More On Puerto Rico

I just spoke with some knowledgable folks on the Puerto Rico Democratic Primary (see my earlier post here and here is what I gleaned. These are not their predictions but mine based on what I heard. Warning, this is fairly uninformed bloviating by me.

First, some facts. The breakdown by Senatorial district is as follows: San Juan 6, Bayamon and Carolina 5, Ponce, Humacao, Mayaguez, Guayama and Arecibo 4.

Now, some bloviating. Turnout will likely be in the 500,000 range.

Clinton is almost certain to win and by a healthy margin. How healthy? No one really knows. She should win San Juan and Bayamon handily but will it be enough to gain the extra delegates? Not clear. Carolina will split 3-2. Ponce will be Obama's best district. Clinton could sweep the remaining districts.

More . . .

So extrapolating from this my latest guesstimate is:

San Juan - Clinton 60-40, thus winning the delegate count 4-2.

Bayamon - Clinton handily but not enough to pick up a 4th delegate. Thus Clinton, 3-2.

Carolina - Close but Clinton wins, thus winning delegates 3-2.

Humacao - Close Clinton win. 2-2 delegate split.

Ponce. Obama wins closely. 2-2 delegate split.

Mayaguez. Clinton wins closely. 2-2 delegate split.

Guayama. Close Clinton win. 2-2 delegate split.

Arecibo. Clinton win, maybe even enough for a 3-1 delegate split (a 62.5% win is needed for that), but probably not. So call it 2-2.

By my math, that means the district delegates go 20-16 Clinton, possibly 21-15.

The PLEOs split 4-3.

The At Large split 7-5.

Thus, 32-23 Clinton on the delegates, a plus 9 in the delegate count for Clinton.

This is based on Clinton winning by 57-43. My prediction today.

Clinton picks up about 75,000 in the popular vote.

Be forewarned, this is something entirely new and this prediction is worth virtually nothing. But I thought I would share it with you.

< Obama's New Politics Doesn't Encompass New Policies | Important PR Figure Supports Hillary >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Did KUSA certify? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:47:44 PM EST

    KUSA is still crunching data (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:04:38 PM EST
    (or do I mean Cheetos?)

    Based on past predictions and the overwhelming jinx of the KUSA polling system, which is to say, we do not poll anyone, nor do we consider other polls, people's opinions or anything scientific, and since, according to our own website, we have been correct about every single election to date, KUSA says:

    Obama by 39%


    How could you? (none / 0) (#56)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:22:19 PM EST
    It's the cats. (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:22:59 PM EST
    They are Obamaniacs through and through.

    What's Kathy to do?


    Well, you know my methods (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:06:14 PM EST
    I have been clear about them from the beginning: belly up: Obama.  Spine up: Clinton.

    But, would you believe--this close to election day, and the little twerps have been lying on their sides!


    mojo for the method. (none / 0) (#122)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:15:46 PM EST
    you rock!

    Healthy bloviating welcomed! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:48:13 PM EST
    A) It's not like the MSM doesn't do this on a regular basis; and

    B) My money is one you to be more accurate and fair than the MSM.


    75k (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Turkana on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:50:40 PM EST
    and her popular vote argument is dead.

    Is it?! Not if you count MI. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:52:56 PM EST
    i don't (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Turkana on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:56:05 PM EST
    i know jeralyn does, but i'm trying to discern the will of the people, and the will of the people was not a 0 for obama, in michigan.

    Actually I think MI presents no problem (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:59:59 PM EST
    at all. There is just no precedent for giving a candidate votes when he has taken his own name off the ballot.
    Now, I think the delegate question is different, but it bends reason to the breaking point to say that Obama got votes in MI. He purposefully made that impossible.

    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:00:55 PM EST
    Exactly my argument. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:24:29 PM EST
    His supporters want to have the cake and eat it too.  

    He got the benefit of removing his and other names hugely.  Now they are whining about him not being on the ballot.

    In a fair world, he would be laughed at.  But that world doesn't include a*^es such as Andrea Mitchell repeating his campaign talking points every day.


    What's needed are some Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:29:12 PM EST
    advocates who WILL laugh at it, publicly.

    In my very fair world (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    I do laugh my a** off at so much of what the Obamans say here and elsewhere.  I have seen plenty of  illogical reasoning and poorly written prosery in my time, but what comes from a candidate educated at Columbia and Harvard, as well as from his allegedly high-info voters, has hit record heights of  nonsensicality.  

    Now that I'm not a Dem, now that this is a spectator sport, it is just fun to watch and/or parse and pull apart their puffery.  


    I don't see it that way (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:51:33 PM EST
    Obama made a decision to take his name off the ballot.  It was a dumb decision.  But he made it.

    Just as Hillary unwisely ceded a number of caucus states.

    Hillary won't be rewarded for her stupid caucus strategy.  And Obama shouldn't be rewarding for his stupid Michigan decision.


    are you talking about the delegates? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:53:25 PM EST
    I'm not sure what the justification for giving Hillary more than her share of the delegates is, if that's what your'e talking about.

    No, I was talking about ... (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:04:19 PM EST
    giving Obama any portion of the popular vote in MI.  Or suggesting it's "unfair" that he gets zero votes in MI.

    I think my clarity was eaten by my brevity.


    I think you may have responded to the (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:05:37 PM EST
    wrong person. I was arguing that he should not get any popular vote count in MI.

    I think it was a threading thing ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:56:14 PM EST
    never mind.

    While you can make a logical argument that (none / 0) (#125)
    by TomLincoln on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:19:41 PM EST
    Obama should not be awarded any of the popular vote in Michigan because he really got no votes (because he took his name off the ballot), I sincerely think that reasoning will not sell with the super delegates. After all, I'm certain all of them think that there were some voters who would have voted for Obama in Michigan. If you want to really convince the super delegates of the popular vote argument, you have to do it giving him --somehow-- a portion of the popular vote, perhaps based on the average of polls leading to Michigan, or some other measure. If I were a super delegate, I would go with Hillary simply on electability and the closeness of the race, but I understand the need for super D's to have some rationale for what others have called taking it away from Obama. If so, that rationale has to be perceived as fair. Let us hope that Puerto Rico really surprises the hell out of us, including me, and the turnout is much larger than even I have predicted (600,000) and her margins are much higher than BTD has predicted.

    What exactly (none / 0) (#88)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:44:58 PM EST
    is the precedent for using the popular vote to select a nominee?

    About the same as the sacred (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:46:17 PM EST
    pledged delegate count, and the popular vote makes a MUCH better argument.

    Since we've had the current system (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    the popular vote winner has always been nominated.

    You will raise the roolz, but I can assure you that I am not interested.


    I can assure you (none / 0) (#96)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:52:02 PM EST
    that I am not trying to convince you of anything.

    Your factoid shows a fairly obvious correlation.  Those who win the most delegates will generally win the most popular votes as well.

    We've never had a candidate win the most pledged delegates and not be the nominee either.  


    The Constitution is one precedent. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:55:42 PM EST
    According to that venerable document, the one who gets the most popular votes is President and the runner-up is Vice President. That is the original method of choosing the President. No reason we can't use it for the nominating process.

    Actually no (none / 0) (#124)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:22:30 PM EST
    The original Constitution only allowed the people to directly vote for the House of Representatives.

    The Senate and the President was elected by state delegates that were appointed by state legislatures.


    I'll spot you Michigan.... (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:01:43 PM EST
    but you have to use the primary election results from Washington, Nebraska, and Idaho as expressions of the 'will of the people'....

    Aren't those included in the pop. vote (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:06:54 PM EST
    count now?

    I don't think so. (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:26:47 PM EST
    I think the counts include caucuses (which were binding) but not the primaries (non-binding).  Yet, far more people (sometimes 3-4 times) showed up in non-binding primaries.  Even then, Obama's vote margin in the low turn out caucuses of WA is lower!

    If she comes within 100,000 votes (3.00 / 1) (#28)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:04:42 PM EST
    her argument is not dead IMHO. That's not a big difference when it comes to tens of millions of voters.

    Given her performance in the swing states, she has a very strong electability argument as well.

    Plus, the way she counts votes, she's ahead already. ;-)


    Wrong (1.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Invictus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:57:56 PM EST
    Only if one assumes nobody in Michigan wanted to vote for Obama.  In other words - only if one cheats.

    intent... (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:09:19 PM EST
    intent doesn't count.

    If you look at the Washington, Nebraska, and Idaho primary results, you will notice that a much higher percentage of voters would have supported Clinton than were able to show up at the caucuses.  

    Obama chose to deny the people of Michigan an opportunity to express their intent to support him -- and did so to gain political advantage in Iowa.  He reaped the benefit from that decision under the assumption that no one would care about the popular vote totals in June.  

    If you want to start awarding Clinton delegates that she would have been awarded had her own campaign not made its own mistakes based on their own false assumptions, that's fine.  But nobody is saying "well, lets redistribute the delegates based on what we think voters would have done if all the candidates knew then what they know now."

    Nobody in Michigan voted for Obama.  That's because Obama made a mistake -- and he can't get credit for votes he didn't get because of a mistake he made.


    I credit the voters (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:13:18 PM EST
    who showed up and indicated that they wanted to vote for him, per the exit poll.

    Intent in paramount.


    I have to disagree... (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:23:48 PM EST
    while I respect the 'voter intent' argument, the fact is that Obama took his name off the ballot for political reasons, and reaped a political benefit from that decision -- THE CANDIDATE disenfranchised those voters who would otherwise have voted for him -- it was not the choice of the DNC.  So when crediting A CANDIDATE with raw votes when we are comparing vote totals, that candidate has to suffer the consequences in Michigan just as he reaped the benefits in Iowa.

    I think that the "intent" argument is allowable in a more broad-based analysis of election results -- one that includes the disenfranchising impact of the caucus system, for instance -- but when it come to who gets bragging rights from raw vote totals, Obama gets a 0 from Michigan.


    I still disagree (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:38:59 PM EST
    It's about the voters, not the candidates, in my opinion.

    Glad to see (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:47:51 PM EST
    that you are being consistent.  

    I respect that.


    if that's the case, (none / 0) (#120)
    by cpinva on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:37:25 PM EST
    It's about the voters, not the candidates, in my opinion.

    then the voters in MI were pretty clear, none of them voted for sen. obama. what they may have wanted to do is not germain, it's what they were able to and did do, they voted "uncommitted".

    no rules required that any candidate remove their names from any ballot, only that they not actively campaign. sen. obama and others, in a politically calculated decision, chose to do so of their own accord, thereby affirmatively taking away a choice on the voter's part.

    i may want to vote for karl marx, but if his name isn't on the ballot, i only get to vote for whoever is, unless there's a write-in option. i can even tell an exit pollster that "i really wanted to vote for karl marx, but his name wasn't on the ballot, so i voted uncommitted.", but that doesn't give old karl any more votes than he had to begin with, which is exactly zero.

    sen. obama played polititical gamesmanship in MI, by purposely removing his name from the ballot. by doing so, he disenfranchised those voters who may have been inclined to vote for him otherwise. to reward him for this would give a blatant lie to any impression of fairness the DNC would prefer the selection of the nominee at least appear to have.

    he should get zero popular votes from MI, and the delegates selected as "uncommitted", by the voters themselves, should go uncommitted to the convention. they can decide there who they want to support, they've been granted that privilage by the voters.


    That's cool (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Faust on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:55:40 PM EST
    I have no problem with this:

    but when it come to who gets bragging rights from raw vote totals, Obama gets a 0 from Michigan.

    As long as you don't then refer to the toal you come up with as the "will of the people."

    It is quite obvious that there are many people in MI who would prefer Obama. That is their will. You can punish Obama for his political decision in your vote total, but then you loose the legitimacy of the "will of the people" argument. In the end if one really cares about the PEOPLE then one should care more about intent above all.

    Quite frankly I find the whole thing sort of ridiulous since whoever wins by whatever count chosen the win is by such an incredibly small margin (with so many micro caveats) that "will of the people" hardly makes sense anyway.

    Bottom line is that the damn thing is a tie and the super Ds are the tie breaker voting with whatever metric they decide on. I don't think they will find the popular vote argument particularly convincing precisely because there are multiple ways to calculate it and no single count is the obvious one that should be accepted.


    And may I add (none / 0) (#106)
    by Faust on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:02:02 PM EST
    that what I mean by "ridiculous" is extremely frustrating, because I would very much prefer that the whole thing not be so intractably murky. The at this point inevitable ambiguity of the result is going to make going foreward more difficult. One more argument for a unity ticket imo.

    "Obama took his name off...." (none / 0) (#115)
    by Invictus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:56:30 PM EST
    ....eliminates credibility in this argument.  

    If one is sincerely interested in divining "the will of the people," through the popular vote, he or she has to include some sort of tally in Michigan for people that intended to vote for Obama, but could not.  Hell, some of the people that voted for Hillary might have had Obama as a first choice, but setteld for Hillary as second.  

    Even if the popular vote mattered - which it does not - the margin between first and second will be so small that neither candidate can claim it as a victory.


    Concurring in part, and dissenting in part (none / 0) (#126)
    by TomLincoln on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:35:12 PM EST
    I concur with the first part of your post to the effect that some manner has to be found to allocate some votes to Obama in Michigan if one is to trumpet the "will of the people" argument and have credibility, etc.  I must dissent with your statement that "[e]ven if the popular vote mattered - which it does not - ..." Of course it matters, and should to the super delegates. But basically it will matter for the purpose of giving them cover to go for Hillary, and the most important reason to go for her is the electability issue, which most SD's I think know, but will likely not go there unless they have some cover. Call it what you want, but this is politics.

    I have a post (none / 0) (#62)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:24:51 PM EST
    on my blog today about why this MI thing bothers me so much.

    (NSFW - a bit of swearing)


    "Intent to vote" -- that's even funnier (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:19:13 PM EST
    than "hanging chad" as an excuse for not counting votes.

    Can we look forward to the explanations of the Obamans on November 5, when they attempt to claim a win based on "intent to vote" by all the nonvoters who intend to vote downticket but not for president, if your candidate is the nominee?

    The pretzelification of the presidential campaign as conducted by Obama continues. . . .


    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    You count votes.  Not intent.  Hillary has the vote lead.  She will end with the vote lead.  

    you owe andgarden an apology... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:25:51 PM EST
    s/he is not some "obaman" trying to come up with rationalizations for Obama.

    You owe me an apology (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:34:22 PM EST
    as you apparently still haven't learned to click on "parent" to know to which post I was replying.

    First he was there, then he wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:34:52 PM EST
    Obama was on the MI ballot. He purposely took it off, effectively saying "I want Iowa's votes, not yours".

    He restricted MI from having the opportunity to vote for him because he WANTED it that way.

    It is patently absurd to think anyone could efficiently estimate how many votes he would have gotten.

    Judgment call went bad. Oh well. Oh wait, he's running on his GOOD judgment.


    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    She needs a turnout three times what BTD is predicting to have a chance at that.

    Turnout could be much more (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    according to this article

    if so, with a 13% lead, her popular vote net should be about 130,000


    Turnout could be much more (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by pcronin on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:57:51 PM EST
    Actually the CBN article mentioned 2.5 million registered voters in Puerto Rico. I've got a population of prox 3.8 million with 2,637,000 eligible voters. The latest poll projected a 50% turnout and gave Clinton a 13% advantage.

    If those numbers hold, 1.25 million people would vote. However, Howard Wolfson noted this morning that the number would be closer to 800,00 to 1 million.

    Projection under diff scenarios: @ 13% pro-HRC
    500,000 votes: 65K net for HRC
    800,000 votes: 104K net
    1 mill: 130K net

    Currently for all Primaries incl FL, not MI:
    Clinton + 35,387 votes
    Clinton + 62 delegates (Super & pledged)

    With PR included: (at 800k turnout)
    Clinton 139,400 vots
    Clinton + __ delegates.

    No hard research. Just some more prognosticating.
      --peniel cronin


    Since the economy is the main concern in PR (none / 0) (#75)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    I would say Hillary has a lock on this election...and the turnout will be much higher than BTD predicted..I think.

    That article is way off base (none / 0) (#127)
    by TomLincoln on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:58:02 PM EST
    From the article you link to:
    There are about 2.5 million registered voters in Puerto Rico. Normally, 80 percent of them vote. While it may be less than that this weekend, still, close to one million people could show up to choose between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. That's about the same number that turned out in states like Missouri and New Jersey.

    In the recent primaries in PR, out of a total number of registered voters of 2.3+ million, a total of 1,031,405 voted, divided as follows between PDP and PNP:

    PDP:  279,789
    PNP:  751,616

    The reason why you had much more voter turnout in the PNP primary than in the PDP was that in the PNP the gubernatorial candidate was in play, whereas in the PDP it was not.

    In any event, the total turnout total viz. number of registered voters was less than 50%. In the general election you will get a lot higher percentages, in the 80% range.

    So, one should not really expect voter turnout for Democratic Party primary to surpass that of the recent local party primaries. In the PDP you have a number who do not consider participation in national primaries to be consonant with the parties position of more sovereignty. And in the PNP you have also have people who say they are Republicans, although many of these would have a hard time telling you the difference between Republicans and Democrats. I predict turnout of 600,000 and that Hillary wins. If turnout exceeds 600,000, I'll be surprised.


    Your bloviating is much better (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by bjorn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:53:19 PM EST
    than KOs, Chris Matthews or any talking head because at least you talk to people on the ground! I am not sure where their opinions come from.  I do want you to be wrong though, I hope she is able to win by a bigger margin.

    My guess would be somewhere near their (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:58:26 PM EST
    backsides... :)

    So the popular vote (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:53:38 PM EST
    will be Hillary 300,000, Obama 225,000?

    I am more concerned with seeing her win the popular vote than the delegates.

    Personally, I envision a blow-out for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST
    in Puerto Rico.

    Thanks for your thoughts BTD (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by athyrio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:56:44 PM EST
    and I certainly respect your opinion more than anyone else's on this subject....My one question is what are the odds of it being even more favorable to her than that?? in your opinion of course....

    exactly (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Turkana on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:57:06 PM EST
    i was expecting twice btd's predicted turnout, and a larger margin of victory.

    Great. She will maintain her popular (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:58:37 PM EST
    vote margin then.

    And this, folks... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:59:13 PM EST
    is why I love BTD, despite the fact that I pretty much disagree with him on everything.

    Warning, this is fairly uninformed bloviating by me.


    If only all pundit-types were so honest.

    The bloviating to watch (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:02:13 PM EST
    will be from the usual idjits who just blame Clinton's wins on all those racist voters.  How will  they make that work for the very multicultural Puerto Rico?

    Since they have consistently ignored (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:07:25 PM EST
    the Hispanic vote, it'll be interesting to see how they twist it.  I think since many have already gone on record as saying PR doesn't even matter in the scheme of things (how refreshing they are in their ignorance and racism!) it'll be interesting to see how much attention they give it, if any.

    And, of course, they might kill dead time by waxing on about MT and SD, so long as Obama wins by good margins.  If he doesn't, then they'll probably break a story about how Clinton visited a zoo, which can of course be interpreted as her wishing Obama was thrown into the tiger cage.


    Looks like SD (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM EST
    is going to be a close one. Could be a replay of IN.

    Noooo -- there's a corrupt mayor (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:20:07 PM EST
    in SD like the one in Gary?  I need my sleep!

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:21:38 PM EST
    Not THAT close a replay one hopes. :-)

    Just spoke to my daughter who lives in the Black (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by athyrio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:26:33 PM EST
    Hills of South Dakota, and she mentioned that Obama hasn't really been to western SD yet in the campaign....which we thought was interesting....Maybe he thinks it is a wrap for him because of his connection with Tom Daschle....

    That would be keeping in line with everything (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:55:05 PM EST

    Let someone else do the work in those locations where they know he can't relate to the people, and they will see it in a SD second.


    Now somewhere in the black mining hills of Dakota (none / 0) (#112)
    by jcsf on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:24:16 PM EST
    There lived a young boy named Rocky Racoo-oon...

    Sorry, have always loved that song.

    Now Rocky Raccoon he fell back in his room
    Only to find Gideon's bible
    A Gideon checked out and he left it no doubt
    To help with good Rocky's revival.


    Does this mean Daschle has no cache in (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:36:04 PM EST

    The Puerto Rican vote (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:07:29 PM EST
    will be thrown under the bus.

    Don't worry, they'll all vote for Obama in November. La la la...[flies away on Unity Pony]


    Puerto Ricans won't. (none / 0) (#43)
    by kindness on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:15:33 PM EST
    They don't get to vote for presidents in the general election.

    Me, I'd love to see Puerto Rico a state, so long as Puerto Ricans choose that's what they want.


    The ones in the US won't either. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:17:09 PM EST
    I'm not sure PR, even with the popular (3.00 / 1) (#44)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:16:28 PM EST
    vote can change anyone's mind. I say this because after reading various posts today, and reading how some feel about this guy, good and bad, it's like a Jim Jones thing. It's scary. Please someone tell me I'm wrong and PR will help her cause. Please!!!

    The only thing (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by rnibs on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:52:57 PM EST
    that will change the SD's mind will be if Obama's campaign self-immolates over the summer.

    Yep. (none / 0) (#105)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:01:44 PM EST
    And if that should happen, Hillary would be their choice as nominee even if she had suspended her campaign weeks ago.

    I wouldn't be confident even of that (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:17:57 PM EST
    considering the stupidity of the DNC.  If Obama implodes, I bet Dems turn to Edwards or someone, anyone, but Clinton.  After all, winning the White House clearly is not motivating the Dems, only rejecting and debasing the reputations of the Clintons.

    I was wondering the same thing. (none / 0) (#34)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:08:11 PM EST
    Will they get experts on skin tone and racism?

    One thing to watch about Puerto rico (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    there are never fights about the counts becuase they use paper ballots and the counts are incredibly fast.

    The polls are open between 8 am and 3 pm and all the results are in within 5 hours or so.

    You'll know everything by 8 pm Sunday night.

    Paper ballots. (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:06:36 PM EST
    What a concept. :-)

    Wow...and we can't even get... (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by cosbo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:11:10 PM EST
    FL/MI right? Guam can get right but not the voters & FL/MI. Sigh.

    heh, paper ballots (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:08:20 PM EST
    You know, people with an institutional memory know that paper ballots actually suck. Contrary to the claims of other internet bloviators, paper ballot boxes are FAR easier to stuff than mechanical or electronic systems. (Not that I'm suggesting it would happen)

    In any case, there's a reason so many REFORMS caused the move to lever voting machines 50 years ago.

    Just my marginally-on-topic 2¢.


    Only in one party jurisdictions (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:13:46 PM EST
    when there is someone from each party watching the boxes how do you stuff the boxes?

    Like I said last night (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:21:57 PM EST
    I mostly know about singe-party machines. . .

    Uh, because single-party jurisdictions (none / 0) (#123)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 06:18:59 PM EST
    often are components of multi-party ones. Say, a city machine in a state.

    Uh.... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:20:31 PM EST
    I didn't know you could move tens of thousands of votes from one column to the other using paper ballots!

    You can do it in about 30 seconds on a Diebold machine, though.


    Party hacks would need (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:26:28 PM EST
    special skills. The real problem with the touchscreens is that they might not work, like in Florida.

    Frankly, NYC is smart to stick with the lever machines. Philly has a good new system too.


    The mad skillz required... (none / 0) (#71)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:29:39 PM EST
    are a file cabinet key, a four-digit password and ability to move a column on a simple spreadsheet.

    Howard Dean did it in about 30 seconds on TeeVee.

    And btw, Hillary and Chuck Schumer don't want those machines in New York. That should tell you something.


    Voting hysteria doesn't interest me (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:31:48 PM EST
    Punchcards, now those sucked!

    Reread my comment.


    Hysteria? (none / 0) (#82)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:38:07 PM EST
    I think that's a little strong. And I read your comment.

    The facts of e-voting are quite horrifying. If they don't interest you, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that the machines are not extremely easy to hack.


    If you can't rely on the people running the (none / 0) (#89)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:44:58 PM EST
    system, no method is going to be secure.

    Most elections work out OK in America.


    John Kerry and Al Gore... (none / 0) (#93)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:48:39 PM EST
    would tend to disagree.

    No system is perfect, but I prefer one with a backup.

    We IT folks are kind of insistent on that stuff.


    I didn't say they're always perfect (none / 0) (#99)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    And you can't run an election like a datacenter: it's illegal to keep records of who voted for whom.

    Florida 2000 would have worked out if Florida used lever voting machines like NYC.


    What about Ohio? (none / 0) (#104)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:01:03 PM EST
    It's not that I'm against e-voting. I'm against un-verifiable e-voting.

    I don't see how you can argue with that. :-)

    Your assertions of illegality sound strange to me. What about optical scan machines? Lever machines? Vote-by-mail? If you can't keep track of who voted for whom, how are these methods legal?


    Wow, (none / 0) (#107)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:03:46 PM EST
    you understand that we have a secret ballot, right? Keeping track of who voted for whom would absolutely violate that. I am fundamentally opposed to any system that does.

    We are OT (none / 0) (#110)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:14:46 PM EST
    and talking at cross-purposes.

    S'okay. We can agree to disagree.


    The more easily (none / 0) (#121)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:58:29 PM EST
    votes can be illegally changed, the greater the invitation to do so.  Especially with touch-screen machines and no paper ballot available for audits.  Amazing how the ability to check deters hanky panky.

    So BTD, (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:11:22 PM EST
    why do you project such a low turnout (less than 25%)?

    I know you're saying only it's bloviating, but maybe some further bloviating explaining yourself is called for here.

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:14:22 PM EST
    Because I was led to believe that that is what they expect.

    But did your expert sources (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:22:56 PM EST
    remember to account for the Ricky Martin factor?  :-)

    This folk in the south (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:38:51 PM EST
    would love to move to Maui if I were not anchored to South Carolina by my daughter.

    Not listening to voters (3.00 / 2) (#49)
    by lgm on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:18:49 PM EST
    If Clinton is nominated, by some miracle, nobody who voted for Obama will get her or his choice.  In the more likely event of Obama being nominated, it is Clinton voters who will be disappointed.  Since more people voted for Obama than Clinton (unless you count Michigan as 0 for Obama) it seems that the Clinton supporters should be disappointed.

    But we don't nominate or elect based on a simple majority.  In the general we have the electoral collage that allows the candidate with more popular votes to get less electoral votes and lose.  In the primaries, we have caucuses, superdelegates, and other strange rules.  The politician with brains and a good staff designs her or his campaign with the actual rules in mind.  

    That was not only O/T but also just (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:24:56 PM EST
    mind-numbing.  Read it off a teleprompter?  

    More to the point, what is your point about Puerto Rico?


    Why is Clinton so popular in PR? (none / 0) (#4)
    by denise k on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST

    I believe part of it is because there are so (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    many puerto ricans in the U.S., especially New York; and they back her in the U.S. and family and friends of NYers will back her in Puerto Rico.
    And, it seems that hispanics overall tend to favor Hillary.

    Because PR (5.00 / 10) (#18)
    by lilburro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 02:59:56 PM EST
    is in Appalachia.

    LOL! :-) (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:01:23 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:01:47 PM EST
    OK, that's funny. (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by mattt on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:07:11 PM EST

    Here's why (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:00:12 PM EST
    1 million Puerto Ricans who live in New York where she is Senator. She was out front as one of those leading the charge the Navy's bombing exercises on the Puerto Rican island of Vieques. Here's what she will do for Puerto Ricans.

    On Vieques today:

    Hillary will have the federal government dispose of portions of the former Vieques range not needed for environmental reasons. The federal government has retained most of the land that the Navy acquired from the people of Vieques, even though most is not needed for environmental protection. Hillary will work to have the federal government give up the land not needed to protect animal or plant life, consistent with the original agreement for the closure of the range. Hillary will also ensure that all of the former ranges on Vieques and Culebra - now a Superfund site - are cleaned up swiftly and comprehensively.

    And the Mayor of Vieques (none / 0) (#128)
    by TomLincoln on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:06:24 PM EST
    is backing her. See http://tinyurl.com/6ghqy2

    Damaso Serrano is Vieques Mayor NT (none / 0) (#129)
    by TomLincoln on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:06:57 PM EST
    Your bloviating feels about right (none / 0) (#48)
    by s5 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:17:55 PM EST
    I don't know why, but everything from low turnout to Hillary's margin of victory feel about right. My sense from what I've read (both here and elsewhere) is that there's nothing at stake for Puerto Rico in the primary, hence low turnout. Both candidates are essentially offering the same thing, giving Hillary the edge based on good memories of the last Clinton administration.

    I still don't get why PR has 63 delegate votes (none / 0) (#69)
    by kindness on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:26:57 PM EST
    though.  I mean, lots of states have less.  Granted, population wise, PR has more population than lots of states.

    I just don't know.

    its based on the theory.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:35:08 PM EST
    that Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the United states, and that policies of a President have an impact on the people who live there.

    Obama "blew" through there giving (none / 0) (#80)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:36:05 PM EST
    them about 2 hours of his time. Wow, another notch on his belt.

    To be fair, he thinks he has 58 states (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:56:14 PM EST
    (not 57; he said 57 plus another one:-) to cover, compared to only 50 for Clinton and McCain.  Plus Puerto Rico?  That's asking a lot of the guy.  Even getting to D.C. is like a death march for him, as is evident from having one of the worst voting attendance records in Congress.

    LOL ... and here in Puerto rico some of us would (none / 0) (#130)
    by TomLincoln on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:10:04 PM EST
    like to become the 51st state. Is that slot already taken in Obama's state count?

    Thank you so much (none / 0) (#74)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:32:09 PM EST
    for not repeating talking points. It is so refreshing to find an online Obama supporter who does not do so. :-)

    I had missed that you did so (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Cream City on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:51:56 PM EST
    but I'm not surprised, as you were one of the serious thinkers among Obama supporters whom I have appreciated here, because they make me think (vs. the drive-by Obamans here who just make me laugh).

    So now, you're still a serious thinker.:-)  Thanks.


    Oh, oops! (none / 0) (#83)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:38:44 PM EST
    Well, thanks for being a thoughtful commentator anyway. :-)

    Thanks for the info (none / 0) (#86)
    by flyerhawk on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:42:32 PM EST
    Interesting stuff.  

    Maybe we can add Cuba too (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarissa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    as the Castros die.

    I think 1-1.5 million will vote (none / 0) (#116)
    by nulee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:01:16 PM EST
    look, Carter - Kennedy brought out 870,000 (!)

    So, with more people now, and a lot at stake I think we could be looking at a huge vote.

    FWIW - someone on the ground here who knows HRC's superdelegate McClintock from PR also said he is predicting a HUGE turnout and that PR is really read to flex its muscle on the nomination.

    Turnout will be closer to 600,000 (none / 0) (#118)
    by TomLincoln on Thu May 29, 2008 at 05:06:34 PM EST
    and may even be higher. I'm down here and I'm feeling a lot more interest than I was a few days ago. And Clinton will win, although I have no idea by what margin.