Who's going to win, who has a better chance against McCain, or whatever else is on your mind.
Update: We have decided to stop allowing anonymous comments. Not because we don't like reading what people have to say but because Blogger has introduced a new "feature" that makes you go to a second page when the number of comments go over 200.
It's very easy to set up a Google account so that you can continue commenting.
Thanks!
Welcome to DCW
A Guide to DemConWatch
DCW Superdelegate Tracker
Latest Endorsements
"Pelosi Club" Superdelegates
Superdelegate History Tracker
Democratic Nomination Schedule
Add-on Schedule & Tracker
Ultimate Delegate Summary
Ultimate Delegate Tracker
Edwards Delegate Status
FL & MI By The Numbers
Open Thread
DCW Store
Without Michigan and Florida
(includes add-ons)
Superdelegates by Position (w/o Michigan and Florida)
DCW Superdelegate Tracker
Latest Endorsements
"Pelosi Club" Superdelegates
Superdelegate History Tracker
Democratic Nomination Schedule
Add-on Schedule & Tracker
Ultimate Delegate Summary
Ultimate Delegate Tracker
Edwards Delegate Status
FL & MI By The Numbers
Open Thread
DCW Store
Without Michigan and Florida
(includes add-ons)
(GP) |
to Win |
|||
| Obama | ||||
| Clinton | ||||
| Edwards | ||||
| Remains | ||||
| Delegates Needed: 2025 | ||||
Superdelegates who have not endorsed
Superdelegate Comparison
| Candidate | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Obama | |||||
| Clinton | |||||
Superdelegates by Position (w/o Michigan and Florida)
| Candidate | Clinton | Obama | None | ||||
| Gov. | |||||||
| Sen. | |||||||
| Rep. | |||||||
| DPL | |||||||
| DNC | |||||||
| Add-Ons | |||||||
| Total | 273.5 | 292.5 | 230 | ||||
With Michigan and Florida
| Candidate | delegates |
Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obama | |||
| Clinton | |||
| Edwards | |||
| Uncomm. | |||
| Remaining | |||
| Delegates Needed: 2209 | |||
Primary Calendar
Democratic Convention 2008
- Pepsi Center Tour
- Site Selection Overview
- The 2008 Democratic National Convention
- The 2008 Democratic National Convention Blog
- Denver 2008 Convention Host Committee
- Official Denver Volunteer Form
- Guam Loves Jason Rosenberg
- The Green Papers
- Wiki:2008 Democratic National Convention
- Democracy in Action 2008 Convention Overview
- Democratic National Committee (DNC)
- CBS4Denver Denver 2008 News
- PoliticsWest - Denver Post Convention News
Democratic National Convention History
Denver & Colorado Democrats
DCW in the News
Friends of DCW
2008 Republican National Convention
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Open Thread
907 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 907 Newer› Newest»I hope this is a good place for this.
Here is my list of "Leaners", those superdelegates who have not openly committed to a candidate, but are identifed by the NY Times other source as supporting, or leaning towards, one of the candidates.
CLINTON [15]:
Bosley
Burke
Donatucci
Farrell
Holmes, Ivan
Johnson, Joe
Mafnas
Malone
Maroney
Martinez, Robert
Moss
Stapleton
Strauss, Bob
Taitano
Umemoto
OBAMA [8]:
Alari
Edwards, Al
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Lipinksi
Ronen
Smith, Edward
Watkins
Add Bob Brady and Mike Doyle to the Clinton list.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/murtha.clinton/index.html
I decided to use Open Thread to explore a problem no one was paying attention until few days ago – results from multi-tier caucuses. Iowa was a nice example to prove that nothing should be taken for granted! Lets start the list (I will be glad to get your help and comments):
Alaska: we have State Convention scheduled for 24th of May. 8 district delegates are chosen there, reflecting the support for the presidential contenders among the delegates from each Legislative District. These delegates go clearly 6:2 for Obama. But there are 5 more pledged delegates to be allocated – 2 PLEO and 3 at-large. And here we have a trap set for HRC – she is supposed to has 104 delegates at the convention, Obama – 306. If those number stand at-large delegates will be split 2:1. What about PLEOs? Imagine 2 of the 104 not coming. Probably one of them will get an alternate from the Obama camp – and we have 307 vs. 102 – both PLEOs go Obama!!! Very, very probable scenario and Alaska goes Obama 10, Clinton 3. Net gain 2 for Obama!
Colorado: nothing much to say here. Prediction based on numbers was 35:20 with a minor chance for Obama to steal one more (actually his site still projects 36:19). But at county conventions that did not happen (actually he lost ground in some counties and got a little bit in others). So we may say being 99% sure the outcome is 35:20.
Democrats Abroad: I am a little confused here. 9 delegates with 4 ½ votes have already been elected. 5 more (each with half vote) – 3 at-large and 2 PLEOs have to be chosen at DA Global convention – 12th of April. Obama has 6 delegates so far, Clinton has 3 and I can’t figure out why most sources project he will get another four, while she will get one only. It is ‘proportion rulez’ isn’t it?
Idaho: (I wonder why none has spotted this so far). She got lucky here, really lucky, but not lucky enough. In both CDs of Idaho she managed to get a little bit over 15% - the threshold required delegates to be assigned. Remember, those 15% were required at CD level, if they were required at county level she would be doomed. She lost Ada county, both portions of it, and she lost bad… Idaho has 12 delegates given at CD level and 6 more chosen at the State Convention middle June. Because HRC did not ménage to get 15% in both parts of Ada and several other small counties, she will not be viable at the State Convention. Why? One needs 15% at county level to get delegates out of that county at the State Convention! She did not manage to achieve that in Ada and the few more; hence she will have about 13% of the delegates at the State Convention! And that counts as ‘non viable’! Idaho goes 16:2 Obama!
Nevada: Guess who the winner is! Bet on him or her! Probably bets were taken who will win Nevada. So far Clinton is winning the popular vote; Obama is winning the more delegates. And remember it is three tiers caucus, delegates actually assigned at the last tier – the State Convention 17th-18th of May. Based on the county conventions results Obama is winning the single delegate from CD2 – Rural counties and 2 out of 3 delegates from CD2 – Washoe. But there are 12 more delegates at stake in Clark county – 6 in CD1, 2 in CD2 and 4 in CD3. Unless miracle happens all these will be evenly split. But the Clark County Convention was disassembled 3 weeks ago – mostly due to poor organization. Though it will be held again on 12th of April there are signs that many things can change there. During the first attempt some delegates were not let in the convention hall; some regular delegates were pronounced alternates due to missing data, some ballot boxes were not handled with the security needed, and so on … If we consider that will not happen again and all the ~7400 delegates (alternates not included) will be properly seated the outcome stays unclear. If the first tier results repeat at county level Clinton will win handily with 54% to 44% for Obama. But Obama has shown strength in the other county conventions. He has improved his precinct results with almost 10%, mostly due to Edwards supporters (he is winning them all over the country). His aim in Clark county is losing with less than 5%, that will give him at least 1170 out of 2463 delegates going to the state convention. Overall he will have the most delegates at the convention (he has 512 delegates from the other counties compared to 388 for Clinton). That means one more PLEO for him (the State convention will assign 6 at-large and 3 pledged PLEO delegates). At the first attempt to conduct a county convention, Obama supporters managed to cut HRC’s 11% lead to less than 5%. How? I don’t know! Edwards had less than 2% delegates at county level, so it is not only due to them. Maybe some delegates shifted, maybe some Clinton delegates did not appear, maybe some tricks were used… No matter what happened – if at the re-do convention the same things happen, Obama will win one more from Nevada. And since his supporters are younger and motivated I predict Nevada will go 14: 11 Obama!
Texas: Good news for Clinton camp here! Current projection is not valid! It happened that it somehow favors Obama due to predominately leaning Obama precincts reporting. Don’t think it is a big mistake – it is a small one. According to math models based on what came out so far county by county and district by district, Obama gets 55,4%! He needs 55,95% to receive 38 delegates out of 67, he needs 54% to secure 37 and 53,57% to secure 36 delegates. Those are the milestones and it seems that he is getting at least 37 so far… But there are the southern regions and there is real chance he doesn’t get 15% threshold in most of them, especially the small counties, losing delegates that otherwise would be seated for him. That means he can be very close to get under 54% and even under 53,57%. That is exactly what Hillary wants and why she is complaining about the results here and there. If the caucus delegates split 35 Obama, 32 Clinton, guess who is winning Texas overall? Correct, she is! Well that scenario will not happen due to several reasons. First, Clinton failed to get some results ignored or changed. Second – Obama is constantly improving his results at tier II and tier III – check Iowa and Nevada! Third – he gave yesterday the race speech and it will help him with Latino delegates at the next levels. Still, he will not get more than 37 delegates and will win Texas only by 3!!!
Washington: Well changes here are not expected. I mention the state because there are two projections for the results 52:26 and 53:25. Both of them agree on CD delegates numbers. The debate is about the at-large delegates. Since there is no county, legislative district or congressional district with even the slightest possibility one of the candidates will be non viable there, we can assume that State convention delegates will split as the popular vote is or shift a little bit toward Obama. That means 68-69% Obama and 31-32% Clinton. Unless something odd happens and HRC gets 32,353% of the delegates, the state delegates will split 53:25 in favor of Obama. CD and State Convention delegates are chosen at tier II conventions so no miracle is expected to happen.
Finally, Iowa… At CD conventions something can change from the predictions only in CD5. Edwards has just 2 delegates over the 15% threshold required there and if 2 out of his 55 delegates don’t appear the rest have to either join another group or stay non viable. Clinton can benefit from that scenario because most probably some will join her group and CD5 delegates will be split 2:2. Two option for Obama here – either convince all Edwards’ group to join him and get 3:1 (not very likely) or send some people (if needed) to join Edwards’ group just to save this delegates from being stolen by Hillary. The last will be helpful if at the state convention Edwards’ stays non viable – he is just 0.5% over the threshold on state level. That will benefit Obama with two more delegates and Clinton with one more… unless Edwards’ join overwhelmingly Obama’s (85% or more of the group). That means tree more Obama, zero – Clinton! Many options here actually. In my consideration the best option is Obama helping at both CD5 and state level the Edward group – will improve his image a lot if he still needs that because the State Convention is June 14th.
Summary: Alaska +1 Obama; Colorado 35:20 (no change in prediction); DA – still can’t get why it is 5:2 instead of 4½:2½; Idaho +1 Obama; Nevada +1 Obama; Texas +1 Clinton; Washington 53:25; Iowa no change! So after all caucuses are over prediction is 1419 pledged delegates for Obama and 1250 for Clinton! Not counting superdelegates and coming primaries. Lead of 169 pledged delegates! If we add for supers the numbers DCW have today the result will be 1628 Obama vs. 1496 Clinton. My guess is that without future endorsements Obama will have ~1900 delegates on his side at the end of the season. I am looking forward to see if Obama’s speech of race will influence polls in the weeks to come.
Conclusion: Clinton must get 2/3 of the supers left. Not impossible to do! She only needs big scandal involving Obama to make a case that such a steal is necessary for the good of the party and the nation!
Current List of Leaners:
Clinton [15]:
Bosley
Burke
Donatucci
Doyle, Mike
Farrell
Holmes, Ivan
Johnson, Joe
Mafnas
Malone
Martinez, Robert
Moss
Stapleton
Strauss, Bob
Taitano
Umemoto
Obama [7]:
Alari
Edwards, Al
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Lipinski
Smith, Edward
Watkins
Too bad I can't edit my original list.
“Purple” states are those where, for example, the Presidential vote in 2004 was separated by about 6% or less. Those include Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and New Mexico which Hillary either already won or is leading. These are the states that the Democratic Party must win in November. It is critically important that the Democratic candidate be the one who draws most strongly in those key states. To believe that the candidate who did not attract a majority of Democratic voters in the primaries there, will somehow get not only most of those Democratic voters but also draw similar voters from outside the Democratic Party is naïve and dangerous if your ultimate goal is to not have a Republican in the White House this time next year. Upto now Hillary has 2064 delegates and Obama has 1394 delegates using the same method that is used in the General election. Assuming that Hillary wins PA, WV,Indiana and PR & Guam and Obama gets SD, NC , OR , MT , she will have 2439 delegates and Obama will have 1606 delegates. If Democrats ignore this and give top of the ticket to Obama, 25% of the Democrats will vote for Republicans and we can lose both the House & the Senate. This is exactly what happened when Anti War hero McGovern was nominated and we lost all states except Mass.
The color Purple. Much as we may crave it, we do not live in a democracy. If we did then each person would have one vote in every issue, and that vote would count as much as any other. But we don’t. If you participated in a caucus, your vote counted about ten times as much as someone who voted in a primary. In the general election, what ultimately matters is the votes in the Electoral College, not the popular vote, as we re-learned so painfully in 2000. So the question facing the uncommitted “super-delegates” is how do we run the best campaign with the highest probability of defeating John McCain in November, and win the majority of Electoral College votes. Cuurently Clinton has 267 electoral votes and Obama has 202 electoral votes using the same method as used in the GE. Assume that Hillary wins PA, WV, Indiana
and Obama gets SD, NC , OR , MT , Clinton will have 308 electoral votes and Obama will have 230 Electoral votes. You know who should be on top of the DREAM ticket.
For those interested in opinion polling in the swing states (ie. hypothetical Republican v. Democrat races), see the table at http://quipu-knot.blogspot.com/2008/03/swing-state-opinion-polling-state-votes.html
well this is a long post
thanks to annette's post
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/superdelegates/index.html
weeks ago i asked for a list of supers who would hold there endorsement for a long time well i made my list it's defiantly not a perfect list but here it is my list of 22 supers who might stay quiet for a long time.
John M. Spratt, Representative, S.C.
He is "lying low," according to a spokesman.
Meredith Wood Smith, Party official, Ore.
"We don't have to make a choice right now. It's too early for that. There are still caucuses and primaries going on."
James Roosevelt, Party official, Mass.
"I would urge superdelegates who are undecided to wait and see to get a better gauge of electability of the candidates."
Harry Reid, Senator, Nev.
Says he is "not going to weigh in on this at all" until the states finish voting.
Jay Parmley, Party official, Okla.
"I guess if it's still undecided at the convention, I'll be free to make a decision one way or the other."
Cynthia Nunley, Party official, Wyo.
"It's too early in the process to be in the mode of one-candidate-take-all. There are a lot of voices to be heard yet and there are a lot of questions to be asked."
Leila Medley, Party official, Mo.
"I still haven't made a commitment, and I still don't know what to do."
Dennis McDonald, Party official, Mont.
"Out of respect for this process, our superdelegates will not take a position. Certainly not until after the June 3 primary."
Sophie Masloff, Party official, Pa.
"I am not committed, I never had been, so I was not anyone's to lose."
Rick Larsen, Representative, Wash.
"If I need to exercise my vote as a superdelegate in order to have a nominee this fall, then I will. I believe the grass roots of the party should select the candidate. The grass-roots process is not done. We should let it finish."
Nancy Larson, Party official, Minn.
"They never anticipated that we would have two superstars locked in a dead heat, so I think there is no playbook for this." She hopes a decision gets made "before we have to step in."
Wilber Lee Jeffcoat, Party official, S.C.
Has said he could stay unpledged until the convention and that he was concerned about "taking away what the people back home voted."
Ivan Holmes, Party official, Okla.
"My inclination at this point is to stay uncommitted to the end."
Tom Harkin, Senator, Iowa
"I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm still neutral in this race, and I intend to remain that way."
Jenny Greenleaf, Party official, Ore.
"Because I'm an officer of the state party, and we don't want the state party to be seen as providing more or better services to one candidate or another, I plan to stay neutral until Oregon's late primary in May."
Robert E. Cramer, Representative, Ala.
Has said that he would not been endorsing anyone in the nomination phase.
Gilda Cobb-Hunter, Party official, S.C.
"I'm undeclared because I think it's important for the process to play itself out. I don't see inserting myself into the process. I'm not interested in being wooed. I'm not important." "It seems to be making me a pretty popular kind of girl in some circles, at least with the media."
Ed Cote, Party official, Wash.
"I am still firmly uncommitted and I am going to stay uncommitted. I do not have to vote until the week of Aug. 25. This is only Feb. 11."
James E. Clyburn, Representative, S.C.
"I still remain studiously neutral. I think that the historical significance of so-called superdelegates — these are unpledged delegates — is very, very important for us to maintain. We are in place in order to either extend the wishes of the voters or to try to make corrections if they need to be made."
Bob Casey, Senator, Pa.
He said he wants to avoid creating divisions within the party by endorsing a candidate.
Christopher Carney, Representative, Pa.
His spokeswoman said he does not plan to endorse anyone.
Daniel K. Akaka, Senator, Hawaii
Mr. Akaka will not make an endorsement, but is willing to support whoever the Democratic nominee is, according to a spokesman. All the major candidates are qualified, Mr. Akaka said.
Obama still can't capture the female and white vote. That is a concern to Democrats. He doesn't want the votes counted in Florida and Michigan where the majority of voters are white. Obama is behind in the polls. These are all facts.Pennsylvania is just weeks away and he will have a difficult time convincing delegates to that he is a winner if he can not get the majority of women and white male voters. Unless his new politics is saying their vote doesn't count. which is what appears to be the message when Al Sharpton tries to sue Florida for counting the votes. The delegates are watching closely to see how it plays out in Pennsylvania. Obama has to re-register independence to vote for him. That is a hard work.
Obama's campaign time and again discard Obama's promises to the American voters as "just campaign rhetoric"! Now they are dismissing Pastor Wrights statements as "just campaign rhetoric". Come on now- "Let's be clear about this" ??? Obama you are a phoney. You do not write your own "inspirational" speeches, what you promise the voters you are going to do as president is "just rhetoric", you go to a church for 20 years that you dismiss as "an old uncle" yet you said he was your mentor and you gave him a campaign role, you claim you are the one to unite this country - yet the first time in many many years we have radical racism - from blacks - surfacing and dividing this country & the DNC. Obama - you are bad news, race baiting anything and everything as "racist" to inflame the black votes against any other nominee. Enough! Enough! We reject you and your scary agenda of hate and militant black racism. This country will turn its back on you and walk away.
THIS IS A MUST SEE VIDEO IF YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY & you want to Know WHO should BE NOMINATED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4
You can go to http://www.YouTube.com and type Obama Wright
into Search area and you will get this video.
VVV Beautifully done
guys, its over. Why do you bother to gather here and debate? Hillary has no chance of taking the delegate count now.
She would have to win each and every contest from here on out by a 65% margin.
Super dels. aren't going to pull together for her; too politically risky. The Latino ace in the Clinton sleeve has just jumped to the Obama camp.
Its time to come together as a party and fight THE EMPIRE. The longer we drag this nonsense out, the better McCain looks. Trust me, that would be a HUGE step back for America.
That would mean no alternative energy plan, no health care for average Americans and perpetual crusade against Islam.
I think we can all agree that is not a path we want to continue down.
WRITE THE DNC AND TELL THEM TO END THIS NONSENSE!
Not so fast dwit.
One thing is for sure. There cannot be any conventon without the delegates from Florida & Michigan being seated. The fairest way is to give the uncommitted delegates in MI to Obama and let the results in Florida stand as they are because both Obama’s name and Clinton’s name was on the ballot. In fact Obama was even putting ads on CNN in the state.. This is the method 5 used on the following web site :
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/florida-and-michigan-by-numbers.html
Clinton will have then 1688 & Obama will have 1744 total delegates.
NOW LET US ASSUME THAT CLINTON GETS PA, WV , PR BY 20% AND IN & KY BY 10% EACH AND OR BY 5% AND OBAMA WINS SD & MT BY 25% , CLINTON WILL HAVE NET GAIN OF 45 IN THE REMAINING PRIMARIES.. This is possible because of the Wright affair, the support among whites has declined sharply for Obama. And population of blacks in all these great states is less than 5%. BY JUNE CLINTON WILL HAVE 1959 DELEGATES AND OBAMA WILL HAVE 1980 DELEGATES.
There will be 372 Uncommited Super delegates at that time. . Upto this time Clinton has obtained 10 % more Super delegates than Obama. If we assume the same, CLINTON WILL WIN THE NOMINATION BY 2164 TO 2147 TOTAL DELEGATES. THERE WILL BE A DREAM TICKET WITH CLINTON ON TOP AND OBAMA AS VP AND WE WILL BEAT THE SH*T OUT OF THE REPUBLICANS CAPTURING BOTH THE SENATE & THE HOUSE WITH VETO PROOF MAJORITIES..
Even if these numbers are off a little bit, because of the momentum shown by Hillary in the remaining Primaries and electibility of OBAMA in doubt because of the Wright affair, HILLARY WILL BE NOMINATED AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE . GOD BLESS AMERICA A MILLION TIMES !!!!!
subodh,
Do you know, off hand, the population of "blacks" in Iowa?
Do you know how many delegates Obama picked up in Iowa after county conventions last Sat-in the midst of the Wright spin? Last count I know of is 10 (of 45) and now has over 55% of Iowa's delegates so you really can't say that Obama can only get delegates from "blacks."
Do you know how many United Churches of Christ there are in Iowa? I don't know. I don't know if it matters but there is one down the road in a town of 1600 and my uncle retired after 40 years of service from one...he's usually white.
And isn't it the educated that are voting for Obama? Maybe that's because they are smart enough they can see beyond the spin.
But you are right--we can't count Hillary out--I threw my kitchen sink last week and the landfill couldn't even take it...
Typical white person
subodh,
One thing we both agree on is that Clinton will be behind in pledged delegates after all the primaries are over.
Beyond that, the conclusion is obvious as most of the supers will ultimately back the pledged delegate leader.
BTW, how was that Koolaid?
subodh said...
"Not so fast dwit.
One thing is for sure. There cannot be any convention without the delegates from Florida & Michigan being seated."
What are you talking about. The delegates in Florida and Michigan have been out for some time now. There is no Democratic party rule that says they MUST be seated. In fact the DNC is the one that unseated them.
Who needs Florida anyway? They are a REPUBLICAN state. They have proved they are getting even redder.
Obama has already proved that much of the Midwest is in play, but Florida is a lost cause.
Its time to rally around the most plausible candidate. OBAMA
Let's hope Edwards comes out soon, now that Richardson has taken the plunge.
I have to admit being a bit disappointed with Obama's giving in to the obvious political need to distance himself from Dr Wright. He should have denounced the denouncers. Also, in his otherwise excellent speech he, yet again, panders to Israel:
"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."
http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/barack.html
I do recognise the toxic nature of ANY criticism of Israel, but integrity demands it.
The bulk of Jeremiah Wright's "chickens comin' home" sermon in context on video:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/wright-in-conte.html
It moves me today, and expresses my own feelings at the time to a remarkable extent, and I'm a white guy with slave-owning great grandparents.
More context and perspective on the trumped-up "troublesome priest" matter:
http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
If you want to follow the smart "money", there is a political market at
http://predictions.wsj.com/
participation is free, and the 'odds' are illuminating:
Obama is favoured by better than 3 to 1 over Clinton, and the election gives Dem 3 to 2 over Rep. Also the betting for Dem control of Congress and Senate is very high.
Enjoy your WSJ$10,000!
xx
ed
The Primary election without Florida and Michigan has no legitimacy.Why not win in a fair manner?
If Obama is on top of the ticket,
25% of the democrats will vote for McCain & we lose the election.
Obama is unelectable, but you guys have done a great job of twisting it back to the math that HEAVILY favors Obama. Math that was done BEFORE the wright scandal. But it seems like you idiot democrats honestly want to stick this guy wiht no experience and a huge credibility problem forth as your nominee. I feel sad for the country that you would honestly want to elect a guy with the least amount of experience and judgement as possible. Have fun folks. Clinton supporter who is obviously voting for Mc Cain. I predict that Super delegates will see that Obama doesn't transcend the barriers he himself has errected by not distancing himself away from his pastpr's hate speech... Much of Obambi's support came from college kids who helped him in caucus states and Republicans that croosed over and voted for him. His "base" is the 10% of the US voting block that votes 91% in his favor, but that is only a total of 9.1% of the vote. The more Obama and McCain talk, the more support Hillary Clinton will generate and super delegates are hiding under their blankets right now, not making endorsements... Famous Obama quote of the day: "This is a historic race...You have the first woman, the first African American and then you have John(Edwards)" This was after weeks upon weeks of John Edwards and Obama playing good cop/bad cop with Hilary Clinton...kind of sanwiching her in with Edwards shooting down all of her arguments...and then Obama throws him under the bus. Is there any other reason that Edwards hasn't endorsed a candidate? What about Al Gore? Then you have John Kerry say " Obama can bring us all together BECAUSE HE"S BLACK!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GODDAM AMERICA!!! GODDAM AMERICA!!!- Jeremiah Wright
My Oppinion to Michigan&Florida is:
If the primaries dont't count:
->Obama will win the nomination
->Obama will loose Michigan and Florida in November
->it will be very difficult to become president without Michigan and Florida
If the primaries count (with uncommitted to Obama):
->it will be a duel until August
->whoever wins the nomination still has the chance to win both states in November
->better chances for a democrat to become the next president
wolle,
What about all the FL/MI voters that will be disenfranchised if the current tally gets seated? I'm talking about those who didn't vote because they knew their votes would not count. We act like this is some kind of conspiracy as though voters weren't told until after they voted that their votes were for naught. Give the citizens of these states some credit--they are well aware who in their states is responsible for this mess and will vote them out if they want. The irony is that they should have moved their primaries back instead of up to get the attention of the candidates but who would have known? Just as who would have known the race would be this close. You take risks in any strategy game. There is always an outcome for a risk and it's not always how you want it to be-- that's why it's called a risk. So temper in, on your analysis, all the disenfranchised non-voters of MI/FL if you want current tallies to count-and then see where you come out. It's these citizens that have the right to cry "conpiracy" if the current tallies are seated...it's these people who will feel they were lied to and cheated of their voice in government.
Futhermore, subodh, do your religous beliefs put country before God? Answer that...
Probably not unless, of course, your country is your god and that's pretty archaic.
So when your country does something (whether intentally or unintentally) against God's word, how do you react? or do you believe that your country has never done anything a little shady?
That's what the Rev was referring to. Do your country a favor and quit spreading the spin. Do yourself a favor and do some research.
@sunkissed:
1)i am not committed to Obama or Clinton and i live in Germany...it's my neutral point of view
2)i hope for a democratic president because i am against the war
3)i think both candidates are great and would be great presidents
but now back to topic:
4)most of the people in MI&FL voted normally...not everyone of the 600.000 in MI and the 1.700.000...but most of them
5)if these votes don't count, i'm absolutely sure, that McCain will win both states
6)these states are very important in November and i fear this argument will make McCain the next president
Ed,
You are right on the money! Who, in their right mind, doesn't agree with Rev. Wright?
OF COURSE we created our own mess with terror, by our one-sided support of Despots in Israel and Saudi Arabia and every other country in the Middle East.
We went wrong with that region when we threw all ethics and morals out in the pursuit of OIL!
WE NEED TO GET THIS COUNTRY OFF OF FINITE FOSSIL FUELS FOREVER!
Obama is the candidate who will do this.
I am voting for Obama BECAUSE of his intelligence and instincts on foreign affairs.
He will not be making plays from the same old tired foreign policy playbook. We will have a fresh set of eyes that are not clouded by the excrement that has been swirling around Washington since the Kennedy Era.
Trust me, Florida is RED. Michigan will vote for Obama in the general, just like all democratic strongholds will.
The Clinton and Bush politics of fear have failed. They have cried wolf for too long and the public is on to it.
Let's get on with it and stop bleeding the party!
OBAMA/EDWARDS'08!
Subodh,
"Even if these numbers are off a little bit, because of the momentum shown by Hillary in the remaining Primaries and electibility of OBAMA in doubt because of the Wright affair, HILLARY WILL BE NOMINATED AS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE ."
You wish! In your demented dreams....Do the maths - even with Fla and Mich, Obama wins, and that's without the 'momentum' in superdelegates, which, if you watch the lists, BHO is getting at least three for every two HRC picks up.
Dream on. It's harmless enough.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed
Dwit,
As to VP, have a look at Jim Webb. Lots of military credibility to add weight to the ticket, and he made a cracking response to Shrub's 2007 State of the Union Address:
It's here
Peace
ed
Ooh Ed...
I like it! Webb would be a great choice.
wolle
I switched parties because I want to end this war. I will vote for either HC or BO to end this war. But I don't believe in breaking rules. I also think that seating the delegates as-is in these two states will not only hurt the party but end the party. The DNC tried to work with these states when they moved their primaries to dates that conflicted with the primary/caucus calendar...even offered $$ to Florida but they would have nothing to do with it. They thought they were above the law so to speak. If I heard my state's legislature was jeopardizing my voice, I'd be organizing my local party and marching on the steps of my State Capitol in protest.
With all this said, I do find it curious that nothing much was said in the media about FL/MI until that one night as all of us were updating our delegate spreadsheets, the realization was hitting that HC would not be able to catch up in pledged delegates unless, of course, the rules were changed.
I also think FL will go Republican and MI will go Democratic in November no matter who the candidates are or how close the race is.
Well said Sun. Couldn't agree more. You and I have a very similar view on this. Couldn't have said it any better.
Its time for everyone to get real and get behind Obama.
And you are hands down/right on agreeing with Ed's VP suggestion.
Thanks Ed for providing the response site. I don't need to read it to agree with your choice but I'm going to for kicks and giggles.
DCW team if you feel like editing the post of a few min. ago on the new thread feel free sorry for blogging in near sleep.
i have to blame the DNC for all this hate ....the primary system they have is a horror story ... all these months of campaigning ...and strippimg the the fourth and eighth largest states of their delagates.... .caucus's where 2 percent of voters pick the winner.....open primaries where outsiders can pick the winner.......super delagates where the winner is picked for political reasons...proportional distribution of delagates ....this set up is geared for no one to win 2025 delagates ....HRC wins 3 states obama wins one state and she only gains 7 delagates....what kind of genius came up with this math .....the more candidates are on the road the more they have to attack to try to separate themselves ...the more their electorate gets hateful and start saying things that are outrageous...15 months and still going ...they cant keep saying the same thing so they resort to throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.....DNC created this mess and deserve to be laughed at....maybe this should go to the convention and tear this dem party apart so it can be rebuilt with some sanity and common sense
The role of the “super-delegates”, to look beyond the immediacy of the moment, and make individual judgments of what ticket has the best chance of defeating the Republican candidate in the general election. And why should the “super-delegates” play that role? Not only because that’s the way the rules are, and we are being told constantly that everyone should play by the rules, but also because they are uniquely qualified to make that judgment. The vast majority have participated in dozens of elections (or hundreds); their own and others. They have a deeper and vastly more informed perspective on what it takes to win general elections than does the average voter. Their expertise is an invaluable aid to making sure a Democratic candidate actually gets to be President. They are mostly elected officials who will have to go back and face their constituents and explain in detail why they made the judgment they did. They, unlike any of the other delegates, are truly accountable for their votes to more than just their favorite candidate.
Anybody got any idea why the betting on Al Gore as veep has taken off on the Political "market" today?
Is he getting ready to come off the fence?
xx
ed
Ed,
If the "political market" is anything like the financial markets there is a lot of irrational behaviour based on rumour or wishful thinking.
I haven't heard anything to that affect and I don't think it would be a good idea. I have to say I respect the "civilian" Al Gore, but frankly I don't think he'd be much of an asset because he is also a Washington insider.
Its time for new political blood. That is how Obama has gained so much traction. People are tired of insiders.
In other words, I hope he doesn't get in the mix. I do like the idea
of Jim Webb, but I have to say he did come from a "purple" state and barely won that race. I think he can do much more in the senate. We can't afford to lose that state to the bible thumpers again.
I get a kick out of this "Hillary in Bosnia" story. She actually claimed that she was under sniper fire when she visited as first lady, yet the video shows her totally relaxed and greeting people with her daughter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxVsdS887HA
If she was so worried, why would she take her daughter?
This is just another case of Clinton deceit. And she hasn't even apologized for her "fish tale"
At least when Obama gets caught up in something he addresses it head on. I want to see a little humility in the White House.
I think we are all tired of George Bush and his "swagger".
What kills me about this, is how little press it has gotten compared to the Wright video. I mean, this was an outright LIE.
The press has always treated Hillary with kid gloves.