

pop vote count will be precarious? I mean he is up 700K now, are we assuming MI and FL get seated as is and Obama gets nothing from MI, thus putting her close? or what?

I mean Obama has NEVER as far as I can remember said a single contest didn't matter.

they have said it wont effect his lead much, and thus far since march, Obama lead hasn't changed that much.

so basically I guess my question is, where is the argument for is Pop. vote lead becoming precarious from?

I think PA and NC will basically cancel each other out with Hillary getting a small net gain at the most. and cept for IN, which is a toss up I don't see the other states as all that big, so I mean I just don't know how we are going from a 700K lead to precarious.

which is the basic assumption of the post.

Huh??? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by michitucky on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:48:51 AM EST

You said:
I mean Obama has NEVER as far as I can remember said a single contest didn't matter.

Hello??? MI and FL......


did he actually say they (none / 0) (#41)
by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:51:25 AM EST

didn't matter? or are you inferring that because he won't all them to be seated as is that that must mean they don't matter?

because I already made a long post at MyDD that seating as is, is only fair to Hillary Clinton and her supporters is not fair to actual voters. but that doesn't mean either side doesn't think they matter they just want the most political advantageous solution that they can get. and I don't knock either of them for it, but how does that equate to them not mattering?


Oh! (none / 0) (#63)
by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:08:46 PM EST

I didn't realize you wrote a post about this at MyDD. Then it must be true.


As Granny always said...... (none / 0) (#72)
by michitucky on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:18:21 PM EST

Actions speak louder than words.

My MI vote may not matter now, but it will matter in the GE......


: Unless (none / 0) (#73)
by BlacknBlue on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:19:19 PM EST

The state breaks federal election laws.

I went through it for you (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:44:58 AM EST

But I tell you what, just ignore my post. No need to engage my speculation.


but thats what I am asking (none / 0) (#31)
by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:47:09 AM EST

what is the speculation based on?

is it we are just assuming they are close and then going from there?

or what were the steps that got us to assume they would be close?

does that make any sense?


Forget it (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:49:51 AM EST

You will not want to deal with it. the math is pretty straightforward and I am sure you know it.

But this post is less about THAT argument YOU want to have. It is about a potential scenario.

I will not discuss what you want to discuss.


: well yeah, (none / 0) (#53)
by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:59:00 AM EST

just based on your speculation, then if it some how came to pass, I think Obama would argue we should go based on the delegate count not the pop vote. thats assuming he couldn't win or come damn close in PR

I dunno maybe i am not making sense (none / 0) (#35)
by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:49:25 AM EST

I mean I know you said this

Obama has won North Carolina but lost PA, WV, KY and IN. He holds a solid lead in pledged delegates but his popular vote lead is then precarious.

but does that assume 1% wins in all those states and then boom she is close in the Pop vote? just it just assume wins and boom she is close in the pop vote?
does it assume 20 point wins and then boom we are close?

or does it just assume she won the states and boom we are close?

that is my question, I hope it makes more sense now.


It is not a discussion (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:50:22 AM EST

I care to have in this thread.


I just thought it was important (none / 0) (#47)
by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:55:48 AM EST

so we were discussing from the same point, because if I said PR would no way help her catch up in the pop vote.

well now it actually matters what we both think the pop vote total will be when PR comes around dont you think?

if you think the lead is only 150,000 and I say its 600,000 doesn't that change how we would discuss your situation?

thus I was trying to get to where you thought the pop. vote would be, if you said assume the pop. vote total is 100K at PR, it may or it may not just assume, then I would say yes you are probably right, Obama would have to really down play the importance of PR or campaign like crazy in it, but that changes if we use my number of 600,00 pop. vote spread.

so I thought it would be important to a dicussion for us to at least know what we are considering the spread to be when we enter PR


: Discussions of the popular vote issue (none / 0) (#54)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:59:02 AM EST

have been done here to death. You know this. Every post can become a discussion of that. I refuse to let my threads be derailed.

Obama's Pop Vote Lead Is Precarious (none / 0) (#93)
by BDB on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:14:15 PM EST

That's why there's been a push for Clinton to get out. She can overtake him in the popular vote lead in some counts even if she only wins Pennsylvania by 5-7%. Take a look at Jay Cost's very helpful spreadsheet and play with the numbers your self.

Let's say she wins PA by 12 (splitting the difference between the Q-poll and SUSA) and that instead of getting a turnout of 63% of Kerry's vote, with all the attention and lead-up, voter turnout surges to 75%. A 12% victory results in a gain of 264,429 votes for Clinton.

Let's assume Indiana and North Carolina also participate at higher levels given the attention, say 90%, instead of 82% (in fact, I'm going to raise the rest of the states' participation similarly). If Clinton wins Indiana by 9, that's 69,769 votes. Let's say she manages to close the gap a bit in NC and only loses by 12, that's 164,792 votes for Obama.

Assuming she wins KY and WVA by 25% (which is optimistic, but still less than some polls show her lead), she'll pick up 133,637 and 73,472 votes respectively.

Let's say she loses Oregon by 7%, that's 49,516 votes to Obama.

Let's say she loses Montana and South Dakota by 10%, that's 15,634 and 13,432 votes for Obama respectively.

The big question, however, is Puerto Rico. Historically, it has an incredibly high turnout rate for elections and four million potential voters. My recollection is that PR turned out 2 million voters for its election of a non-voting representative. I think it's fair to assume the opportunity to potentially pick a U.S. president will increase voter turnout substantially. Let's say 3 million people vote. If Clinton wins by 15%, that's 450,000 votes.

Now, where would that leave us? Even if you use Obama's best count, which excludes FL and MI, includes caucus estimates and uses the Washington caucus instead of the primary, the spreadsheet has Clinton up more than 250,000 votes.

If you use the broadest count, meaning you count all states and use the Washington caucus, even if you give Obama the uncommitted in Michigan, Clinton leads by more than 685,000 votes. If you don't give him Michigan, she's up by nearly a million votes.

Now, obviously these are predictions, Obama could retain the lead if Clinton's margins are smaller in her wins or he wins bigger or turnout is suppressed for some reason (say, certain U.S. Senators go on national television and announce Clinton can't win). But the popular vote is very much within Clinton's reach and Puerto Rico is one of the big reasons why (along with Florida and Michigan).


I'm hearing that Obama (none / 0) (#42)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:52:53 AM EST

already has people slated to go to PR.

Oh I am sure (none / 0) (#45)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:55:08 AM EST

But it is not easy to contest a state while trying to end the overall contest.

that is the last 10 days in May issue. Obama will want it over no? while at the same time asking for votes. A difficult prospect I think.


Impossible for even Obama to pull off (none / 0) (#50)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:57:45 AM EST

He needs to win PA or IN, or this is going to the convention--absent FL and MI revotes. (IMNSHO, of course.)


Hmmm (none / 0) (#81)
by Faust on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:29:57 PM EST

That seem to me not necessarily the case. What if he loses PA by 5-9 and IN by 4 or less. Then wins NC by 15 and Oregon by 10. I'm not saying that will happen but it's a plausible scenario that has him losing PA and IN and the picture remaining not particularly good for Clinton.

Margins matter to every possible scenario, including the one BTD poses in this thread. Or do you really think that any win in PA and IN will be good enough for Hillary? I might be missing something.


I expect Hillary to win PA by (none / 0) (#83)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:39:45 PM EST

at least 10 points. If it's 5 or less, she should get out.


: I see. (none / 0) (#87)
by Faust on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:51:16 PM EST

So you regard certain margins as a de facto loss and therefore when you say "win" you are assuming certain margins by defenition. I stand clarified.

hmm (none / 0) (#55)
by BlacknBlue on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST

Obama will want it over no? while at the same time asking for votes. A difficult prospect I think.

Both candidates has been declaring the contest "over" since before Super Tuesday. I don't think it has hurt them that much.


Boy (none / 0) (#62)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:06:31 PM EST

You really have a lot of comments that to me seem ill informed.


: Guess who said this: (none / 0) (#71)
by BlacknBlue on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:15:47 PM EST

"That's what I intend to do. So I'm in it for the long run. It's not a very long run. It will be over by February 5."

The Democratic Party primary in Puerto Rico is (none / 0) (#56)
by TomLincoln on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:59:34 AM EST

more complicated than BTD himself is letting on. While it is true that pro-statehood party's candidate for Resident Commissioner has come out in favor of Obama, there are some very prominent statehood party stalwarts who favor Clinton (including former Governor and former Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero-Barcelo). Current Governor Acevedo-Vilá, of the Commonwealth party (status quo) came out for Obama just prior to his indictment. This would have been a strong factor in favor of Obama, since it may have resulted in the PDP (Commonwealth Party) throwing in the party's political machine behind Obama candidacy. But, following his indictment, Obama campaign has distanced itself from the Governor, and a group within the PDP that favors more of a separation from the US has started a campaign to the effect that PDP'ers should not even be voting in national party primaries. It will be interesting to watch this particular development. I do not think the statehood party's machine will be thrown behind either Obama or Hillary.

Very interesting. (none / 0) (#59)
by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:02:31 PM EST

If the Party machinery does not throw it to one candidate or the other, I think the advantage goes back to HRC.


Excuse me? (none / 0) (#60)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:04:30 PM EST

I really resent comments like this.

When did I say it was not more than what I wrote. I am truly amazed at the freeness with which folks feel they can just insult.

Not here sir. Not here. Maybe at other sites. But not here.

Next time, keep your personal observations about what you think I "let on" stay out of your comments.

this is a very strict rule for a reason.


Oh BTW (none / 0) (#61)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:05:43 PM EST

You do realize that your speculation on the PDP Party machinery is the flip side of mine.

But it is my judgment that the PNP machinery has proven much more disciplined and effective than the PDP machinery.


Again, neither party's political machines (none / 0) (#84)
by TomLincoln on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:40:18 PM EST

will be backing either Clinton or Obama. You can take that to the bank.


: Oh I disagree (none / 0) (#94)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:24:00 PM EST

The issue is WHAT PARTS of the machinery will back which candidate.
That is the real issue.

Just let it the PNP voters be reminded that (none / 0) (#65)
by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:09:21 PM EST

Obama was Acevedo's choice and his attraction will be less.

No doubt (none / 0) (#69)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:12:45 PM EST

There are other issues as well - being more tilted on status for sure.

More commonwealth equals colony.

Actually that would put Pierluisi in a pretty bad spot.


Now I left PR in 2003 (none / 0) (#74)
by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:19:42 PM EST

but unless things have changed drastically it really depends on who the other leaders in the PNP back. I am not sure Pierluisi has that much pull with voters of course things may have changed since I last got involved in politics.


My point exactly (none / 0) (#75)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:21:10 PM EST

Fortuno's call behind the scenes is critical here.


: I hear that he's very Republican (none / 0) (#77)
by andgarden on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:24:22 PM EST

so if he answers this question from a partisan CONUS angle, which option will allow McCain the best chance in November?
Does he agree with Rush or not?

: And IMHO Pedro Rosello still has (none / 0) (#78)
by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:27:06 PM EST

a lot of influence in the party, include Carlos Romero and others and he better be ready to defend his backing Obama specially if there is any kind of evidence (video maybe) that Obama even hinted at being for Commonwealth (read colony).

: Fortuño will keep the party out of this (none / 0) (#86)
by TomLincoln on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:46:51 PM EST

since he does not need to allienate any of his base. He already has to contend with some strong dissenters within the party who backed former Governor Rossello in the Gubernatorial primary Fortuño won, and who threaten to "write-in" Rossello come November. And Rossello has made a public statement supporting Clinton. Clinton also has the backing of former pro-statehood Governor Carlos Romero-Barcelo. Fortuño will obviously not put down Pierluisi's backing of Obama, but he will not get the party into that hornets' nest either.

To answer your question, yes (none / 0) (#66)
by 1jpb on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:09:48 PM EST

BO would try to bring the process to an end, but not by a full attack on PR's importance. Getting the SDs to put him at 2024 delegates before June would be a better way to finish this thing.

: 2024? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:11:48 PM EST

Uh oh. that is begging the question. 2214 is the important number I think.

BTD, we spent some vacation time (none / 0) (#85)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:40:56 PM EST

in Puerto Rico about 10 years ago. I took away from that experience a belief that Puerto Ricans are sick and tired of America telling them they don't matter that much. Did I read this correctly and if so does that sentiment still exist and will it be a factor if Obama attempts to say that Puerto Rico doesn't matter?

Forget party machinery (none / 0) (#88)
by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:54:15 PM EST

the fact is that the pro-statehood followers are more inclined to vote in the primaries and with Rosello, Romero and others backing Clinton that is one big base to start with. The other point is that with Acevedo and Hernandez Mayoral backing Obama the majority of statehood's followers will be suspicious of Obama. That to me is his weakness.

: I agree fully (none / 0) (#90)
by TomLincoln on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:59:43 PM EST

: I must clarify one detail in your post (none / 0) (#108)
by TomLincoln on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:42:53 PM EST

there are two Hernandez-Mayoral brothers, both sons of former Governor Hernandez-Colon. One is a PR senator and together with his father backs Obama; the other, Jose Alfredo, backs Clinton.

The PNP (none / 0) (#95)
by facta non verba on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:26:46 PM EST

Partido Nuevo Progresista of Puerto Rico is tied to the US Republican Party. Yes it has been the party of statehood as opposed to the Partido Popular Democratico which is affliated with the US Democratic Party and favours the continuation of Commonwealth status.

Now why is the Republican-affliated PNP endorsing Obama? Why?

Actually the PNP has been (none / 0) (#96)
by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 01:31:46 PM EST

closely tied to the Democrats since the 70's. In fact both Pedro Rosello and Carlos Romero Barcelo are Democrats. And both of them are backing Clinton that is Pierluisi's problem in my opinion. And by the way most of Obama's endorsements in PR are coming from the PDP.


I think Pierluisi wanted to go with the candidate (none / 0) (#97)
by TomLincoln on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:01:37 PM EST

he perceived as the likely winner, which in turn would make him look good come November when facing an opponent that that also supports Obama. He may be right, but this by no means means that Obama will win in Puerto Rico.

An column today in one of our local papers speaks as to Puertorricans identifying more with Obama on ethnicity - classifying him as a mestizo and saying that most puertorricans are as well. This, in my view, is the biggest threat Clinton faces in Puero Rico.


Really? (none / 0) (#100)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:03:15 PM EST

What columnist was that? I find it a dangerous argument.


: I think it was Pasalaqua (none / 0) (#106)
by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:14:11 PM EST

BTW what does Richardson know about the PR situation? Except that he speaks spanish the mexican-american and the puertorican experiences are completely different. That is who Pasalaqua quotes in his opinion in the Vocero.

which newspaper? (none / 0) (#105)
by Florida Resident on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:04:28 PM EST

Sinclair (none / 0) (#107)
by tmbrady on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:17:59 PM EST

I wonder if Clinton's lead in PR could be due to the airing island-wide of the Larry Sinclair scandal on SuperXclusivo?