home

Sunday Night Math Homework: Electoral Votes

Bringiton at Corrente does the heavy lifting. An overview of the Democratic nominating process is here.

My view of the math is found at The Electoral Map and the Battleground States. It's based on William Arnone's analysis here.

The three of us concur: Hillary has a better chance of accumulating the electoral votes necessary to beat John McCain. It doesn't mean we think Obama can't do it. It means we think Hillary is a surer bet.

All comments related to the electoral math vote count are welcome. As Bringiton says, "please do not clutter up the discussion thread with meaningless repetition of [Obama] talking points; if you have nothing new to offer, kindly hold your peace.]

< Obama Supporting PA Rep Vows Concerted Opposition To Unity Ticket | Server Upgrades Tonight >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I think (5.00 / 9) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:23:14 PM EST
    there's one thing that everybody can agree on:
    The democratic primary process needs to be completely overhauled no matter what happens.

    Anyway, our system is not designed to find the best candidate, only the candidate who can appeal more to certain demographics within the Democratic party not the voting population as a whole. This might be one of the main reasons we have lost election after election since it was changed from winner take all.

    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:24:51 PM EST
    certainly would have a very steep hill to climb in a general election.

    [ Parent ]
    The party knows Hillary can win (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:01:48 AM EST
    and Obama can't.  But they will take the nomincation from Hillary and give it to a man who will not contribute to the strength and well-being of the party.

    Just like the Harvard Law Review.  So many people point to Obama winning the title of Editor of the Harvard Law Review his senior year at law school there.  He was the "first Black" to win it.  But he has an even more important distinction:  Barack Obama is the ONLY Editor the Law Review has ever had who never contributed a single word of writing for the Review.

    Won the highly prized/coveted subcommittee chair of European Affairs of the US Senate in his very first term and never chaired a hearing or set an adgenda or contributed anything to the Senate on European Affairs.

    Look like a pattern?

    [ Parent ]

    Typo city; time for sleeping. Sorry. (none / 0) (#205)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:03:20 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I have a question (none / 0) (#221)
    by Melchizedek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:05:51 AM EST
    What does Obama's HLR position have to do with electoral votes? Anything at all? I guess "meaningless talking points" are OK when it's for Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Taking the Nomination? (none / 0) (#216)
    by Niffari on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:14:51 AM EST
    But Hillary did NOT win it. Period. There's nothing taken, she just lost. I agree we need to overhaul the electoral process, it's too confusing and the superdelegates need to go. However, this is what we have now. Frankly, the fact that Clinton couldn't beat Obama thus far under rules she has known for almost 2 decades should give you some pause.

    [ Parent ]
    The rules changed (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:45:03 AM EST
    just this year here in MN. Previously the caucuses were straw votes/presidential preference ballots, and non-binding. This year they changed it to a binding paper ballot (well, slips of note paper, really) at the caucuses. Word went out to the party units a couple of months before Feb. 5. The party made an effort as the date drew near to inform the electorate of the change. Many voters I called...from the strong dem list....did not know about the change, and were confused about the importance of the caucus vote.

    Just saying...however, the campaigns should have known, and Clinton did not do a strong get out the vote effort, while the Obama campaign did, especially with college students. 96 people showed up to vote in my precinct caucus (there is a student residence within the boundaries). About 60 took off after casting their vote (allowed by the rules), leaving 38 to do the rest of the caucus business. I hope those students voters will be around for the GE, especially to support our Dem congressperson.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, and the primary process (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:37:31 PM EST
    is currently heavily weighted in favor of the states we can't win.

    LOL, makes me laugh when I think about it.

    [ Parent ]

    actually.... (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:38:45 PM EST
    the bias is not to GOP states, but to Democrats in GOP states.

    This is because a state's electoral college vote provides half the weight in the formula for allocating delegates -- the other half is total number of Democratic votes in the last three presidential elections.   The EC vote is completely redundant -- the larger a state is, the more democratic votes it is likely to have, so there is no need to "weigh" a state to emphasize the importance of larger states in elections.

    So while Alaska is allocated 1 pledged delegate for every 17210 Democratic votes in 2004, 2000, and 1996 combined, while Massachusetts is allocated only 1 pledged delegate for every 48461 Democratic votes.

    And Delaware, where there were 446,477 Democratic votes gets only 15 pledged delegates to the convention, while Idaho, with fewer Democratic votes (and thus fewer Democratic voters) get 18 pledged delegates.  The three year Democratic/GOP vote difference in Delaware was +12.1% in favor of Democrats.  In Idaho it was -32.7% in favor of the GOP.  The sole reason that Idaho Democrats are given more weight than Delaware Democrats is because Idaho has one more electoral college vote than Delaware.

    (the mean is 40722 Democratic votes per delegate -- that based on the 129+ million democratic votes, divided by the 3181 pledged delegates allocated (does not include FL & MI))

    I calculated what would happen to the delegate count if all democratic votes were treated equally before the IN/NC primaries, and found that Obama's lead in pledged delegate would decline by 39.

    The states where the Dem/GOP 3 year vote difference is in favor of the GOP by double digits has a mean delegates/voter average that is 40% above the mean delegate/voter average for all states.  There are 18 states in this category, and in the last three presidential elections, the Democrat has won a single contest -- Clinton won Kentucky in 1996.

    Its simply insane --


    [ Parent ]

    What's the average (none / 0) (#120)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:45:07 PM EST
    Democratic votes per delegate in Nebraska?

    Do you have that?

    I'll probably just have to do the math.

    [ Parent ]

    Light dawns (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:05:39 PM EST
    16 delegates in Nebraska

    45179 votes per delegate.

    Nebraska hasn't gone Democrat since Johnson.

    [ Parent ]

    its 24 pleged delegates (none / 0) (#150)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:19:22 PM EST
    (your number is based on 16 "district" delegates).

    While the "district" delegation is determined directly through the formula (and that is 16) the "pledged" delegates also include "at large" delegates and "PLEOs", both of which are based on percentages of the "district" delegations.

    [ Parent ]

    OK (none / 0) (#153)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:23:13 PM EST
    With 24 I still get 30119.54 votes per delegate.

    What's your total for votes?

    [ Parent ]

    oops (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:02:32 AM EST
    I used the wrong three years for my three years totals...

    30119.4 is correct.

    glad you caught that before I actually did a whole post at corrente based on vote totals from 2000, 1996, & 1992.

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by phat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:16:42 AM EST
    Glad I could help.

    I'll see you at Corrente.

    I'll expand on this when you post over there.

    I have an odd idea about how the weighting should be. It's not really a good idea, but interesting. Shouldn't the swing states be weighted more?

    Given the basic ideas of game theory and all, it would seem that states that are closer should have more of an edge by percentage than states that win or lose miserably.

    The weights should at least be based on state percentages, not total turnout. Using total votes is insane.

    [ Parent ]

    in theory.... (none / 0) (#181)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:27:16 AM EST
    the swing states should be given the most weight, based on the principle that those voters are the ones we have to worry about the most.

    But i don't like the idea of the appearance of a disincentive for states that are heavily democratic.  

    Someone else below used 'volatility" as a metric -- swing states are generally defined as states that are close, but I think that the idea of volatility or (better yet) a combination of margins and volatility would probably provide a better definintion for "swing state" rather than just margins.

    [ Parent ]

    one other thing... (none / 0) (#183)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:34:07 AM EST
    another reason why I don't want to weigh swing states more heavily that "reliably democratic" states is that because campaigns work harder in swing states, turnout tends to be higher.  

    I also think that the formula should be based on 5 elections -- but with the mose recent elections given more weight....

    [ Parent ]

    From what I understand though, (none / 0) (#187)
    by phat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:54:30 AM EST
    if you assume that your opponent understands the theory than their turnout will go up too. If they don't know the rules of the game very well, you have even more of an advantage.

    So closer margins matter more.

    Volatility is really only a different way of looking at closeness. It's still a description of how close the margin is.

    It is dependent upon payout, too. If some states swing wildly, but have fewer electoral votes, you still have to find the states with bigger payouts that have closer margins.

    I think it all comes out in the wash. Especially since the electorate are more partisan than they have been in almost 30 years.

    I'll use an example, but I could be way off here.

    If one state swings over a period of time from 60% Democrat to 40% Democrat over a period of time and one state swings from 51% Democrat to 49% Democrat over the same period of time I'll likely take the second state over the first state. It seems more likely to me that a strong field game will have more of an effect on the second state than the first state. A 20 point swing is going to be very hard to explain. A 3 point swing is much easier to understand.

    These numbers are made up, of course, but it's just an illustration.

    Ultimately the second state could be just as volatile as the first state in an electoral college fight. Comparing the 2 states EC votes would make the whole exercise more valuable.

    5 elections, weighted by time is most definitely a better model.

    [ Parent ]

    nebraska (none / 0) (#139)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:14:05 PM EST
    28558.54 Democratic votes per delegate.

    [ Parent ]
    OK (none / 0) (#145)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:16:30 PM EST
    I must have done my math wrong.

    That number makes it worse.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (none / 0) (#151)
    by phat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:21:50 PM EST
    I get a different number still.

    It's not good.

    But it's still different.

    [ Parent ]

    Why don't we see this in the press? (none / 0) (#207)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:10:11 AM EST
    Has anybody heard Chuck Todd or John King give this analysis when called upon to explain the math to the audience with their maps and delegate lists?  How about the Wapo or LA Times or USAToday.  (If we had evidence that Frank Rich was a reader, we could send it to him.)

    If we have any favorite media voice still, let's send this data to them and encourage investigaqtion and coverage!  Or at least use it to challenge the conventional wisdom  before it totally self- actualizes.

    [ Parent ]

    More math education for the press: (none / 0) (#210)
    by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:43:20 AM EST
    While we are on to the press, we have to keep reminding them that the nominating number is set by the number of total delegates seated at the convention, divided in half, plus one. It is not half plus one of the delegates so far approved for seating when you think you want to call yourself the victor and start referring to yourself as the nominee as I heard Obama do today.

     Since Dean promises fifty states will be seated we already know it will take way more than Obama's 2025 to get the nomination. A fifty state convention is 2209.  We need to make some noise about that number before Obama celebrates his victory May 20.

    [ Parent ]

    Facinating (none / 0) (#220)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:51:33 AM EST
    thank to p lukasiak and phat for all this info.

    It is nuts...and undemocratic. But then again, so is the US Senate and the electoral college.

    [ Parent ]

    Mostly agreed. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:50:53 PM EST
    Getting Democrats energized in every state and territory has been a great side effect of this race.  So to that extent, proportionality has been good.  But it remains to be seen whether or not you're right and candidates suited for one race can't win the other kind.  I'm hopeful, but, who knows.

    And this superdelegate crap has got to go.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn, Do You Think (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:24:39 PM EST
    this matters to the superdelegates?  So far as I can tell they're the only thing that will carry the nomination for Hillary but they don't seem to be buying the "electability" argument.

    I'm afraid what we're going to be left with next November is the cold comfort of being able to say "I told you so."

    Superdelegates can change their mind (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:27:35 PM EST
    up until August. It's not over unless Hillary decides to drop out. If something happens between now and then that convinces them Obama is riskier in November than Hillary, and she is close to him in the popular vote, regardless of the pledged delegate count, anything is possible.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank You (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:31:55 PM EST
    I was beginning to wonder what the point was.  Reading the trad media these days one would think the nomination is decided.  They're already touting a McCain/Obama contest.

    It's good to be reminded that it ain't over till it's over.

    Let's hope the superdelegates wake up to what a lightweight Barack Obama is.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: Thank You (none / 0) (#168)
    by Sleeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    I think more than anything that the media's reasons for trumpeting Obama's imminent victory is that they got tired of saying "still no change" and wanted to report the ending.  The problem is that A) while NC/IN didn't end it, it sure made it a lot more difficult for her to catch up, and B) perception is everything, and as soon as the supers began to believe she was finished, they set about working to make it a reality.

    West Virginia may be crushing enough that we'll all be eating our words, who knows.  But I just don't see it happening.  Someone said that the contest had reached a tipping point, and I tend to agree.

    [ Parent ]

    They had to report the ending ... (5.00 / 5) (#189)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:07:51 AM EST
    last week, because he's going to lose badly this week.

    Any indication that the race isn't over would make the WV results seem significant.  And they don't want that.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: They had to report the ending ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:25:58 AM EST
    Ah, "they."  Of course.

    It had nothing to do with NC/IN being a very real problem for Clinton, a bad misstep when she could afford none.  Nope, it was "them."

    [ Parent ]

    Ouch redux! (none / 0) (#223)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:25:00 AM EST
    hate to say it, but htere's iron in those words.

    [ Parent ]
    You are precisely right, Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Iris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:48:11 PM EST
    Consider that once the primaries are all over there is still time between now and the convention to continue the campaign and make the case to the party and superdelegates; we should encourage Hillary to stay in the race & keep fighting.

    One thing is for sure, more people need to be made aware of how the 'creative class' cultural signals that Stoller spoke of threaten to shift the party's electoral base; not hold and expand it.  Putting all our hopes in a disaffected (which is why they need hope) youth movement is extremely unreliable.  

    Here's one reason why:
    http://tinyurl.com/29756q

    Personally I don't want to see the Democratic party hijacked and marketed primarily to a bunch of college kids who never had to worry about politics because it didn't affect them in any way except the abstract.

    We all have transportation -- cell phones -- disposable income -- the Internet -- free time
    That says it all about what lives of privelege they lead compared to those 'racist white people' in WV.

    [ Parent ]
    Link goes to Huffington Post (none / 0) (#200)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:48:54 AM EST
    and the threat of riots.

    I try never to give HuffPo a "hit" on their web site.

    [ Parent ]

    I understand and agree (none / 0) (#211)
    by Iris on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:18:46 AM EST
    but it was the talk about 'military-style' operations that seemed disturbing...it may just be angry rantings, or maybe even GOP tricks, and I'm probably just being alarmist.  Also I'll try to be more clear about links in the future.

    [ Parent ]
    They have (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:28:03 PM EST
    said that they think Obama has electability problems but that they feel pressured to vote for Obama "because he's the future of the party." However, it seems that no one thinks that an electoral loss in Nov doesn't bring much of a future to the party. It seems to me that people wouldn't want to contribute to a party that has lost 3 presidential elections in a row.

    [ Parent ]
    Given that our party has a history of failure, it (5.00 / 14) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:31:22 PM EST
    makes sense that we might want to continue that venerable tradition in the future. So yes, in that sense Obama is the future of our party.

    [ Parent ]
    ouch! (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:33:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I've read on more than one occasion (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:42:46 PM EST
    that many superdelgates believe that so long as Clinton closes the gap in pledged delegates to within the 100 range, and so long as she has the popular vote, all bets are off.  So far as electability is concerned, I think that many underestimate the fury of women like me--longtime yellow dog dems who feel completely unwelcome by the echelon of the party.  

    I have to believe that the SDs are waiting for something to happen based on the fact that the races are not over.  I really feel that there are some warring factions (Emmanuel calling out Kennedy today was incredible) and that we are looking at the kind of wounds that take decades to heal.  Fitting that Kennedy was involved in the bloodletting in the 80s as well.  

    The more I think about the unity ticket, the more I think that that might be the only way out; however, again, speaking for myself, I don't see women like me being satisfied with Clinton taking a back seat to someone who is clearly less qualified.  She still has a good chance, though, which is what all these electoral maps show me.  I could vote for Obama as second, but never first.


    [ Parent ]

    Amen To That Kathy....Hillary Needs To Be (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:59:15 PM EST
    driving the bus, as I only see obama driving it into a ditch.  I posted yesterday, or maybe today, that something is up and we need to let it play out.  I am still holding out for Hillary being the nominee.  The Rahm thing was a shocker for sure.

    [ Parent ]
    If Hillary wins WV by >30 (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by RalphB on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:22:45 PM EST
    KY the same way then holds OR close winning PR, I think she'll be ahead in the popular vote with MI/FL seated.  Then let the superdelegates vote.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think it would be crazy for her to be his VP, (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by derridog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:03:19 PM EST
    even if he nominated her, which he won't do because, let's face it, a lot of people have problems voting for a black man and a lot of other people have problems voting for a woman.  I'm sure he'd think that combination might be deadly and will go for some militaristic white guy like Sam Nunn.

    The reason it would be crazy for her to do it, however, is that he is going to lose big time and she'd go down with him instead of staying above the fray and looking a whole lot better after he crashes and burns. She'd also have to lower herself to go out and campaign and rah rah rah for a guy she knows is a loser who isn't up to the job.

    There isn't any way to fix the divided party problem now.  Obama doesn't want to fix it. He's gotten where he is by demonizing her. That's the only thing he has.  The Obamaites thrive on having an enemy.   That keeps them in the fold and not asking awkward questions about the qualifications of their candidate.

    What would they do without Hillary to hate? (Not to mention all us post-sexual old women, who are supposed to forget they said that now and "keep sweet," as they say in the FCLDS.

    [ Parent ]

    funniest Timmeh ever (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:09:40 PM EST
    talking about the 'Historic Nature" of Obama's campaign...then it was suggested that they could double up on the ticket and he said, "Oh, no, I think that's too much change at one time.  America would never go for it."

    Yeah, we'll let in ONE minority (perceived or otherwise, as women just act like minorities), but two is just way too much.

    [ Parent ]

    Aren't we a majority of the pop? (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by nycstray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:46:52 PM EST
    And don't we have more women graduating from college now then men? Or are getting there?

    National Women's Party needs to be revived. Something tells me there's a power shift in the future and it's not the NDP.  ;)

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, we're 51%+ of the population (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Cream City on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:53:54 PM EST
    and more than 55% of college grads, last I saw.

    And the National Woman's (one a) Party is still in existence, in its historic hq in DC.  About a decade ago, it went entirely into educational work on women's issues closed down its lobbying/political arm . . . but that could be revived, quite easily.

    As the NWP button says, Alice Paul lives!

    [ Parent ]

    And more iron jawed Angels! (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:11:42 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Does Timmeh heart Cynthia McKinney? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Palomino on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:45:45 PM EST
    He could have both kinds of history, all rolled up in one politilicious presidential candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah. I'm ready to vote for Cynthia. (none / 0) (#230)
    by derridog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:41:51 AM EST
    We can send the Dems a big fat message and vote for progressive values at the same time.

    [ Parent ]
    where did Kennedy get (none / 0) (#22)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    called out, I want to see that one!

    [ Parent ]
    See BTD's latest post above. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:51:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Good Point, But Unlikely (none / 0) (#69)
    by Spike on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:41:59 PM EST
    It is unlikely that Clinton will get closer than 150 in the pledged delegate race or come close -- let alone lead -- in the popular vote. And considering that she has now lost the lead in superdelegates, her chances are rapidly diminishing.

    [ Parent ]
    Not true (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Marvin42 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:27:00 PM EST
    I think she has a shot at winning the popular vote, and as for pledged delegate count, she MAY be able to get to within 100 (but not very likely).

    [ Parent ]
    baloney (none / 0) (#134)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:11:13 PM EST
    it is very likely she will lead in the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]
    The pattern of increased calls for her to fold (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ellie on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:22:06 AM EST
    ... or to offer her a consolation prize if she does before a sure win -- echoing through long & short-pants media and other forms of messaging, like concern paTrolls and astro-trolls -- seems to be holding before WV and KY.

    I'm glad that she's taking this all the way to the convention and making TeamO and the Dems deal with Mi and FL before everything else is counted. Good for her.

    [ Parent ]

    "The future of the party" (5.00 / 11) (#95)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:46:39 PM EST
    Allow me to translate that for you from the original "professional politician" speak...

    we think that access to Obama's donor lists will get us more money than access to Hillary's donor list.  And that goes double if Barry signs the plea for money.

    That is really what this is all about -- cold hard cash.  The Superdelegates are their at their future, not "The Party's" future, and think that OBama means more campaign cash in the foreseeable future.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree 100% (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Eleanor A on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:03:39 PM EST
    But here are a couple of hard questions the DNC leadership needs to ask itself...

    • Will Obama keep raking in cash once it's clear he won't win?  And once the MSM turns on him - as it invariably will, it turns on every Democrat?

    • What happens when members of Congress, etc., in purple states run from Obama?  None of them in states like OH, MO, TN will want anything to do with him.  Are they planning on hosting joint fundraisers?  How will they raise cash for the Congressionals if Obama tanks two or three months before the election?


    [ Parent ]
    MSM won't turn on Obama (none / 0) (#204)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:03:10 AM EST
    They LOVE him.  Chris Mathews leg tingles when Obama deigns to speak in his direction.  Keith Olberman's glasses fog up at the mere mention of his name.  

    PLUS, Obama is an African American, that scares the pants right off their tingling legs.  They wouldn't DARE turn on him.  They would look like fools for being so in love with him AND they are petrified that they might be accused of racism.  Obama's wearing a bullet proof shield, he's Black. It's ok to say nasty things about women like Hillary, but never, ever, African Americans.   Sad, but true.  

    [ Parent ]

    The press has already (none / 0) (#213)
    by Iris on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:49:03 AM EST
    gotten most of the job done: flag pins, Michelle being proud for the first time, Wright, flag salute-gate (or whatever)....and let's not forget that the mysterious e-mail forwards continue apace.  It really does stink that this is how presidential politics is today, but it's there.

    And they will turn on him -- if you're counting on the Village to bail you out, your campaign is in trouble.  

    [ Parent ]

    Any party that does not define its future (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by Cream City on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:15:17 PM EST
    as winning the White House -- in the short term, in the long term, every time -- is a party that has no future.

    [ Parent ]
    How Is obama Losing The Election Going To (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:56:18 PM EST
    help the party?  I swear the party leaders couldn't find their butts with two hands and a flashlight.  The electoral map shows Hillary would have a better chance at winning....I say she should become the nominee.  Isn't that what the sd's are all about, deciding what is best for the party and who has the best chance at being elected?

    [ Parent ]
    That's the issue (5.00 / 10) (#59)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:30:29 PM EST
    I think some folks here weren't born when Carter's "victory" turned into a tremendous defeat for the dems.  I suffered through the Reagan years.  I watched the poor get poorer.  I watched close, beloved friends waste away and die of AIDS.  The skeletal specter of their sweet faces still haunts me to this day--all while Reagan ignored them, all while weakened dems could do nothing to help any of us.  

    And, now that these same weak dems are in power, they are doing everything they can to put forth their own agendas.  I voted happily for Gore, only to see Donna Brazile convince him to stop fighting.  I voted for Kerry, though Edwards was my first choice. I took up for him when he windsurfed and dressed up in that stupid clean suit.  And I was able to do this because I thought, "at least they are representing me."

    I look at this map Jeralyn is talking about, and I think of all those people who Axelrod and Brazile say will be left out of this new democratic revolution, and it makes my stomach hurt.

    [ Parent ]

    I couldn't (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by Jane in CA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:26:04 PM EST
    agree more with every single point you made. I too suffered through the awful Reagan years, and nearly choked when I heard Obama praising that man at the expense of Bill Clinton's legacy.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: I couldn't (none / 0) (#172)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:06:02 AM EST
    Okay now, let's not get carried away.  He said Reagan had "changed the trajectory of America" and "put us on a fundamentally different path."

    eh.  While I don't think he praised Reagan, he was a lot nicer to him than he should have been.  Rereading his comments, I wish he had not said them.  But it's mainly praise of Reagan's process, not his policies, which he repudiates.  Though, again, not forcefully enough.

    He shouldn't have even gone there, to be honest.  Comparisons to Ronald Reagan are not a good way to get my vote.

    [ Parent ]

    What about going back to Reagan and Bush1 FP? (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by nycstray on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:42:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Reagan's foreign policy (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by tree on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:49:35 AM EST
    Obama praised Reagan's foreign POLICY. I can't for the life of me find anything about Reagan's foreign policy worthy of any praise.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Reagan's foreign policy (none / 0) (#191)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:16:07 AM EST
    I did not see those quotes, I only saw the ones where he praised Reagan's paradigm-shifting whatever.  If you have a link to those I'd be grateful.

    By the way Reagan had some (some) very significant foreign policy achievements.  Dealing with Gorbachev and working towards disarmament mainly.  Not sure if that makes up for tens of thousands of dead across Latin America and a million dead Iranians, though.

    [ Parent ]

    Link (none / 0) (#234)
    by tree on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:24:45 AM EST
    Link here

    "The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that's been naive and it's people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world," he said.

    And I'd have to disagree with you on Reagan and the USSR. He was too belligerent for too long and this undermined Gorbachev. Before the "axis of evil" there was the "evil empire". And of course, besides the carnage in Iran and Iraq and Central America, there was Lebanon, Grenada, and Angola, and Reagan's  "constructive engagement" in South Africa that thwarted efforts at boycotting the apartheid government. Nothing to praise.

    [ Parent ]

    Lambert is making the (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:27:31 PM EST
    argument to Pelosi, Dean, and Reid based on the belief that they control enough SDs to swing it to the most electable candidate.  If this is true, haven't Dean and Pelosi, in particular, already decided it will be Obama?  Lately, Dean makes noises about electability, but if they really were going to base it on that wouldn't they have already figured out how to seat MI and FL to take the sting out of an Obama loss?  If it is in their hands now I am very, very nervous.

    HominidViews is Best of Breed ... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:36:52 PM EST
    ... at least as regards application of current "if the election were held today" state-by-state, head-to-head polling data.

    Today, Obama sim's out at 8.6% probability of beating McCain; Clinton is coasting along at 83%.

    OMG how can the democratic party SD's (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by athyrio on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:48:28 PM EST
    ignore those facts.....WOW....It is like taking the great chance we have of winning and tossing it on the table in Vegas....

    [ Parent ]
    Becaue (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:50:50 PM EST
    they really don't want to win in Nov. I've decided that they want McCain to be president. Exactly for what reasons I don't know.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting Speculation (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by creeper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:47:20 PM EST
    I've had the same thought vis a vis Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Democratic sellouts in Congres.

    What the heck is going on?

    [ Parent ]

    Divided (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:38:39 PM EST
    government. They think if a dem wins the WH that they'll lose the house and senate. And if Obama's the nominee and he loses in Nov. they can always blame his race for the loss.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Divided (none / 0) (#177)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:19:18 AM EST
    You can't possibly believe that.  I mean it's okay to blow off steam if you're annoyed at certain politicians, cool.  But you can't literally believe that Congressional Dems would blow off the White House, in not just any presidential election, but one following the most unpopular president in history who's also a Republican?  With our best chance to win in decades?  They're just going to take a dive?

    [ Parent ]
    Why not? (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:36:14 AM EST
    They've done it before. The people supporting Obama have put forth electoral loser after loser.

    If they were so concerned with winning then they wouldn't be putting forth a candidate who has a dubious background and very little chance of winning in Nov. And they wouldn't be trying to tell large blocs of voters that they don't need their vote. Does that sound like people who want to win? Not to me. Or they are absolutely clueless.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: Why not? (none / 0) (#232)
    by Sleeper on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:38:17 PM EST
    With all due respect, it has been the Clinton campaign, or more properly, figures within the Clinton campaign, saying things like "Little states don't count," "Caucus states don't count," "States that have historically gone Republican don't count."  That was the hallmark of the Clinton/Penn strategy of swinging to the center/right and attracting enough independents to squeak by with 50.1% support.

    You can certainly argue whether or not the 50 State Strategy is a good or a bad idea.  I tend to think it's good, but not foolproof.  But the notion that the Obama campaign has told anyone "You're not necessary" just sounds ridiculous to me.  Even before I supported him I don't recall him saying anything like that.  What did you mean exactly?

    [ Parent ]

    They don't want McCain (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:08:53 AM EST
    But they are cowards.  So they won't risk alienating their African American base, even if they are only 11% of the electorate, and even if it means losing in November.  Funny thing, they don't see to have any problem alienating women who are 51% of the electorate.  I guess some people count in the party, and some don't.  

    [ Parent ]
    what sort of comment is that? (none / 0) (#144)
    by seesdifferent on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:15:37 PM EST
    please think about the irrationality of that comment.

    [ Parent ]
    No he's not (none / 0) (#21)
    by andrewwm on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:44:10 PM EST
    using Monte-Carlo simulations for this kind of thing is really not very informative. Voting isn't randomized behavior. All these simulations tell you is that Clinton does slightly better nationwide in head to head polling than Obama.

    Furthermore, since they're almost tied with McCain (Obama behind by just a little, Clinton just ahead by a little), it's pretty much deterministic that they're going to win. So if the polls are 100% accurate than the candidate with the most EV votes will win. Well, duh. It understates how close both candidates are.

    [ Parent ]

    Voting isn't randomized. Sampling is. (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:55:14 PM EST
    Holman's Monte Carlo simulations give an accurate composite of what the many state-by-state polls indicate, given random sampling in each.

    Sorry, your second paragraph is just incomprehensible incomprehension.

    Reread teh FAQ and try to improve your understanding.

    [ Parent ]

    the whole point is (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:55:55 PM EST
    the whole point is that voting isn't "randomized"... the more random numbers you use, the closer to a "true mean" the random numbers add up to.

    In other words, the results aren't really "random" at all.

    I personally think that there are flaws with the methodology -- he 'mormalizes' undecided voters, when undecided voters don't distribute themselves in the same proportion as "decided voters do -- instead of "random" voter behavior, I'd start with the 'fixed' percentage of voters for each candidate, subtract the margin of error from each candidate, then do a "randomized" vote where there is a "randomized" undecided vote factor based on a logarhythic scale.

    Or I'd do that if I knew how! ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    maybe I am mistaken, but are you (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:38:57 PM EST
    making the comment that the two democrats are close based on national head to head polls?
    The point is, I think that according to the electoral college she wins and Obama loses and it is not close at all.  She beats McCain in the big swing states we need and he loses to McCain in those states.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for the link, but please credit... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by lambert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:39:16 PM EST
    ... Corrente contributor bringiton, who did the real heavy lifting.

    But please,  check out the haiku duel starting here, between an Obama canvasser and several Hillary supporters (The haikus are scattered throughout the thread...)

    Stadiums and crowds
    Baritone anaphora
    Con men smile, always

    Haikus are fun for the whole family!

    I hope that haikus... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by lambert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:41:17 PM EST
    ... are not "clutter." They are actually a terrific way to make a very concentrated point, and maybe one or two will go viral.

    [ Parent ]
    hmmmm (none / 0) (#152)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:22:33 PM EST
    Belicose ramblings beg
    "She must exit stage left--now!"
    "Foul shot!" chant the Base.


    [ Parent ]
    A new idea for a unifying device. (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:40:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Words, just words (haiku) (none / 0) (#169)
    by Palomino on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:59:29 PM EST
    Obama opens
    mouth, polls drop, Obama falls
    down, goes boombaya.

    [ Parent ]
    Anaphora (none / 0) (#222)
    by DFLer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:14:31 AM EST
    Anaphora...what a great word. Learn something new every day. Led me to the related epistrophe as well.

    Both, (according to my dic.) came into the English lexicon in the 1500's!

    Both from Greek, obivously.

    Classical Greek  is such a great language, expressing in one word ideas that require a whole sentence or paragraph in English. So we steal it....and that's a good thing.

    thanks

    [ Parent ]

    There's one problem with that analysis. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by zzyzx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:52:13 PM EST
    The assumption there is that either Clinton or Obama has the nomination and it then asks what their chances are.  The problem?  There's no way that Clinton can currently get the nomination without some sort of floor fight over Michigan and Florida.    I'm willing to believe that if Clinton somehow were to get the nomination the path would be easier, but the ways that she would be able to achieve that would do more damage than the advantage she has.

    Obama has a much higher probability of unifying the party not because of anything about him, but because he has the delegate lead.  An Obama nomination would be over in a few weeks and we'd have enough time to attack McCain.  A Clinton nomination would involve Rules Committee meetings, and minority report votes, and back room meetings,  and all of this would happen in late August.  That's why this discussion is moot now.  A slight advantage in electability doesn't outweigh a huge disadvantage in the timeline with the additional consequence of angering a core constituency.  

    Considering (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:55:38 PM EST
    how poorly Obama has done when he has gone up against McCain I don't think that he's going to do much better if Hillary is out of the equation. The only thing that does is leave him no one to blame.

    [ Parent ]
    You missed my point (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by zzyzx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:06:08 PM EST
    It's not about Obama's chances, it's about Clinton's.  How does she get the nomination at this point?  Barring an incredible upset in Oregon and Obama not getting to the viability points in all of the other states (and yes, THAT would be a strong argument for Clinton), it's going to have to be ugly.  

    Every time Obama is attacked this summer, instead of defending him, Clinton would have to argue that that's the proof that Obama is less electable and the supers should overturn.  We'd spend months tearing down the person who would be at that moment the presumptive nominee and then have to have a ton of supers flip or have pledged delegates flip or have Michigan suddenly count with Obama getting 0 delegates or something.

    There's very little chance for the party to heal after a nomination is stolen.  Even if Clinton would have been the better candidate if she had won more delegates, she'd be a much worse candidate now due to what it would take to get her the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    The popular (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:13:32 PM EST
    vote is her only shot imo. If she leads there the super delegates will nominate her as the "will of the people". MI & FL votes are going to be added May 31st.

    Fact of the matter is, the odds are that we are going to lose in Nov. If people feel that Hillary won only because people gave it to her then it won't help.

    Right now a huge chunk of the party won't vote for Obama and that's unlikely to change. He's also losing any independent support he once ad post Wright. And all this is before the 1000 page dossier is released and the GOP has started their four pronged attack on Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    sigh (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by Nadai on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:35:26 PM EST
    The nomination can't be stolen - it doesn't belong to either of them yet.  And it's going to be ugly no matter who wins.  They've each got about half of the vote.  No matter who ends up with it, the other one's millions of supporters are going to be unhappy.

    [ Parent ]
    there's no chance of this party healing (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by kempis on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:58:48 PM EST
    as long as one half accuses the other half's nominee of attempting to "steal" the nomination--all the while Obama's chances depend entirely on the DNC helping him to preserve his slight, structural lead by not resolving MI and FL unless they are neutral with respect to that structural lead or they actually favor Obama.

    In other words, at this point it's fairly obvious to a growing number Clinton supporters that there's some hanky-panky going on between Obama and the DNC. I won't call it theft, just collusion.

    There's also no chance of healing as long as Obama supporters continue to assert that Hillary and her supporters are racists.

    All in all, I'd say there's very little chance of this party's healing, whether the nominee is settled now or in August. This process has been tainted and the rhetoric on both sides has been acrimonious to the point of deep insult.

    The Democratic party has been divided and it will be conquered in November. Ironic, isn't it? All that talk about "rising above the politics of division." Well, to paraphrase Michelle, if a candidate can't unify his own party, he can hardly unify the nation. And at this point, thanks in part to his own MIA stance during beyond-the-pale attacks on Clinton, and thanks also in part to the incredible arrogance of his supporters, there are millions of Democrats heading for the exits. I'm one of them.

    I'll vote for him--I think. But I won't work for him. And if he loses, I won't be terribly upset because quite frankly I don't think McCain will be worse than an ambitious and inexperienced guy from the Chicago machine who's only been in national politics since 2004.

    [ Parent ]

    The nomination isn't stolen when no one has won (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by derridog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:28:26 PM EST
    yet.  I'm not sure why it is necessary to repeat this truth over and over, but neither of them can win the necessary delegates without the votes of the Superdelegates. The superdelegates can vote  either way. I remember the days when these things routinely went to the conventions and the world did not come to an end.

    Here's a little history lesson from Wikipedia"

     The 1960 election.  The 1960 National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States nominated John F. Kennedy for President and Lyndon B. Johnson for Vice President. It was held in Los Angeles, California at Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena. Senator Frank Church of Idaho delivered the keynote address.

    On July 13, 1960, the Democratic Party nominated Kennedy as its candidate for President. Kennedy asked Johnson to be his Vice-Presidential candidate, despite clashes between the two during the primary elections. He needed Johnson's strength in the South to win what was considered likely to be the closest election since 1916. Kennedy had held a steady lead over all of the other candidates during the primaries, having won 32.5 percent of the votes, while Johnson did not enter primaries.

    Kennedy's candidacy also faced a potential challenge from former Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Thousands of people flooded into the convention on opening day carrying Stevenson signs and banners. Eleanor Roosevelt proposed a Stevenson-Kennedy ticket. Among the other candidates were Lyndon B. Johnson, U.S. Senator from Texas and Majority Leader; Stuart Symington, U.S. Senator from Missouri; Hubert H. Humphrey, U.S. Senator from Minnesota; and, Pat Brown, Governor of California.

    Two Johnson supporters, including John B. Connally, brought up the question of Kennedy's health. Connally said that Kennedy had Addison's disease. JFK press secretary Pierre Salinger of California denied the story. A Kennedy physician, Dr. Janet Travell, put out a statement that the senator's adrenal glands were functioning adequately and that he was no more susceptible to infection than anyone else. It was also denied that Kennedy was on cortisone. (Geoffrey Perrett, Jack: A Life Like No Other, New York: Random House, 2002, pp. 253-254)

    In the end, the Kennedy-Johnson ticket was assembled and went on to secure an electoral college victory and a narrow popular vote plurality (slightly over 110,000 nationally) in the fall over the Republican candidates Richard M. Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. In assessing electability, (none / 0) (#231)
    by RickTaylor on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:11:55 PM EST
    one has to take into account that If Hillary Clinton wins through the super-delegates over-riding the pledged delegate count and the official popular vote after she's made arguments about her electability based on her appeal to white working class Americans, that's going to skew the turnout.

    [ Parent ]
    This is a fair point, but it does not (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:01:34 PM EST
    answer how Obama is going to explain not counting MI and FL and blocking the revote. His win, if he wins, is a little bit messy too. And it hurts his chances as well. It works both ways, but you are correct as well.  Clinton could end up alienating some voters if it did go all the way to the convention. But I don't think it will. SDs will be going on record in June, right?

    [ Parent ]
    I fully expect... (none / 0) (#48)
    by zzyzx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:09:46 PM EST
    ...for Obama to be able to find some sort of compromise solution to get the delegates seated once the nomination is clinched.  A 50% haircut and Obama getting the uncommitted delegates doesn't net Clinton anything close to what is needed to close the gap, so something like that will happen a month or two down the road.  It's hard to argue that being offensive to MI/FL since the Republicans had a similar penalty.

    The problem would be if Clinton's camp insists not only on there being a seating of the delegates, but on giving Obama none of the uncommitted votes and having no reduction of their seating.  That's the only way they can become determinative and that fight would be ugly and destructive.

    [ Parent ]

    I am torn because I (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:14:42 PM EST
    understand BTDs argument that Clinton should have taken the MI deal this past week (on an intellectual level), but I am still really pissed about MI and FL and the fact that he blocked the revotes.  As far as winning ugly, I get what you are saying, but again you are underestimating how some of us feel Obama is "winning" - by casting the Clintons as racist to secure the Black vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Michigan is a really difficult situation now. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by zzyzx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:26:49 PM EST
    I keep going back and forth about what the right solution would be.  The problem is that we had the poll in January that obviously is problematic but once that happened, all of our other options started to close.  A completely open election would be prone to gamesmanship since there would be literally nothing at all for Republicans to vote for.  Limiting votes to those who voted on the ballot last time shortchanges those who might have wanted to vote for Obama but stayed home or chose the other ballot since that wasn't an option; moreover that data will not be allowed to be released outside the parties anyway.  Since Michigan doesn't register by parties, there's no way of holding a standard closed election.  

    As an Obama supporter, I personally was rooting for a revote in Michigan because I felt that it would be a tight race and would get rid of an open question that was preventing closure.  However, I'm just not sure of how a revote could have been organized, especially since it would have needed a 2/3 vote of the state assembly and the Republicans were enjoying the chaos and the Democrats didn't want to foot the bill.  

    [ Parent ]