Guam Caucuses

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:20:00 PM EST
Tags: Guam (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bump and Update(TL): Hillary won Dededo 509 to 313, getting 61% of the vote. As Big Tent says below, that gives Obama a 7 vote win out of 4521 votes. It's Obama 50.1% to Hillary 49.9%.

There will be a recount due to about 500 ballots being "spoiled."

Update (BTD): It has been reported that unofficial initial results have Obama winning the Guam caucus by 7 votes, 2264-2257. I assume a recount may be in order though the delegate split is set. I doubt a 7 vote differential is going to sway the Guam superdelegates.

Update (TL): Still waiting on Dededo. Here's a chart with the caucus results so far. Obama's lead is down to 52.7 % . (7:06 am Guam time.)

While we're waiting, I just checked to see where Obama's Guam office is. It's in Hagåtña , "the island's second smallest village in both area and population" . It's where the government seat is. Dededo's 46,000 residents include 17,000 Chamorros and 24,000 Filipinos. Farming is making a comeback there. There is a university and it has a student group for Obama on his website but it only has 28 members. {More...]

Here is Hillary's Guam page. It has much more substance than Obama's.

Update (TL): Only Dededo is left. Agat is in, Hillary won it. Obama's ahead by 204 votes. (6:30 am Guam time)

Lujan/Paulino are handily winning the race for party chair/vice chair which makes them superdelegates. As said below, Lujan is undeclared while Paulino is for Obama. As to the other three superdelegates, Guam will have three other superdelegates:

Committee Woman Taling Taitano, who said she's committed to Clinton; Delegate Madeleine Bordallo, who is undeclared; and the committee man position, which will be filled by appointment. Both candidates up for consideration, Sen. Benjamin Cruz and attorney Mike Phillips, are Obama supporters.

Update (TL): Yona is now in. 2 Districts to go, Dededo (the big one) and Agat. Obama is up by 217 votes with 53%.(6:25 am Guam Time)

Update (TL): 18 of 21 districts now in and Obama has 53.3% of the vote. Dededo is still out. (5:40 am Guam time). This account says the final three could change the outcome. Obama leads by 211 votes.

Dededo is huge compared to the rest of the towns. It has 40,000 plus residents. I wonder if they will all get counted today.

16 of 21 districts now in, Obama still ahead but Dededo and Yigo, two of the largest districts are still out. (5:05 am Guam time)

Update (TL): 2/3 of vote in, it's Obama by 7. Hillary just one a district by a single vote. Obama won another by 3.

Guam is holding caucuses as we speak. With a little over half counted, apparently it is 53-47 Obama. Guam has 8 half-delegates and 5 superdelegates. These caucuses determine the split of the 8 half delegates. It looks like it will be an equal split.

3000 American citizens in Guam are expected to vote. Thus, the effect on the popular vote count will be minimal. Yet again, the absurdity of the Democratic delegate system is exposed. Guam will send 9 delegates to the Democratic convention. Right now, Florida and Michigan, and its 2.3 million voters who voted in their primaries, will send NONE. What a ridiculous political party we Dems have.

By Big Tent Democrat

Update (TL): Hillary may do better with the superdelegates in Guam who are treated as whole delegates (pledged delegates are only considered half delegates):

Arlene Bordallo, who is running for vice-chair of the Democratic Party of Guam, and also running for a delegate seat showing her pledged support for Senator Clinton. Her running mate for chairman of the party is Joseph Cameron, who has also publicly announced his support for Clinton. Then you have Taling Taitano, running for national committeewoman - she is actually the state advisor for Senator Clinton's campaign on Guam.
So theoretically if they win their party officer elections tonight, that would mean mathematically Clinton would have three guaranteed superdelegate votes.

But, according to the first link above:

Meanwhile, the race for Party Chair and Vice-Chair isn’t as close as the delegates’. With over half of the counting done the team of Pillar Lujan and Jaime Paulino is leading the three teams with 48 percent of the vote.

Pillar Lujan is uncommitted but her running-mate Paulino has endorsed Obama.

Update: Comments now closed. There's a new and open thread here.

< Unity | Saturday Night Open Thread >

Legal

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

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

Guam Caucuses | 214 comments (214 topical)

Wow (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:18:59 PM EST

Guam is Obama?

I figured it for Hillary.

My "bad."

And, Hillary was the one (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:23:42 PM EST

pushing for them to actually get to vote in the GE.

They are voting in caucus, though. I've lost all trust in that particular system.


Amen. If I Never Hear The Word Caucus (5.00 / 3) (#51)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:55:25 PM EST

again, it will be too soon! They are, for all intents and purposes, a bit of a joke.


Caucuses are (5.00 / 2) (#60)
by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:04:59 PM EST

cheaper. They dominate in states that are Red. These states simply cannot raise the money to have primaries.

Even looking at the "buy-off" from the PACS to super-delegates from BOTH Obama and Hillary tells the story.

Some of those donations were $2500 or less.

That tells the story.

So we're not going to be "rid" of caucuses.

Now, I'd argue to my last breath that Iowa caucuses should not be in the first 4, setting the tone. And, just for the record? I went to school in Iowa and love the state. But that is nuts to give them power.

Frankly, what has yet to be really discussed is just WHY Florida and Michigan went after the DNC over that issue.

I personally think they are right. The DNC is wrong.

Just my 2 cents. Iowa has a horrible record. They usually don't end up even voting for their caucus winner.

They need to be axed.


: The Repub caucus in Iowa was (5.00 / 2) (#106)
by Joan in VA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:34:11 PM EST

by secret ballot. How do they do that and why can't we? Blunts the intimidation factor but how would it be called consensus voting? The biggest diff in cost is no machines and votes counted by party rather than BoE. Or is there some cost I'm missing?

: Thoroughly agree about IA. (none / 0) (#71)
by magisterludi on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:28:39 PM EST

Too much influence.
Off topic a bit, but, as a child watching the news of the primaries, i always remember thinking how everybody must feel so sorry for New Hampshire, it was so-oo little everyone let it go first just to be nice.

: Dominate? (none / 0) (#211)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:27:38 PM EST

I don't know how many red states are caucus states. My very blue state of Washington has always been a caucus state...until this year where we did both. The democrats took the caucus results, but we still had a primary vote several weeks after the caucuses. The Republicans used the vote counts. I'm hoping we've seen the last of the caucuses here.

That's silly (none / 0) (#11)
by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:32:22 PM EST

talk.


they cling to not having the vote (none / 0) (#28)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:40:46 PM EST

What would it do to one's self esteem (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:04:05 PM EST

ot be elected a "half-delegate"?


: And what about your "better half"? (none / 0) (#70)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:27:59 PM EST

(your spouse) Do they now become your "better fourth?" because you're a half?

Its a caucus in name only, I think (none / 0) (#125)
by ding7777 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:57:15 PM EST

The caucus differs little from a primary because voters can cast ballots all day at polling stations. The election is run by the Democratic Party, which means that voters don't have to be registered with the local election commission.

: Hmmmm (none / 0) (#214)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:32:24 PM EST

doesn't each state set their own rules for how to? I heard terrible things about the way the Texas caucuses went, and that some in Washington state were questionable. I just know they are very hard to get to, and only a fraction of the people who normally vote ever attend.
Mail-in ballots allow all registered voters the easiest opportunity to vote.

Heh (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:20:33 PM EST

I was waiting for Zogby to tell me.


Well, their closest neighboring state IS HA, (none / 0) (#9)
by jawbone on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:28:50 PM EST

so there'e the favorite son factor...?


: Yes, I read that is significant for him (nt) (none / 0) (#22)
by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:37:47 PM EST

He was supposed to win there (none / 0) (#30)
by eleanora on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:41:37 PM EST

according to his spreadsheet, IIRC. The big news will be if he wins by enough to get the add-on delegate, otherwise it'll be a wash at 2-2 all.


: Obama spreadsheet was 0 55% to C 44% (5.00 / 1) (#204)
by jawbone on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:47:21 PM EST

From Politico link -- there may be a better presentation of the spreadsheet.

I heard some talking head say (none / 0) (#69)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:25:56 PM EST

it would be a blowout for Obama. Not sure if it is a big enough deal for"the expectations game" to matter, but if so Clinton can have a little bit of joy here.


If you (none / 0) (#171)
by facta non verba on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:19:38 PM EST

read Guam's Pacific Daily News, many in Guam view Obama as a "favorite son." The whole he was born in Hawaii sort of thing.


: That Didn't Come Across In The Results (none / 0) (#210)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:20:44 PM EST

maybe his campaign has been wounded worse than we thought...when the "native son" only wins by 7 votes, what does this tell us?

Can I use that to treat arthritis? (5.00 / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:20:38 PM EST

Sounds more (5.00 / 0) (#14)
by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:32:48 PM EST

like something for lower gastrointestinal distress.


: Guamentum-mucil! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:34:49 PM EST

This (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by Andy08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:25:11 PM EST

Guam will send 9 delegates to the Democratic convention. Right now, Florida and Michigan, and its 2.3 million voters who voted in their primaries, will send NONE. What a ridiculous political party we Dems have.

in unacceptabl.
I am sorry but out of principle I find it very hard to have any respect and most likely support for the Democratic party unless the resolve this issue before the democratic nominee is decided.
FL & MI should have their say and weight in the decision of the democratic nominee.
I will not consider such nominee legitimate until FL&MI preferences are heard and counted. And I know I am not alone. I am sorry but democratic values, principles and country come before "party". We are not the USSR.

Dean's strategy? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by zebedee on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:42:57 PM EST

I agree. What Dean and co may be planning is to pursuade enough SDs that HRC can't win (based on excluding Fla/MI), which may or may not be true, and then for the "sake of the party" most of the uncommitted SDs line up behind the inevitable nominee to give enough leeway to count Fla/MI delegates fully. They can then pretend that these states have been fully enfranchised.

I doubt this would appease the voters in these stays and may be perceived as something of an insult to include them only when they can't affect the result. But this is probably Dean's strategy and they will try to announce the Fla/MI inclusion before the SDs they have lined up are announced.

If this is what they're planning to coronate BO I would find it pretty disreputable.


Because the entire process (5.00 / 2) (#40)
by Edgar08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:48:10 PM EST

is sequential, designed to allow for momentum to influence later states, everyday that goes by whereby FL and MI aren't allowed to count and have their rightful influence on the race/narrative is a day that Howard Dean pees on them.


: Absolutely agree (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by Andy08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:38:38 PM EST

Edgar08; that's why I'm getting more and more angry each day. The DNC is letting
the issue die to influence the narrative.

Right on all counts (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:23:22 PM EST

That is indeed the strategy, and everyone sees through it.

A travesty.


Yes, but I resent (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Andy08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:40:29 PM EST

the DNC pushing it down my throat. I will not accept it; if they do this they can try to win without me.


I am seriously struggling with that also (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:24:32 PM EST

I live in FL. If Obama is the candidate, he probably won't win here anyway, so I will write-in Hillary.

I can't have McCain win the overall election though, so if SUSA tells me it is close in FL, I will vote for Obama and resent every second of it.


Somehow (5.00 / 2) (#103)
by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:29:45 PM EST

I don't think you will have to make that vote lol. Barack Obama, after this fiasco and his problems with seniors and working class dems, isn't going to get close.

As the Obamabots like to say, It's all about the math.


: They have stopped (none / 0) (#173)
by facta non verba on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:24:15 PM EST

talking about the math, at least until after Tuesday.
Where Have All the Mathematicians Gone?

If the DNC (5.00 / 4) (#108)
by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:36:22 PM EST

does not count the FL delegates in a way that is fair to the voters, I don't think you will have to worry about voting for Obama in FL. I will not vote for him or McCain. They are both bad choices. I will support all the down ticket Democrats. This is just the way I am feeling and thinking. I have one vote, it is mine and it cannot be bought or coerced.


: I feel (none / 0) (#184)
by Andy08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:02:58 PM EST

similarly at this point.

I (5.00 / 7) (#105)
by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:33:18 PM EST

live in PA and my vote matters.

I will not have Obama shoved down my throat.

I will register as an independent the day after he gets the nod
(if he does)

Then the best the Dem party will get from me is a write-in for Hillary.

I know that is blasphemy to some... but the DNC reaps what it sows, imo.


Well (5.00 / 5) (#123)
by hitchhiker on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:52:24 PM EST

the argument of the DNC is that it has to draw a line in the sand to let states in future elections know that they can't just go out and do whatever the hell they want.

There must be consequences, says the DNC, to behavior that would cause chaos and injustice.

So say I to the DNC. There must be consequences to behavior that causes chaos and injustice, and in this case the consequence is going to be an en masse registration as Independent.

The party doesn't own my vote, and they've demonstrated this year that they don't even want it. Good to know.


: It used to be that the state parties (5.00 / 0) (#181)
by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:52:35 PM EST

told the DNC what to do. Seriously. A parent of mine was a state party official, so I got to grow up with all this sort of talk that turned me into a political junkie.
Now the national party seems to have some control issues -- so it's just, well, junky. :-)

Have you made that known (none / 0) (#215)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:36:20 PM EST

to Dean? You can call or email the DNC headquarters and let them no you will not contribute a dime toward their convention and GE funding needs if he takes that stand. Money talks.

Although, I see enough of Dean changing positions depending on who he is talking to...


: flip flopper (none / 0) (#219)
by Lil on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:41:34 PM EST

We Dems? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by janarchy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:32:41 PM EST

As the old joke goes "Speak for yourself, kemosabe". It's precisely hare-brained thinking like this (not seating FL and MI, not anything you've said, BTD!) that's got me (and my aged parents, also life-long Dems) leaving the party to be Independents come convention time.

Also absurd is how many voters/citizens each (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by jawbone on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:35:51 PM EST

delegate represents:

Compare NY's 281 delegates and how many primary voters and state citizens each delegate represents to how many voters/citizens each Guan delegate represents!

: And many more people voted in PA (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:38:43 PM EST

than NY.

Funny thing those rules (5.00 / 5) (#36)
by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:44:59 PM EST

They were put in place to prevent another McGovern/ Mondale GE disaster and here we are about ready to most likely blow something that should be a sure thing. Just my gut feeling at this point.

and the rules themselves are working... (5.00 / 3) (#82)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM EST

.... basically, candidates can only win the nomination in the primary season if they win 60% of the delegates available through primaries and caucuses.

Obama and his supporters are flat out lying (big shock) when they try to promote the idea that a simple majority of "pledged" delegates entitles you to the nomination. The system was set up specifically to prevent that from happening.

But intellectual dishonesty seems to be the hallmark of Obama supporters -- between the race-pimping of his supporters, and the lies about how the nominee is selected, I don't know how any decent person can support Obama anymore -- Obama refuses to speak out about these lies, and that is all you need to know about him.


TeamO explaining how 'the contest' of Guam=Cali (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by Ellie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:15:40 PM EST

should be good. This isn't a nitpick; they've based major talking points about Obama's destiny and appeal on the cheesy math, and engaged media in a fraudulent campaign to pressure Clinton to take a dive.

(TeamO: He won more "contests" than HRC -- as if Guam equals California -- and he has more "pledged delegates", though that wasn't the metric, &c &c.)

This should be put out to challenge all the sloppy CW that's been repeated without challenge (even the basic one of passing simple logic) by the Frontal Lobes of Punditstan.


: Remember Hannity (none / 0) (#109)
by Edgar08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:37:16 PM EST

Holding up his red map in 2004?
"Look at all that red" = "Look at all those contests."

Speaking of Rules & Texas (none / 0) (#88)
by BackFromOhio on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:27:42 PM EST

There was a very long post yesterday at MYDD about fraud by Obama campaign & Texas caucuses. There are affidavits, etc. But supposedly DNC told HRC campaign not to go public with this. THe claims reflect extreme scurrilousness to me & clear violations of the rules. Will the infamous rules committee take this up & take it seriously?


please stay on topic (none / 0) (#118)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:46:14 PM EST

we close at 200 comments and there's more to say about Guam.


Speaking of topical (5.00 / 0) (#122)
by digdugboy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:50:05 PM EST

are the posts in this thread about Florida and Michigan topical?


: somewhat (5.00 / 2) (#124)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:55:31 PM EST

they are by comparison to Guam and how it could be that 2.3 million voters don't count but Guam's few thousand do.
Voter fraud is not related at all to this topic.

Sorry! (none / 0) (#162)
by BackFromOhio on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:46:11 PM EST

FL & MI (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by Lady in Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST

Agreed. Neither nominee will be vaild in my mind if Florida and Michigan are not counted.

I can't help but do this (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:15:57 PM EST

Obama projected to take Guam by 11 pts. If 3000 people are expected to vote:

Obama 55.5; Clinton 45.5
Obama 1665; Clinton 1335
Difference = 330

Currently 7 pt spread
Obama 53.5; Clinton 46.5
Obama 1605; Clinton 1395
Difference = 210

330-210 = Obama's support has dropped a drastic 120 votes.

If the math is wrong... is it really worth correcting?

Recount also could affect (none / 0) (#217)
by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:37:56 PM EST

whose super-delegates won, affecting that count.


: the chads, 8 chads, 8 pregnant chads, please (none / 0) (#226)
by feet on earth on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:54:27 PM EST

I thank you (5.00 / 3) (#97)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:07:00 PM EST

I must say, I have truly enjoyed reading your comments and posts at Corrente. Thank you for taking the time to decipher and to analyze all this complexity, frankly, my eyes roll over when I see it.

You are appreciated.

Wow, this is too bad ... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
by Tortmaster on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:21:12 PM EST

... Hillary really needed to win Guam by at least 300,000 votes.

: Ha. That is The Math for ya (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:30:57 PM EST

Wow, BTD very informative (5.00 / 0) (#129)
by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:09:57 PM EST

I nominate TalkLeft for the best up to the minute Guam election coverage. Look at all those charts, look at all those links. Guamtastic!

I've been doing the updating all day (5.00 / 2) (#133)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:14:59 PM EST

BTD did the initial post.


: Agreed -- if there is a silver lining (5.00 / 1) (#195)
by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:28:52 PM EST

to this long primary season, I have learned so much and looked up more about each state and territory as it comes along (love census.gov's quick facts for each). I could only think, when we heard the other day that one candidate is "bored" with the campaign -- well, you get to be exhausted, I understand that.
But bored? What a fantastic opportunity to get to see so much of this country, to meet so many of its people. And how great for the states and cities and towns that are too often ignored when it's all over early.
I hope that all the candidates go to Puerto Rico. I wish that they had to go to every territory. Maybe then we would finally abolish that awful status. We started as a country of colonies that resented colonial status, yet we created our own colonies right away with the Northwest Territory). But at least there was a process to statehood in the Northwest Ordinance, a process followed for the rest of the continental U.S. and finally -- I can remember this -- Hawaii and Alaska.
We ought to apply that process now, and we ought to get every candidate to go to every corner of this country before they even get to run.

: Nice job (none / 0) (#141)
by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:21:35 PM EST

I'm actually interested in the results from Guam because of your work here. Before I wasn't.

I have come to the conclusion: (5.00 / 2) (#130)
by Mrwirez on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:10:44 PM EST

I will not vote for president in November if Michigan and Florida's delegates and super delegates are not represented and allocated according to the way the elections unfolded. I will simply leave "President" blank. I WILL however, vote straight down the ticket Democrat, and hope for a majority in the House, Senate, local and national candidates. I do not like Obama, Dean, Brazille, Axelrod, or Dashle. They have done everything to punish the voters of Florida and Michigan and to help Barack Obama win the nomination. Obama will lose to McCain and McCain will not run again in 2012. So I say, Hillary 2012!!

Little known fact (5.00 / 3) (#131)
by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:13:07 PM EST

While we wait, consider this....

Dededo could loosely be translated to mean "of the finger" in Spanish.

More updates when they become available.

Thank you for sharing this information. (none / 0) (#134)
by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:15:46 PM EST

Tell me, are there any A list bloggers in Guam? I feel I've been completely blind sidded by these results.


Obama was expected to win Guam by 10%+ (none / 0) (#149)
by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:30:09 PM EST

according to his own campaign spreadsheet.

What's an A-list blogger anymore anyway?
I predict that within a few more months no one will want to call themselves a blogger in public.


: Mamas, don't let yer babies grow up (5.00 / 1) (#185)
by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:05:12 PM EST

to be bloggers! I picture parents cowering in shame if word gets out, so disgraced as they would be. And worried that grandparents would find out and disown the young 'uns doing that newfangled blogging that undermines democracy, giving the family fortune to pet sanctuaries, instead. High holinesses of myriad faiths finally would excommunicate those who bitterly cling to their computer keyboards, screaming "but, but, but -- my candidate was the political messiah! and he had the math!"
There may have to be interventions. Tough love. Bloggers torn from their keyboards, kidnapped, and turned over to deprogrammers . . . who will read, rinse, and repeat, endlessly, the actual party roolz, until the bloggers repent and admit -- repeat after me, now -- that super-delegates don't have to add, subtract, multiply, divide, fold, spindle, or mutilate the math but vote as they darn well want.
The new order, I feel it coming -- bringing back the old order, or at least its terminology. The A list will become unlisted.
Oh, and acronyms -- LOL, FWIW, BTW, etc. -- will have to be banned. (But madamb will get an exemption for IACF, as it becomes elevated to the daily mantra of the media, since it takes less time to say than all those darn just words -- thus leaving more time to keep talking about car chases and missing blond white girls, when it's back to normal on November 5.)

There is still time (5.00 / 2) (#135)
by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:16:20 PM EST

for bloggers who wish to move the goal posts on Hillary and claim that whoever wins Guam will get the nomination. Sure Oregon could have been the test, but this one could happen today! Seize the moment.

Guamtanamero... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:19:43 PM EST

Another misheard song lyric for years...

(alas...it's Guantanamera, the girl from Guantanamo. So, I confess my long life confusion with Guam and Guantanomo thanks to this song. Bush cleared up the Guantanomo confusion. But now it all comes around.


it's a moment of epiphany (5.00 / 1) (#142)
by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:22:26 PM EST

the light has shined down and soon you will be voting for Obama.


: More likely a troll-induced stroke (5.00 / 1) (#145)
by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:25:47 PM EST

We surprised a Cuban band by (none / 0) (#235)
by oculus on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:16:34 PM EST

requesting anything but Guantanamaro.


Barack Obama (none / 0) (#242)
by Mrwirez on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:41:18 PM EST

said Indiana was the tie breaker.... We shall see.


guam (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by echowarrior on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:27:10 PM EST

I'm happy to say I'm conservative, not democrat not republican, I feel america needs to keep its ideals and even go back to when it was prosperous for every american not just the rich, so that being said I have seen many things over the years occur but when guam, not even a state!, gets to vote when Michigan and Florida are locked out is a sign for the future, get ready when china get to vote or vietnam gets a vote or how about russia. my fellow americans , wake up our country has been stolen and sold out. We need to unite again and stop all this power madness before the red flag flys right over the whitehouse and we have to live like oppressed chinese!!!!!!

Actually (5.00 / 3) (#158)
by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:38:29 PM EST

You are the one that is ill informed. Further, my loyalty is to country not party. The A is larger than the D.

And I can vote or not vote however I wish. The Obamabots are childish and so are their threats. I don't make threats. I have said repeatedly for months I don't think Obama is a Dem and therefore have zero reason to support him.

I an guaranteed one thing from Obama apparently - higher payroll taxes and that alone might push me from not voting to voting for McCain.

It is you that lives in childhood fantasies. I will vote my interests not what Daily Kos says I must do.

digdugboy (5.00 / 5) (#159)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:39:59 PM EST

you are suspended today for chattering, repeated posting with the intent to annoy other readers, see the comment rules. I've just deleted a slew of comments here that demonstrated your effect on other readers.

Childishness knows no bounds. . . (5.00 / 2) (#161)
by LarryInNYC on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:41:36 PM EST

in this contest. While you can find it here if you're really interested in quantity I suggest the Obama blogs.

I agree with you that the fault in Florida and Michigan lies as much with the Democratic leaders as with the legislature. Both camps seem convinced that Dean is trying to steal the election for the other candidate. But I believe he's simply trying to restore sanity to the primary calendar. I didn't really follow the original decision, if I had I doubt I would have had an opinion.

That said, the idea that in 2008 an intra-party election might be decided by refusing to count the votes in Florida (no matter who's at fault) seems insane to me -- both in context of Bush v. Gore 2000 and in context of Democrat v. Republican in November 2008.

they can't vote in the GE... (5.00 / 1) (#183)
by boredmpa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:02:00 PM EST

It's great that we give delegates to a territory that can't vote in the GE. I'm glad we're so inclusive, but nine is a bit much imho and I hope the FL/MI people don't hear about it.

It would be nicer if we gave people in all our states the same feeling of inclusion.

: They should be able to vote in the GE too. (5.00 / 2) (#203)
by jfung79 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:42:11 PM EST

This is the 21st century. We shouldn't be having colonies that can't vote.

: Well, I'm hearing about it NOW (none / 0) (#198)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:35:29 PM EST

AAAARRRRRGH!!!!
Yes, I am happy the Democrats of Guam will be able to feel included vicariously in the GE debacle, even though they don't get to vote. Misery loves company.

Obama wins Guam by 7 votes (5.00 / 2) (#186)
by KevinMc on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:08:44 PM EST

Obama wins Guam

Even the Kentucky Derby wasn't this close. In the strangest of circumstances that could only bring about the closest of races, Hillary Rodham Clinton finished with 49.9% of the vote of the Guam Democratic Caucus, just 7 votes shy of Barack Obama's total of 50.1%. While Obama led for the vast majority of the night's tallying, Clinton needed a strong finish in the municipality of Dededo, Guam's most populous village. And she did - gaining 61% of the 822 votes counted by the Democratic Party of Guam.
Note: these are unofficial, uncertified results as tabulated by the Democratic Party of Guam. The DPG also noted a high number of spoiled ballots in Dededo.

: I Read In Another Blog That HRC's Quiet Army (none / 0) (#216)
by MO Blue on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:36:57 PM EST

(the seniors) had a strong showing and that is what helped close the gap.

: Way to go Hillary! (none / 0) (#223)
by JavaCityPal on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:50:17 PM EST

and, again she did this after Obama had the more active campaign.

CNN and ABC (5.00 / 2) (#187)
by americanincanada on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:08:48 PM EST

are saying Obama won Guam by...

get this...

7 votes.

if you don't look at popular vote, and we all know Obaba ignores that...it was a tie.

CNN (5.00 / 3) (#188)
by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:14:57 PM EST

breaking news - Obama wins Guam by 7 votes

This is terriffic news for Hillary because people expected Obama to cruise there. I saw one poll that had him up by 10%. He was viewed by some as a native son, since he did spend some growing up time in Hawaii.

It (5.00 / 1) (#191)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:18:25 PM EST

plays right into their "Obama is fading" narrative they now love.


correct me if I'm wrong (5.00 / 2) (#194)
by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:27:18 PM EST

but hasn't he won most caucuses by 20-30 points? This is huge for Hillary


: Pretty (none / 0) (#220)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:46:12 PM EST

much iirc. He was on a roll in Feb. Not so much lately.

What about the "spoiled votes" that they (none / 0) (#224)
by FlaDemFem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:51:19 PM EST

are going to recount? After hearing what happened in Texas and a couple of other caucases, I am leaning towards wondering if Obama's people had something to do with the spoilage. Any info on that?


: Dont know the details here (none / 0) (#227)
by riddlerandy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:57:17 PM EST

but it could mean a couple of different things
At least in Cal, a spoiled ballot generally means a ballot on which a voter made a mistake, and which was exchanged for a new ballot. In that event, the ballot would not be counted.
It is also possible that the ballot was somehow damaged going through the counter, in which case election workers will have to "remake" the ballot so that it can be run through the system.

On the one hand I understand (none / 0) (#225)
by riddlerandy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:53:34 PM EST

why Obama migh be considered to be a Guam favorite son

On the hand, Hawaii is closer to Seattle than it is to Guam


You've obviously never lived in either (none / 0) (#229)
by tree on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:05:48 PM EST

Hawaii or Guam if you don't understand the connection between the two. Traveling-distance-wise, Hawaii may be closer to Seattle, but culturally, topographically, and climatologically, Hawaii and Guam are much more akin than Hawaii is to any of the other 49 states.


Been to both numerous times (none / 0) (#232)
by riddlerandy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:10:44 PM EST

which is why I said I understand on the one hand hey there is a connection. Still, it's an 8n hour flight from Honolulu to Guam. But yes, I get that they are both proud island peoples who became dominated by the US.


: And add 5+ and a stopover (none / 0) (#237)
by tree on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:21:37 PM EST

in Hawaii from any other state. A candidate that was born in Hawaii is probably about as close as a "native son" as Guam is ever going to get.

ABC (5.00 / 1) (#201)
by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:36:30 PM EST

lists Obama as the winner ahead by 5 votes. Good golly. LOL*

(Could this race be any tighter?)

Recount To Examine "Spoiled" Ballots (5.00 / 1) (#205)
by xspowr on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:00:04 PM EST

Officials Say Guam Recount Is Imminent

Herbie Perez, Democrat Party Nominating Committee Chairperson, says officials will look over the large amount of "spoiled" ballots in the coming days. At issue is small margin of victory for Senator Barack Obama. He beat his rival Senator Hillary Clinton by 7 votes, but well over 500 ballots were deemed invalid during the tabulation process. Perez says she will not certify the results because the Committee needs to ensure all were properly identified as "spoiled." She says officials from the Party and representatives from both candidates will meet probably Monday or Tuesday to address that issue.
She is also looking into missing ballots. In total, over 8,100 were printed in response to reports of shortages at precinct sites. But when the final vote count was given, only a little over 4.500 ballots were used.

Noooo let Hillary lose by 7 votes (5.00 / 1) (#207)
by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:03:49 PM EST

or else the media won't report it!


I like your theory (5.00 / 1) (#208)
by xspowr on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:15:37 PM EST

But I'll still take a win any way we can get one! It appears that most of the spoiled ballots were in Dedego, which Hillary carried with 61% of the counted ballots.


: then she will probably win the recount (5.00 / 2) (#209)
by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:19:01 PM EST

don't tell that to CNN which already jumped the gun and put the checkmark next to Obama.
When Hillary is up 10% they say too close to call, but 5 votes with a recount coming and it's a certain checkmark for Obama. Most trusted name in news.

LOL* (none / 0) (#228)
by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:01:51 PM EST

I'm just amazed. Imagine living where 500 votes are in play and someone loses by 7.

Sounds like some of Obama's other "state" wins. :)


Clinton tricks the media! (5.00 / 1) (#206)
by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:00:59 PM EST

Losing by 7 votes in Guam may be the best result for Hillary, she is so devious. Here's why:

We know the media loves to report Obama victories and ignore or downplay Clinton victories ASAP.

So what better way to get the media to let the world know just how badly Obama is losing momentum than to report about this "historic victory" (aren't they all?) in a state he was expected to win by over 10+ according to his own campaign.

Number #2 it once again illustrates the fact his is practically a tied race and that 4000 votes in Guam are more important to the DNC than over 2 million in Florida and Michigan.

Number #3 Clinton is surging? Oh yea.

If Hillary had won by 7 votes you would not hear about Obama's collapse in Guam tommorrow because Hillary wins are so yesterday

-diplomatic

The spin has begun on guam (5.00 / 2) (#222)
by boredmpa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:48:29 PM EST

I noticed over at daily kos that a lot of commenters were focusing on:

It's not really a caucus!
...So it doesn't look bad that Obama didn't landslide a caucus state.

Additionally, lots of folks rec'd comments along the lines of this thing seems fishy with her being behind by 5% and then losing by seven, they must have screwed up trying to rig the election. (I'm serious, go look).

I really can't understand how your first response at not doing well is to think someone stole the election...?!!! And then post online about it?!!!

And when did KOS add a delegate counter at the top of his page. Talk about spin/focus/talking points.

: Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#230)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:07:54 PM EST

for the info. The Obama supporters on other blogs are really starting to look desperate too. They're screaming how he's already won but no one will answer my question as to why if he's already won he losing primaries.

: Boy, that is flimsy rope to hang on to (5.00 / 1) (#239)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:29:53 PM EST

I can't wait to hear what they say when he only wins NC by 3%.

: Desperate to spin Obama couldn't close Guam' huh? (5.00 / 1) (#240)
by Ellie on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:33:41 PM EST

No wonder they're working the hamsters in the wheels extra hard today at Spin Central.

Oh look, new personal email from Hillary (4.75 / 4) (#86)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:16:28 PM EST

It is critical that the DNC make a final decision in May before the final primaries in early June so that Florida and Michigan voters have a say in deciding our nominee.

With yet another petition tor the DNC to ignore, HERE.

What the heck, I'll bite.

Ok, I did it (none / 0) (#87)
by dissenter on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:24:15 PM EST

and wrote this in the message section:

If you think this party will hold together by giving a voice to Guam, the VI, Puerto Rico and A. Samoa but not FL and MI, you deserve to lose. I for one will leave this party. This is outrageous.


Sent my soon-to-be-ignored message (none / 0) (#98)
by sumac on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:11:04 PM EST

In the message section I wrote:

Unless the situation with Florida and Michigan is resolved in a meaningful and transparent manner, the DNC can kindly stop soliciting me for money. I am already looking at the Green party and your lack of leadership and blatant bias towards one candidate have made my research of the Green party far more enjoyable than I would have thought.

You cannot disenfranchise millions of voters and call yourself the "Democratic" party.


OK (none / 0) (#107)
by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:34:28 PM EST

I did it too.


Me too (none / 0) (#174)
by kenoshaMarge on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:30:12 PM EST

and decided to make another contribution while I was there.


: Me too. (none / 0) (#236)
by derridog on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:17:12 PM EST

Thanks -- signed on and let it rip! (nt) (none / 0) (#189)
by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:15:07 PM EST

Congratulations, Guam (1.62 / 8) (#119)
by digdugboy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:46:43 PM EST

I applaud you for being smarter than Florida and Michigan, in that you didn't decide to defy the DNC's scheduling for your primary. Because you were smart enough to play by the rules, your delegates get to count in Denver. Maybe next time Florida and Michigan will be smart enough to play by the rules.

Maybe next time (5.00 / 2) (#126)
by cmugirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:57:43 PM EST

The DNC won't have their heads up their patooties and have this figured out before the next election.

And maybe monkeys will fly out of .....


give it a rest (5.00 / 6) (#127)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:57:43 PM EST

you wouldn't be saying that if Obama had won MI or FL. Please don't waste our time.


Jeralyn, can you investigate whether we can (5.00 / 3) (#170)
by feet on earth on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:00:56 PM EST

have an "Ignore" bottom so we can skip incessant identical messages on this blog? I am sure we all pinch our pennies in to help with costs


count me in for (5.00 / 2) (#175)
by kenoshaMarge on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:33:18 PM EST

a donation if it would get rid of people that just show up to pick a fight. Again and again and again. I usually just leave because I know that half the topic will be wasted by someone who's only point seems to be to insult and/or annoy others.


: Now there (none / 0) (#182)
by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:00:13 PM EST

is one of their pals running through the comments handing out 1's to those who disagree or correct the inaccuracies. Pitiful

no such button (none / 0) (#212)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:29:06 PM EST

But it is why I designed the threads to have the commenter's name at the top so you can scroll on by if you aren't interested in what another commenter has to say.


: the problem is (none / 0) (#233)
by Kathy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:10:45 PM EST

I forget who the jerks are, because they tend to swoop in, stir things up, then move along--meanwhile, the next turkey dives in to take his place, and I forget their names, too.
I guess this is what they mean by "low information."

Yes I would (1.00 / 3) (#132)
by digdugboy on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:13:28 PM EST

My point of view is independent of whom I support, and I've mentioned in the past that I would be happy if either candidate were the nominee.

The point about Michigan and Florida is that the legislators in those states decided to play chicken with the DNC, and now they are paying the price for that. This is not the DNC's fault. The DNC is not in error for setting and enforcing its policy. Harold Ickes agreed with the DNC's position when it was first adopted.

All of the whining about the DNC is sadly amusing, especially those who threaten to sit out the election if the DNC doesn't capitulate. And here's the irony. These voters believe they are being noble by setting such a precedent, and willing to pay the price of a McCain presidency, yet these voters cannot acknowledge that the DNC itself is setting and enforcing a precedent that will be valuable for years down the road. The DNC wants to eliminate the stranglehold New Hampshire and Iowa have on starting the process. To do so they have to have the power to force states to a schedule. At least the DNC's precedent is noble, and not based on spite.


: I don't know about MI (5.00 / 1) (#165)
by DJ on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:48:51 PM EST

but in Florida it was tied to the paper ballot legislation. That was why democrats supported it. So there would be no more issues about the legitimacy of their election process. What choice did they have?

: I (5.00 / 1) (#177)
by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:36:47 PM EST

disagree that the DNC is forward thinking to years down the roda.
If they were truly that, we would not be in the mess we are in. They would have known that you do not penalize states by not seating their delegations, particularly in the case of Florida. Further, they would have known that a more moderate penbalty (as in counting their delegates for half , as Republicans do, might make more sense).

Maybe next time the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#137)
by FlaDemFem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:19:18 PM EST

won't let the Republicans decide the nominee. THE REPUBLICANS are the ones who set the FL primary date, not the FL Dem party. So, we are being discounted because the Republicans stuck a poison pill amendment changing our primary date on a bill that mandates a paper trail for votes in FL. So by supporting something that ensures a paper trail and thereby lessens the chance of election fraud, we are being penalized by not having our votes count in the nomination process. You should get your facts straight before you start accusing people of being stupid. It wasn't the FL Dems, it was the Republican majority legislature that set the primary date. So you are letting the REPUBLICANS dictate the delegate count at the DEMOCRATIC convention. How smart is that??


I'd like to investigate (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:19:21 PM EST

who decided how many delegates each state or territory gets. It's a process that isn't transparent and seems open to corruption. Apportionment by congressional district is especially outrageous, because it guarantees that one man, one vote will almost certainly not apply.

this imbalance in delegates (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by dotcommodity on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:27:45 PM EST

Seems to be how the Obama campaign figured on winning. Winning (mostly)the little red states with ridiculously high relative delegate numbers.


What do you mean... (none / 0) (#37)
by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:46:50 PM EST

..."ridiculously high relative delegate numbers?"

Massachusetts (a comfortably Democratic state) has arount 6,350,000 people. It gets 93 pledged delegates, 28 superdelegates, 121 total.

Georgia (a comfortably Republican state) has around 8,200,000 people. It gets 87 pledged delegates, 15 superdelegates, 102 total.

So, Georgia, a red state, gets fewer delegates for its population than Massachusetts does. Now, that's fair because fewer people have voted Democratic there in the last three presidential elections, and that's the way the pledged delegate allotments shift outside their electoral college representation.

But there's no "ridiculously high relative delegate numbers" for red states. I feel you're kind of making that up to discredit Obama.


GA v Mass (5.00 / 3) (#63)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:14:12 PM EST

mass gets more delegates because it has more Democratic voters in the last three Presidential Elections...(rounded numbers)

GA 3.5 million
MA 5.0 million

Georgia is actually over-represented at the Convention, because only half the allocation is based on democratic votes. The other half is EC votes, and Georgia has 15 EC votes to MA's 12.


Obama Has Created Enough Of His Own (none / 0) (#55)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST

mess to discredit himself.


Completely off topic... (none / 0) (#61)
by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:06:44 PM EST

...if I were as liberal with 1-ratings as you consistently are I might have one to give out here.


: Please (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:25:06 PM EST

stop with the person attacks. If you have a problem with a comment you feel is unfairly directed at you e-mail BTD or Jeralyn and they will address the issue. Please lets keep it civil.

I suppose in some years the reverse (none / 0) (#96)
by hairspray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:06:06 PM EST

would hold true, right? Delegates numbers could be based on high voting history but not be fair if the party polulation later falls off.


It is true that the Electoral College (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST

is unfair. However, the way the composition of the electoral college is arrived at is quite transparent.

Does anyone really know how the various states and territories are alloted their number of delegates? I sure don't.


actually... (5.00 / 4) (#24)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:38:05 PM EST

I'm working on this right now... As it turns out, the system favors Republican states over Democratic states, because a states electoral college vote is placed on the same level as the state's gross "Democratic" vote from the last three presidential elections (its "gross" vote total -- no consideration is given to the net vote total)

I just finished up a piece that is posted over at Corrente (going to diary it here but it has to be reformatted) about what BTD is calling "the absurdity of the Democratic delegate system is exposed."

Its call
Count Whose Vote 3: Separate but Unequal
or
Why Obama Supporters Want Super-Delegates To Think That One Person In Anchorage Is Worth More Than 36 In Akron

This part looks at the how absurd it is to consider delegate counts authoritative -- the title refers to the fact that less than 9000 people in Alaska chose 13 delegates, but almost 2,200,000 Ohioans voted in their primary to chose 141 delegates. that's 1 delegate for every Alaskan who showed up, and 1 delegate for every 15,566 Ohioans.

With the way the system is set up, the result has been that it takes fewer voters to select a delegate in heavily republican states overall -- and in states that were won by Obama.


I hear you (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:49:55 PM EST

We are representitive, not direct.

And we have to tweak a lot.

And of course, it gets political.

I don't have a bit issue with the delegate system. I have a bit of an issue.

But what's relevant to me is to recognize the system is imperfect. Frankly, therefore, when 2 candidates are this close, even in delegate count?

Don't push Obamamath on me.

It's not about the math of the delegats. It's about bullying by one side.

Let's be honest here. The delegate allocation system can't be precise, because it is reflecting political whatever. But then, don't tell me that it's a precise forumla that "demands" that superdelegates vote one way.

Stuff and nonsense.

We either embrace the representative nature of our system.....and also be realistic.

Or we go to a direct method, which is popular vote.

But we cannot have it both ways.


Then you should be honest (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:52:47 PM EST

and say that you support vote dilution for a vague higher purpose.


That's pretty exhaustive (none / 0) (#45)
by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:50:42 PM EST

thanks.


I'll look forward to your article (none / 0) (#74)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:31:21 PM EST

about this. Your other work is very interesting.

Just in what I have read casually, I've learned that the allocation process is so gerrymandered as to be the polar opposite of democratic. The DNC has decided which groups it wants to have a bigger voice and allocated delegates accordingly.

It's their party and I guess they can do what they want. Oh wait, it's my party too, and i never heard about any of this until they were forced to open the hood into the process this year.


: I stand corrected (none / 0) (#75)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:35:47 PM EST

Apparent the process is right there in wikipedia. Should have looked before I joined the club.

its not like the EC at all (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:49:08 PM EST

which starts with a minimum number of EC votes per state.

Smaller states have a very very slight advantage as such, but the real problem is that a state's electoral college vote determines half the "allocation factor", and the other half is based solely on how many people voted for a democrat in the last 3 Presidential elections.

The weighing of the EC vote means that Utah gets 23 delegates and Rhode Island only gets 21 delegates -- even though there were 742,000+ Democratic votes in RI, and only 665,000+ Dem votes in Utah. (let alone that the Democrat lost in Utah by an average of -37.9 points, while the Dem candidates won in RI by an average +27.8 points.)


8 1/2 delegates=4 delegates v.v. 5 SDs? (none / 0) (#15)
by feet on earth on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:33:22 PM EST

How can this be? More cardinals than secular laic people?


: SDs (none / 0) (#53)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:56:28 PM EST

SD's are party officials, and every state and territory has party officials. There are 4 DNC members from Guam, plus their (non-voting) rep to Congress is a democrat, so that person is automatically an SD.
see this chart

Wikipedia: (none / 0) (#18)
by Addison on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:34:52 PM EST

Pledged delegates are allocated to each of the fifty US states following two main criteria:
(1) the proportion of votes each state gave to the Democratic candidate in the last three presidential elections, and
(2) the percentage of votes each state has in the United States Electoral College. In addition, fixed numbers of delegates are allocated to the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad under the party's Delegate Selection

It's actually pretty transparent, except for the territories, Democrats abroad, and DC. So, in the main, the delegate apportionment system is clear and not really open to corruption.


Say thank you old culture wars (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Stellaaa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:39:32 PM EST

and Ferraro. Please be grateful to the system that makes his run possible, you know the one set up by the "old culture" wars people. I guess he did not need it. Back to winner take all please.


It's the Process of Selecting Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by BackFromOhio on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:29:45 PM EST

i.e., in the caucus states, that is so troublesome.


I think that isn't quite right (none / 0) (#23)
by andgarden on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:37:53 PM EST

because I'm sure I've read about bonuses for going late.

Of course, the idea of electing delegates at all is absurd. What do we need an indirect election for in 2008? Just an excuse to hold a convention? Not a good enough reason IMO, and we could still hold a convention without elected delegates.


you read wrong... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:04:43 PM EST

basically, there are three kinds of "pledged delegates".

"District delegates" are awarded per the formula I cited above. There are also "at large" delegates, which are a percentage of the "district" delegates (IIRC 20%) and "PLEOs" which are also a percentage of the "district delegates" and the three numbers are added together to get the total number of "pledged" delegates. (PLEO's are party/local officials who are selected after the primaries/caucuses who are supposed to be supporters of a specific candidate -- IIRC, if Obama gets 60% of the state, and Clinton gets 40%, and there are 10 PLEOS in the "pledged delegate" delegation, the Obama people get to choose 6 PLEOs, and Clinton 4 PLEOS.)


If demographics is destiny (none / 0) (#76)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:40:34 PM EST

as it seems to be in this nomination process this year, then I guess women better all move together into their own congressional districts if we ever want a female president.


Or become Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:53:45 PM EST

If women took over (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:59:46 PM EST

the GOP it might be considered the party of Lincoln once more and not the ReaganBushneoconservativerightwingcabal that it is. I am sure Barry Goldwater would not recognize his party today.


I'm game, if you are n/t (5.00 / 1) (#83)
by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:05:14 PM EST

: This country needs a Revolution (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:14:35 PM EST

at the voting booth, in the party caucuses and, hit them where it hurts, their pocket books. I am only backing individual candidates that I think will change the coarse of this country. No money to the party machine..none. I have encouraged my family, which is equally split, Democrat and Republican, to do the same. And believe me we all have very deep pockets and do a lot of fund raising. So maybe, the GOP is ripe for the picking. Most of them are easily bought. ;-)

: Well (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:39:26 PM EST

I couldn't be a Repug.
On the other hand, if I'm an Indie, won't they do just about anything to get my vote?

Actually, I sometimes register (none / 0) (#84)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:14:21 PM EST

Republican in a so far vain attempt to stage a takeover. With enough numbers of disaffected women this year, we just may be able to do it. Put that in your pipe, Howard Dean.


I did change my party affiliation (none / 0) (#95)
by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:04:42 PM EST

once to vote Republican in the NYC mayoral primary. I voted against Rudy and then immediately switched back and took a very long, hot shower.


But this wouldn't be (none / 0) (#110)
by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:38:05 PM EST

about our becoming Republicans, it would be about the Republicans becoming "us". It's a rainy, lazy Saturday afternoon here in Boston, and the idea has struck a nerve.


Yes, it would. (none / 0) (#121)
by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:49:33 PM EST

And what a revolution that would be for this country.


: Huge revolution (5.00 / 1) (#140)
by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:21:21 PM EST

and, with the nomination of McCain, the religious right will have already lost a lot of their hold on the GOP. Prior to this election, the conventional wisdom was that the first woman president would have to be a republican anyway.

We would have to lock (none / 0) (#148)
by kredwyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:29:39 PM EST

Phyllis Schafley in a closet somewhere...


Let's do it! :-) (none / 0) (#172)
by RalphB on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:20:29 PM EST

Only if you (none / 0) (#179)
by kenoshaMarge on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:41:30 PM EST

promise to put Nancy Pelosi, Claire McCaskill, Mary Landrieu and a few others whose names I can't think of right now in there with her. Oh, Kaye Baily Hutchinson too. We must be women of integrity and include those who call themselves Democrats and then vote like Republicans as well as icky Republicans.

If you're going to start a women's party or take over another party, please do it with good, strong, liberal women who will fight for all Americans. (I know, I got a little schmaltzy. Sorry about that.)


Check out Sen Olympia Snowe (R) Maine (none / 0) (#190)
by misspeach2008 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:17:40 PM EST

The NWP, National Woman's Party (none / 0) (#192)
by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:20:21 PM EST

founded in 1916, still has its hq in DC. Only recently did it let its charter and original mission lapse to become more of an educational organization.

Maybe it's time to re-up the NWP. Alice Paul lives!


: Re-up time it is! (5.00 / 0) (#202)
by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:38:02 PM EST

Just think if they would have to earn 'our' party's respect/vote, lol!~ ;)

No, (none / 0) (#31)
by hlr on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:42:12 PM EST

Numbers you see now don't necessarily reflect Dem party loyalty, or straight population, because the rules made then were made to give a boost to states that were leaning Dem at that point in time. States like... Alabama or much of the South, and some of the Midwest

The allocation formula has two components -- contribution to Dem candidates over three most recent elections, and the state's electoral vote. The former is has a four year cycle; the latter a decade.


: its presidential election.. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by p lukasiak on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:16:29 PM EST

its not a four year cycle, but a rolling 12 year cycle. The total vote for the Democrat in each state in the last three Presidential elections is divided by the total vote for the Democrat in all 50 states (plus DC) in the last three Pres. elections.

BTD (none / 0) (#25)
by Jlvngstn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:38:26 PM EST

What did Dean mean when he said on the Daily Show last week that they were going to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan?

He meant (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by Edgar08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:41:15 PM EST

They would be seated after the nomination process is concluded.

Sort of like this "We took your vote away, now sit there and cheer like you liked it."


so they are seated but not counted? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Jlvngstn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:44:49 PM EST

that seems rather ridiculous, not to challenge your credibility but is that your interpretation or fact? Again not trying to be confrontational, just curious as if what you are saying is correct than Dean is really pandering.


They don't count now (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Edgar08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:51:19 PM EST

In a process where momentum and narrative is part of the process by design, they are already being disenfranchised.

They are being denied impact on the outcome.

It's like saying "oops, we'll count those ballots now" after the SCOTUS gave Bush the White House.


Thy will be seated, and only counted (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:52:53 PM EST

if their numbers do not change the outcome. The plan was ever thus.


Seating (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:43:50 PM EST

them after the nominee is chosen is cowardly and cynical. It's a way to say that they are doing it without really doing it.

And it's a way of saying to the Hillary voters - it doesn't really matter. And..yes, imo, Dean is pandering. And condescending...like we will forget or just like it for the good of the party.


: Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:46:11 PM EST

I love that people who are just now getting interested and learning about this understand it immediately. What's wrong with Dean?

I will withhold my contributions (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:50:03 PM EST

to the DNC until they come to their senses. That entails seating FL and MI, counting their delegates, and replacing the current leadership. Dean & Co. are a disgrace to the democratic process, not that these primaries are remotely democratic.


I don't know (none / 0) (#52)
by Jlvngstn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:55:27 PM EST

that i think Dean is a disgrace. I think the party has two great candidates that people are very passionate about. When was the last time that happened? The problem is that both sides are pressuring Dean and Co to pick their candidate and neither side is willing to give. You have to like the audacity and suredness of both Hill and BarrO that they can beat McCain and you have to have some empathy for the crappy spot MI and FL put Dean in. I think BTD is right that a unity ticket is necessary to appease both and as much as I support Barack, Hillary on the bottom of the ticket is less appealing. I think BO would be the better president, but think that the VP slot is largely ceremonial to a great degree (cheney would disagree as he has been running the show), and Hillary in a ceremonial position seems less "right" to me than Obama in that role.


: Dean is in the tank (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by Edgar08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:58:54 PM EST

For Obama.
But the sad fact is, he has de-legitimized Obama's victory.

: The leaders of the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by themomcat on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:18:56 PM EST

are suppose to be "neural" as to the candidates. Clearly from all the media exposure Brazile, Pelosi and, although more subtly, Dean are not. Whatever their issues are with Sen. Clinton, they should have put them on the doorstep or stepped aside. And although Sen. Obama is very passionate about his abilities, I am not. I doubt he will win against McCain no matter who his VP choice. Sen. Obama was never one of my choices and Sen. Clinton was no where near the top of my list. Sen. Clinton won over my support with her health care position, her commitment to the working poor, the economy, energy and the environment. I may not agree with everything she proposes but at least I know where she stands. So between the two, I have but one choice and one vote and it is for HRC. I am not attempting to convince you of anything, these are merely my opinions.

: Dean's crappy spot is of his own making (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:50:43 PM EST

FL and MI would not have been nearly as big an issue with the 50% loss of delegates as the DNC rules state. It was his minions that over-rode that with the 100% delegate loss.

: We (5.00 / 2) (#116)
by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:45:23 PM EST

have only one great candidate...

I Think There Are Many That Have Joined (none / 0) (#56)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:03:43 PM EST

you in that. Guessing that they are still getting money from obamacans since they are touting he has already won.


Well (none / 0) (#180)
by sas on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:47:01 PM EST

iI have not sent them one nickel, after repeated solicitations. I have called, and I have written.


Jlv, I caught that too (none / 0) (#39)
by lookoverthere on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:47:50 PM EST

I also caught a reference to half the delegates or 50% of the delegates being seated. It sounded as if he were saying this would happen before the convention with the tallies as is, but I could've been mis-hearing it.


that is how i heard it also (none / 0) (#44)
by Jlvngstn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:50:40 PM EST

I got excited for a brief moment as I thought there was a great plan behind closed doors to get some sort of fair distribution of the delegates of states we can ill afford to disenfranchise this election.


: Ah ha! Your fault for getting all (none / 0) (#66)
by lookoverthere on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:22:39 PM EST

excited and thinking there was an actual plan. The power of your brain infiltrated my living room.
Enough with your jedi mind tricks! No power in the galaxy can stop Teh Stupid.

The original (none / 0) (#73)
by Benjamin3 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:30:10 PM EST

DNC rules provide for 50% delegates as the punishment (same for GOP). There is a Bylaws Committee meeting on May 31st, and I understand the 1/2 delegate idea will be floated. We shall see. This non-partisan MyDD diary shows the makeup of the committee, and some of the issues are discussed:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/3/5655/00889


One of the committee (none / 0) (#176)
by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:35:24 PM EST

members was on teevee and said the candidates needed to stop campaigning, come up with an agreed upon plan, submit it to the committee to review and get back on the campaign trail. Uh yeah, that was going to happen.


: One of the candidate's super-delegates (none / 0) (#193)
by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:22:08 PM EST

on the committee caused this, others fell in line. It's all on video in the C-Span archives, so we know how it went down.
It's up to the committee to fix what it let one candidate's committee members f**k up.

Love the list of "undeclared" members (none / 0) (#221)
by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:46:41 PM EST

of the committee. Ralph Dawson, reported elsewhere as an avowed Obama delegate, who sponsored the amendment to change the roolz to entirely strip the delegates of the state that Clinton won. And the amendment was forcefully supported by another so-called undeclared delegate there, Donna Brazile.

I would call that list quite suspect -- no fault of the diarist, but of the underhanded DNC members.


a half a delegate? (none / 0) (#38)
by kredwyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:47:40 PM EST

ummm...why?

: Well, the actual delegate count needed (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:53:26 PM EST

is 2024.5, I read -- not 2025 (without FL and MI).
So I guess this gives the glory to someone from Guam . . . but I really dislike it, as it's just too reminiscent of the old Southern way of counting slaves in the census as only fractions.

Yigo and Dededo (none / 0) (#77)
by DaveOinSF on Sat May 03, 2008 at 01:46:12 PM EST

These are the two largest villages (Dededo by far) and, with 2/3 of the vote in and Obama by 7, have not reported yet. Tamuning, the third largest, was won by Hillary.

Caucusing at 5:40 A.M.?! OY. (none / 0) (#92)
by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:55:42 PM EST

That's just insane.

no, they are just counting (none / 0) (#93)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:57:26 PM EST

the causes were at normal time Saturday. It's Sunday there now and they are tabulating.


: ah, thanks! (none / 0) (#94)
by nycstray on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:01:26 PM EST

Add to the list of things I would do (none / 0) (#112)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:40:15 PM EST

if I were in the creative class: Make a music video:

There is Yigo, Dededo
C'mon Santa Rita
to Inarajan, Merizo
Oh no, Talofoto
.
.
.
It's time
to make
a Umatac mistake

Down to one village - Dededo (none / 0) (#113)
by wasabi on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:41:58 PM EST

Obama is up by 5.5%. That village has a third of the total population.

she needs 204 votes (none / 0) (#115)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:45:10 PM EST

more than Obama in Dededo to win the popular vote.


: Jeralyn (none / 0) (#120)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 03, 2008 at 03:46:53 PM EST

do you know if the voting there would follow Agat?

SuperDel Pillar Lujan is on the record (none / 0) (#157)
by IndiDemGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:38:21 PM EST

as saying her vote should reflect the will of Guam's people. It seems like she will support the candidate that wins Guam.

Well, neither one won; it's 2-2 (none / 0) (#196)
by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:29:52 PM EST

but CNN gives it to Obama with an additional 5 super-delegates. Is she one of them, I wonder?


: I believe she is one of the 5. (none / 0) (#234)
by IndiDemGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:11:10 PM EST

I believe she intended to support the "winner" of the popular vote. Of course, the recount may change the popular vote winner. And even if it doesn't, the fact that it is so close could mean her vote is up for grabs.

What is your best guess (none / 0) (#166)
by Lil on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:49:55 PM EST

as to when Guam will be over? Today? I am looking forward to going back to worrying/hoping about Tuesday.

I'm about to give up for the day (5.00 / 0) (#169)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:55:38 PM EST

I know more about Guam right now than I do North Carolina or Indiana. Actually, I had fun learning about the place. But I agree, it's time to go back to NC and Indiana.

So, onto the hills and mountains of North Carolina. (in a new post soon -- let's leave the remaining comment space here for Guam.)


See above; CNN just called it 2-2 (5.00 / 1) (#197)
by Cream City on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:31:06 PM EST

in terms of pledged delegates but said that Obama wins, because he has 5 of the super-delegates.

CNN did not clarify that there are more than 5 super-d's, and that Clinton just might have won some.


most trusted name in news (none / 0) (#199)
by diplomatic on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:35:53 PM EST

9 delegates total (none / 0) (#213)
by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:30:41 PM EST

There are 4 pledged delegates and 5 superdeez for Guam.


And Obama (none / 0) (#218)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:38:03 PM EST

took 2 of the pledged and all of the Super-D's so he won....I guess. Even if the recount provides Hillary won, it likely won't change the SuperD's mostly.

Popular vote, schmopular vote.


: Doesn't this post (none / 0) (#231)
by waldenpond on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:09:16 PM EST

say Obama got Paulino, Clinton Taitano, Bordallo and Lujan (wants to go with popular vote) are as yet undeclared and one spot is up for a vote (both candidates are Obama supporters).
So: 1 for Clinton, 2 for Obama and 2 undeclared. Does he get all 5 because he got the popular vote by 7? That sounds odd.

ABC (none / 0) (#200)
by AnninCA on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:36:30 PM EST

You can be the first...and the last (none / 0) (#238)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:24:05 PM EST

except for Stephen Colbert.

Is this the first time HRC has come from behind? (none / 0) (#241)
by ruffian on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:34:43 PM EST

Thanks TL and BTD for all the Guam info. I've learned a lot, and now I really want to go there. I hope this is big news tomorrow for Hillary.

This is the first time Clinton has closed a gap in an Obama expected win, if I'm not mistaken. I think Tuesday will be big.

Comments closing now (none / 0) (#243)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:47:56 PM EST

new and open thread is here.

Why Guam (none / 0) (#244)
by bernarda on Sun May 04, 2008 at 02:43:30 AM EST

Maybe somebody has already mentioned it in the 200 posts, but why is there even a primary in Guam? The people of Guam cannot vote in the general election so why should they have a say in candidate selection?

Guam Caucuses

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal