Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Open Thread

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

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!

901 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 901 Newer› Newest»

UUbuntu said...: MKSinSA -- thanks for spotting the troll here. I've generally ignored their posts, mostly because they're incomprehensible. But I was fooled by the new name. Sorry.

Richard (and MKS and anyone else) -- I have no problem if HRC stays in the race. Personally, I think she should stay in the race, and focus all of her attention on McCain and the Republican platform. Or focus on the particular issues that she holds passion about. Or talk about area where she and Obama are on the same page -- which should be abut 80-90% of their positions. Given that, she might even pull closer in this race.

I don't have a problem with her staying in. I have a problem with her (1) implication that Obama is less worthy (or unworthy) of the Presidency (2) public partisan maneuvering over DNC party rules with regard to FL and MI (3) not working to reduce the level of bitterness amongst her core supporters at her current position.

The hard part for me is that, even though I believe she will make a better president than Obama, I have to admit that her campaign organization has been terrible, and her inability to organize and deliver caucuses -- which should be Primary-Organization-101 -- has been (IMO) the main reason that she's far behind in this race.

But right now, she should stay in the race -- not to win, but to be present if Obama self-destructs or if there's some spectacular change of heart in the voting public. If she can only "run negative", then she should exit. But if her appearance on Jay Leno is any indication, then (outside of the 2-minute FL/MI statements) she can still be a positive force here, and she can still have a bright future in Democratic politics.; April 04, 2008 12:03 PM
UUbuntu said...: Jim -- No, you completely understand the point. Regardless of who the nominee is (and I believe that both Clinton and Obama will make and excellent nominee), the goal is a convention that shows the party at its best.

The issue at hand is that the MI/FL situation, combined with an internecine battle between the candidates' supporters, will do the exact opposite.

With regard to MI/FL, the issue is this: The states chose to ignore agreed DNC procedure and the DNC stripped them of their delegates. Due to state laws and logistical issues, a revote will be near-impossible. Therefore some sort of outcome must occur. The current "DNC way" -- don't seat the delegations at all -- seems draconian and vindictive to me. The "seat-em anyway" option seems unfair and overly partisan. It also sets a bad precedent where the states can ignore the DNC with relative impunity. So everyone -- the DNC, the states, and the campaigns -- must work some compromise to allow everyone to save face. Unfortunately, it's difficult to negotiate solutions when the media spotlight is in full force and pundits are all trying to pick winners and losers in every negotiation.

In 1976, the Reagan and Ford went all the way to the convention, where Reagan lost. Because of Reagan's "11th commandment" (never criticize a fellow Republican), the convention was quite successful, Ford was unhurt by the battle and Reagan was able to run -- successfully -- 4 years later.

In 1980, Kennedy and Carter went all the way to the convention, where Kennedy lost. Even though Kennedy's loss was known months in advance, Kennedy continued campaigning, promoting differences between them and finally delivered a speech that had most of the public feeling like "they nominiated the wrong guy". It was a nasty protracted battle, and (IMO) was one of several reasons Carter lost in 1980.

The 1980 Democratic convention is the fear of many Democrats. The 1976 Republican convention is the hope.; April 04, 2008 12:27 PM
Richard said...: Tyler, my concern is that Hillary Clinton has not run and has given no indication that she will run the sort of positive, message-centered campaign which could have the strengthening effect you describe. All indications are, and the history of the Clinton playbook suggests, that she will only continue to get more and more negative as the season progresses. That is the lesson she has taken from her years in Arkansas and Washington, and I don't see her abandoning such a basic tenet of her campaign philosophy. I am pleased to see, however, that polls indicate it is not having the hoped-for effect. Time will tell.

I was going to make exactly the same point about the way she has run her campaign as you did. There is little doubt that she has run a dreadfully disorganized, spendthrift, and rudderless campaign; and although I voted for her because I thought her experience made her better prepared to be President, I am seriously beginning to question her leadership abilities. If she intends to run her Whitehouse or her universal healthcare plans the way she's run her campaign...; April 04, 2008 1:20 PM
MKSinSA said...: This election has been very different in large part due to the huge numbers of newly-registered voters. People, young and old - mainly young, came in off the sidelines NOT to be part of a political party but to root for a particular candidate (and not just Obama, as some believe). This makes their support set in stone and it's tough to shake. This is not just on the Democratic side but Republicans face a similar, if much smaller, situation in Ron Paul.

I agree that there is a partisan battle between supporters of both candidates, the sad part is that we all have been played. Since both candidates are so close on policy, what is this fighting really about?

There is only one entity that wins from all of this: the media. You have to understand this is a game they love to play but only get to do once every four years. We are "Bambi" and when we show up at the salt lick, they've been laying in wait for us. They've studied which type of salt we like and even splash on a special pheremone with a dash of urine to draw us into range of the blind.

If we start here with the media manipulation in mind and go forward to our convention, it will be a success. Otherwise, the media will hijack that as well (and if you've noticed, I don't like having things hijacked :); April 04, 2008 1:39 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Jim-

Yes the point is for the democrats to retake the White House.

But - Don't forget that Michigan and Florida knew what the rules were and they broke them anyway. I believe Michigan and Florida should be seated at the convention but on a 50/50 split. They cannot be allowed to be the deciding vote. If the DNC doesn't put their foot down now then we will be in the same mess in 2012 when other states decide that they do not want to play by the rules. Bottom line: The rules are the rules!; April 04, 2008 4:05 PM
dwit said...: So Jim, are you for a re-vote? Obviously, we can't seat them as is. It is up to the states, not the DNC to make that happen. That is how the organization is set up. They give the state committees the autonomy to run their state elections. Unfortunately, this year MI and FL chose to move their primaries up against the wishes of the DNC.

Personally, I think that shouldn't be a problem, but all candidates agreed to the sanctioning, probably because they thought it would save them money. Now that it appears Obama is unstoppable, Hillary wants to change the agreement.

What I find telling about Hillary's character was her decision to keep her name on the ballot in Michigan and her campaigning the day after the Florida primary and her insistence that her delegates should count against "UNCOMMITTED".

That makes me question whether it is America's interests or HER OWN that she has in mind.

That being said, who do we want appointing judges to the Supreme Court? NOT ANOTHER REPUBLICAN WHACK-JOB!; April 04, 2008 4:08 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: One solution I haven't heard is for the entire MI and FL delegations to be seated at the convention, but when it comes time to vote, each delegation gets a single vote for any candidate that they wish. One state, one vote.

That way, no delegate gets to say they were not allowed into the convention; the voters have had a say (sort of); but the message is very clear - violate the primary schedule date rules set up by the DNC, and you will be severely reprimanded.

On another count, does anyone know when Clinton FIRST made a protest of the Michigan and Florida situation? Wasn't it just prior to, or just after the voting, when she found she would win by fairly large margins? Why didn't she speak up last summer, when the debate was being waged on how to get the states to observe the primary schedule?

It is the attitude of Clinton on MI and FL ("obey the rules, unless disobeying them is to MY advantage" and "who cares about the voters unless it is to MY advantage") AND the negative campaigning that has turned me from, if she wins the nomination, a potential enthusiastic supporter or her to someone who will vote for her, but that is it - no campaign sign, no contribution, no GOTV effort, nothing but a single vote in a state (Maryland) the Democratic candidate will most likely win anyway. And that is the same feeling that many of my neighbors have.

I also have a couple of Republican neighbors who will vote for Obama if he is the nominee, but will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. They've had enough of Bush's policies, but absolutely abhor Clinton, even more than Bush-lite McCain.; April 04, 2008 5:46 PM
Mike Ruth said...: Merely winning back the whitehouse is not going to be good enough. The next president (hopefully Obama or Clinton) has to be able to motivate a supine Congress to legislate the many and extreme changes that our nation needs to recover from the past 8 years of sordid failure and abandonment of principles.

This means that our Democratic presidewntial candidate needs to have some strong "coat tails", to be able to assume the Presidency with the enthusiastic support of Democratic congresspersons (and ideally some number of Republican congresspersons, too).

There will be deals to make, filibusters to break, radio dittoheads to talk down, all manner of obstructionism to overcome. And many many lies, false baits, accusations from angry and fearful opposition party members.

Beware of a situation in which a Democrat gains the highest office and *still* continues - like the current Democratic majority - to fails to motivate the Congress to enact his/her legislation and deliver on our cherished hopes for change. If the next President is Democratic and does only as well (poorly) as the current Democratic Congress has done, then his/her administration will be a failure.

It's not going to be enough just to win the Whitehouse. The next President is going to have to enter the office with the power to push major changes through a recalcitrant congress quickly and deeply.; April 04, 2008 5:46 PM
Unknown said...: Jim, you are right.
The nominating campaign is about choosing the Democrat's nominee. Delegates pledged through the primary and caucus process is a barometer that normally is pretty clear. When there is a virtual or actual tie, the DNC through the "Super Delegates" effectively choose the nominee. In the event that it comes down to the SD, then all votes and every pledged delegate should and must be counted. You can’t and shouldn’t say that pledged delegates will determine the nominee when pledged delegates are based on the votes each candidate receives. If a candidate is winning by margin greater than the votes you are not counting, then I say fine, if not, count it all and stop with the political posturing!

Simply put, the voters in the states that are being penalized were not responsible for the decision. They were powerless to do anything about it. These voters were and are being disenfranchised by their own party, not the opposition, or a local band of fearful and uneducated average citizens. Nevertheless these voters went to the polls as is their right and they voted. The DNC was wrong enacting a sanction that effectively disenfranchises every Democrat in those states. They were just wrong! They made the penalty up with the stroke of a pen. They should undo it and call it a lesson learned! The DNC, BHO and HRC have no choice, but to count it for the hope of a unified party. There is no need to do it over. We just need to count it! Then and only then can you declare that every vote was counted and the winner is……whoever! Anything short of this is just politics that will cost the Democrats the White House!

It is only this tight race that has exposed this error. Since it is exposed, the party has to eat the crow it created and count the votes. BHO postured for Iowa with Michigan, because it looked like a freebie. He postured with a caveat that in fact gave him what he would have earned that day; the uncommitted vote was his, because his campaign requested it from those that wanted to support him. He was advertising all over Michigan that whoever wants to vote for Obama should vote for Uncommited.The message got out big time.
The Michigan results are: HRC 328,309, C Dodd 3,845, Mike Gavel 2,361, D Kucinich 21,715, and BHO’s “uncommitted” 238,168. Therein is the justice.

This is a simple, fair and economical solution. This solution does not hand the nomination to Clinton. It also simultaneously helps to avert a convention nightmare. A nightmare that will show the nation and the world the complete and utter chaos you can expect from the Democrats and their nominee. Conversely, we can be mature responsible adults, count the votes as they stand, and all move on!

Finally, someone who is being objective about the situation. All things were equal in FL. Both candidates names were on the ballot. The FL delegates should definitely be seated because the republicans of FL moved the states primary date up. The Dems. in FL had nothing to do with it and therefore shoudn't be punished. False ego and arrogance and fear of losing is pushing one side asking other side not to count the votes which have already been recorded.
Like Dwit said It is up to the states, not the DNC to make that happen. That is how the organization is set up. They give the state committees the autonomy to run their state elections. Let the FL & MI state committees decide how the votes should be counted. Who are DNC bigwigs to decide against the will of the people?
Like Tyler said the current "DNC way" -- don't seat the delegations at all -- seems draconian and vindictive to me. The "seat-em anyway" option seems fair and not partisan. Worrying about future that it will set up a bad precedent is something that we should not worry about NOW when our infighting will result in losing 2008 presidency.

In future we should run the same method that Republicans use –primaries with WINNER TAKE ALL so that by March we have a nominee not the micky mouse way we run our Caucuses and proportional voting which results in disunity and defeat in General Election. Name me a single intelligent person who does not think that Democratic leadership has created a MESS for themselves this year like in 2000 & 2004?

Like Jim said Isn't our goal this year, to win back the Whitehouse?

THAT WOULD MEAN SUPPORTING THE PERSON WHO GETS THE NOMINATION HOWEVER THEY GET IT.
THIS MEANS MI AND FLA MUST BE COUNTED. IF THEY ARE IN THE MIX AND OBAMA GETS THE NOD, THEN I AM FOR HIM. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THEY SWING IT TO CLINTON, THEN I AM FOR HER LIKE JIM SAID.; April 04, 2008 6:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Michigan and Florida are different.
The Michigan situation is the state party decided to hold a primary early thus insuring their
voters would be nullified.
In Florida the Gop legislature and governor made the call. No matter what the state Democratic party said the Democratic primary voters got the shaft. A lot of Obama supporters want to shove it in further, twist it, and break it off.
Question: If your "state" party officials broke DNC rules, but you went to the pols and voted according to state law,would you be happy about it?
Are we really that partisan?; April 04, 2008 6:13 PM
dwit said...: Jim;

point is that MANY people, including some of my family members in Florida and Michigan, didn't go to the polls at all, because they were aware their vote wouldn't count. I don't blame them. I wouldn't waste my valuable time voting either, under those circumstances.

So, the only solution, is a revote, but that ain't going to happen soon enough to save this party from imploding. We can't wait until August or we can kiss the Oval Office goodbye.

So, what is your proposal on this? Did I miss the post with your solution? I'm not being facetious here, please bear with me.; April 04, 2008 8:40 PM
dwit said...: Great point mikeruthgis!

We have got to keep in mind that our local House and Senate races will be up for grabs too. We can't let this presidential race suck all of the air from the room here. That is another reason to wrap this thing up quickly!

I think we can all see Hillary has been a divisive character among Dems and Republitards. That is just another reason to support Obama.; April 04, 2008 8:52 PM
dwit said...: Mike in Maryland,

Isn't you solution just another gimme to the super dels? Where is the democracy in that?

Please correct me if I'm reading you wrong.; April 04, 2008 8:54 PM
dwit said...: Lets also keep in mind folks that Florida is no swing state. She is solidly in the RED. Voted for Bush in both elections and has a Republican Governor and legislature. Not to mention, the corruption of state election officials is well documented. Probably time to kiss that one goodbye.; April 04, 2008 9:03 PM
dwit said...: mksinsa said...

"I agree that there is a partisan battle between supporters of both candidates, the sad part is that we all have been played. Since both candidates are so close on policy, what is this fighting really about?"

I guess what I've discovered through his whole process is that Hillary's money trail (foot dragging on tax returns,Clinton Foundation murkiness and AIPAC support) that Hillary is a markedly different candidate than Obama.

$109 million! HOLY CRAP!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/
hillary-clinton-tax-retur_n_95127.html

Notice how markedly her earnings went up after her election to the Senate in 2000? I think I have all of the info I need to make an informed decision now.; April 04, 2008 9:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Dwit,
I doubt you have family members in both Florida and Michigan and if so they probably didn't vote because they knew Clinton would carry thier state.
You seem to prefer the partisan Obama talking points.
If Obama don't make it I assume McCain would get your vote.; April 04, 2008 9:35 PM
MKSinSA said...: dwit,

True, they are quite different candidates and the differences come down to character - but as defined by each set of supporters. Many Clinton supporters cling to a different meme as their counterbalance. BUT to see what I'm talking about with the media, watch for some mention in the news about either candidate (whether it's where they were today for MLK, Clinton's release of her taxes) then run over to MyDD and DKos and watch the diaries pop up.

The funny thing is THEN listen to the media who starts the food fight through skethcy "commentary" come back and cite the blogosphere to perpetuate it and the blogosphere reignites. It's an amazing cycle to behold.

Oh, and at the end of it all, not ONE serious piece of fact or information about the candidate has been parlayed. Yet the impression that something significant has transpired lingers and the polls shift, thus giving grist for yet another sketchy commentary.; April 04, 2008 9:39 PM
dwit said...: Jim,

I come from a family of Marines, Soldiers and Sailors (and grudgingly admit to a few Airmen too). I have family all over this country.

And no, I have already stated I would vote for anybody, but a Republitard. I just don't expect any sweeping changes in our foreign policy with Hillary. It will be business as usual with all the AIPAC and other special interest money she is sucking up.

As I said before $109 million! HOLY CRAP!; April 04, 2008 9:41 PM
Richard said...: Dwit, your analysis of Florida puzzles me. How can you say that a state is not a swing state when it was won by a GWB in 2000 by only 537 votes (out of more than 5.8 million cast)? That sounds like a swing state to me.; April 04, 2008 9:42 PM
dwit said...: MKSinSA,

Astute analysis! Well said!; April 04, 2008 9:44 PM
dwit said...: richard,

I don't think anyone can say with certainty what the spread was in Florida 2000. There was so much chicanery among election officials and the Secretary of State and Governor's office that we probably will never know. Even, the recount by the press wasn't conclusive.

Bottom line is, we can't count on Florida. We need super majorities to win this thing. I think we can do that in some of the Mid-west and mountain states (i.e. Montana, Nevada etc...)that have been long ignored by the dems, but Florida...not going to bet on that one.; April 04, 2008 9:50 PM
Richard said...: Dwit, that's kind of the point of a swing state, though: by definition it is not a state you can count on, but a state you can fight for and possibly win. Perhaps nobody can say with certainty what the exact totals were in 2000, but it can certainly be said that the margin was only a tiny fraction of a percent. With that in mind, how can you justify giving up on a 25-delegate prize which is, by all measures I know of, well within reach.

I agree that, especially if Obama is the candidate, we may be able to win new states in the mid-west this year. That doesn't mean I think we should abandon a state which, despite any gains elsewhere, quite possibly will once again play a deciding role this November.; April 04, 2008 10:12 PM
dwit said...: Richard,

I guess my point is that the republitard corruption is so endemic there, that dems won't win until The DOJ starts investigating.

Unfortunately, that won't happen until we have a dem in the White House. I don't want to leave our fate up to Florida AGAIN. Remember, they voted for Bush in 2004 too.

If they come along for the ride as is, great! If not, we will have many others in the West who will make up for it.; April 04, 2008 10:22 PM
dwit said...: Check out this link. If recent trends and 2004 numbers are correct, Obama stands to win back several states in the West that could easily offset the Florida situation.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

New Mexico and Iowa are pretty solidly in the Democrat camp already and they represent about 12 electoral college units. Add Colorado and Nevada and you get 14 more. That is a conservative projection on dem states this year and that solves the Florida problem.

You add Missouri and Arkansas and Southern states like the Carolinas and Georgia, where the African American population is strong and energized and its a rout.; April 04, 2008 10:48 PM
dwit said...: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004
/pages/results/president/; April 04, 2008 11:10 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Jim said...
"Michigan and Florida are different."

How so?

In Michigan, the legislation to move the primary to January was introduced by a Democrat, supported by a Democratic governor, and passed by a Democratic legislature.

In Florida, the legislation to move the primary to January was introduced by a Democrat. Jeremy Ring (D-Margate) was the PRIMARY sponsor in the Senate.

Some are saying that it was passed by the Florida legislature only because it was pushed through by a Republican Governor and 2-1 Republican advantage in the legislature.

If that's so, why did it pass the House committee without opposition, with four Dems sitting on the committee (Bucher, Joiner, Ryan and Gannon)?

Why was there only one vote against the bill in the House (Seiler D-Wilton Mannors)?

Why were there only two votes against the bill in the Senate? After all, there are 14 Democrats who sit in the Florida Senate.

And do you know WHO voted against the bill? Alexander and Gaetz.

Alexander and Gaetz. Good Democrats? Consider this:

Alexander is a Republican from Winter Haven.

Gaetz is a Republican from New Port Richey.

No Democrat in the Florida state Senate voted against the bill.

None

Zero

Zilch

Nada

There are differences between Michigan and Florida, but it is only in shades of the skulduggery by the participants. In terms of guilt in supporting the change in election dates, there is no effective difference in the actions of the elected Democratic officials in the two states.

If there is a significant difference, you need to tell me and the rest of the people here where that difference is. We'll be waiting.

And the argument about paper trails on ballots in Florida does not sway my opinion about the actions of the Florida Democratic legislative members. If you don't know what that reference is about, then you DO NOT know what led up to the Florida legislative vote, and you need to study the issue before you respond.; April 05, 2008 12:14 AM
MKSinSA said...: I too believe there are differences between the states involved in the FL/MI saga.

The problem with the Florida fiasco is that it was personal. What started as a simple case of "Quien es mas macho?" turned incredibly nasty with ramifications far beyond what either side anticipated.

Florida Dems made it a point to mock the party chairman often and publicly. They dared him to sanction them. They sought out the media for coverage that taunted him. A compilation of some of those words appears here. (Please note Thurman's words at the end.)

A good running coverage of how FL unfolded is here:

madfloridian

Michigan, on the other hand, was less arrogant and seemed driven by a more practical desire to see frontrunner status shared. In fact, proponents suggested it be designated on a rotating basis to reflect geographic/demographic diversity.

But I believe, people being people, Dean played hardball with FL because of immaturity off all involved and MI's act of civil disobedience sort of got caught up in it. (Just my humble opinion); April 05, 2008 1:47 AM
countjellybean said...: I've done some pro forma calculations to try to estimate the number of votes that each candidate would get if all states held a primary. The data were obtained from The GreenPapers.

1. If electoral votes from each state were awarded proportionately, taking into consideration the primary/caucus votes for Obama and Clinton, the result would be Obama 226.2, Clinton 194.8.

2. If two electoral votes were subtracted from each state--since the electoral college skews things towards states with smaller populations--and the remaining electoral votes were awarded proportionately, the result would be Obama 179.2, Clinton 159.8.

3. If the number of Democratic voters from 2004 from each state were awarded proportionately, the result would be Obama 23.97 million, Clinton 21.26 million.

Again, these are just estimates. There is no legitimate way to determine a national vote total.; April 05, 2008 5:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Why can't anyone answer my question?
Question: If your "state" party officials broke DNC rules, but you went to the pols and voted according to state law,would you be happy about it if your vote did not count?; April 05, 2008 12:59 PM
Anonymous said...: If not counting a single vote legally cast in good faith is OK with you, then you qualify for the Supreme Court.; April 05, 2008 1:02 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 05, 2008 2:09 PM
dwit said...: Jim,

ANSWER: No I wouldn't be happy. I'd be furious at my "state" officials who changed the primary date despite clear warnings by the DNC.

And I'd probably see to it they paid at the polls next "state" elections.

Look, it sucks. I even think the DNC was a little heavy handed, but when we join a club, everyone is aware of the rules of that club. That is why I have chosen not to be a member of these clubs. I think their rules are too restrictive.

Check out progressive independents.

http://progressiveindependent.com/; April 05, 2008 2:10 PM
dwit said...: Here is a little excerpt from Progressive Independent.

"If you think the war in Iraq was a "swell" idea, that Harold Ford is a progressive or if your main goal is to convince people that Ariel Sharon is "just a man, doin' the best he can...to make the world a better place" (as a certain so-called "Liberal" Likudniki puts it) trust us, you will not be comfortable here. We understand that not everyone will agree about every issue but this board is managed by an elected group of moderators who are determined to keep it moving to the left in the interests of justice everywhere. If your main purpose is to disrupt, we will ban you and when we ban you, we'll delete all your posts so please do not bother. There's no Vichy-accommodating "third way" about this board. We are not affiliated with the Democratic Party, the Green Party or any other "party"- rather we're a movement of independent swing voters standing up for our principles and determined to make the parties take notice."

http://progressiveindependent.com
/shalom/pia/about.htm; April 05, 2008 2:25 PM
MKSinSA said...: Jim,

Being "happy" isn't the issue. The DNC, RNC and the various state parties have often exercised their right to strip delegates since before any of us were voting. The only difference is that you are now aware of it. If you research that you'll see the regularity with which this happens.

The people in these cases aren't disenfranchised; they had a vote and that was for the state leadership that acts on their behalf. That's a position the Supreme Court upholds.

So, would I be "happy?" No, and no more happy than if a ref red flagged me or technically fouled me out of a game for an offense I had committed.; April 05, 2008 2:31 PM
RobH said...: Does anyone know a good source to predict estimated voter turnout for Indiana and NC? (I know this could be sketchy, as voter turnout has been blowing away estimates, but I'd like to be able to do some projections.) I've been looking for official Democrat registered voters by state, and don't know where to turn. Any ideas?; April 05, 2008 4:15 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Jim said:

""Why can't anyone answer my question?
Question: If your "state" party officials broke DNC rules, but you went to the pols and voted according to state law,would you be happy about it if your vote did not count?""

Jim - my question to you is:
Why on earth WOULD YOU go and vote if your state broke the DNC rules and it was announced BEFORE the election took place that the votes WOULD NOT COUNT?

This is what the problem IS. The people of those two states were told BEFORE the elections that the votes would NOT count. So there is a huge amount of people that did NOT vote. So this is why the votes can NOT be counted. All the people that did not vote because they were told that the votes would not count have not had their voices heard. Why is it that the majority of people cannot understand this simple fact.

I for one would not have gone to vote and would have stayed home if my state had told me before the election "Hey we broke the rules and if you go to vote it won't count".

Why on earth did those people vote when they knew the votes would not count? Are people in America really that stupid?; April 05, 2008 4:33 PM
Richard said...: Question: If your "state" party officials broke DNC rules, but you went to the pols [sic] and voted according to state law, would you be happy about it if your vote did not count?

No, Jim, I would be very upset with my state legislature if it passed a law which it knew would disenfranchise me. I would most certainly make my legislators aware of my anger by letter and at the polls in November.

I probably would also refuse to participate in a primary which violated the rules of my party, and I would therefore be very upset if the results of such an illicit primary were later validated.

If I did decide to go to the polls with the knowledge that the delegates I voted for would not be seated, it would be only because I wished to register my support for my preferred candidate in a way which might help to give him or her momentum. I would not expect the rules of the Democratic party to change to reward my state for violating the rules.; April 05, 2008 4:40 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 05, 2008 5:21 PM
dwit said...: Just listened to Hillary's speech in North Dakota on the economy and "special interests". I agreed with it completely.

However, I'm a little dubious of the source. Hillary has taken as much corporate and foreign special interest money as George Bush.

Just look at her own tax return. She and Bill have been raking it in since her election to the Senate in 2000.

In 2000 they made $357,026. By 2007 that number had exploded to $20,400,000!

I hope you will forgive me if I am a little skeptical of Hillary and her message on "special interests".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/
hillary-clinton-tax-retur_n_95127.html

By comparison the Obamas earned less than $1 million in 2006. Of that they paid nearly a third to the IRS.

I think its pretty clear why the Clintons were afraid to come clean on this.

Here is the source on Obama. One of Hillary's most reliable cheerleaders:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/25/
obamas-open-tax-returns-earned-nearly-1m-in-2006/; April 05, 2008 5:22 PM
dwit said...: I also get a kick out of how Hillary bashed the Bushes for taking Saudi money. Very true. She is correct.

However, let us not forget the Saudi money that was paid to the Clinton Library and "Foundation"

"Bill Clinton's presidential library raised more than 10 percent of the cost of its $165 million facility from foreign sources, with the most generous overseas donation coming from Saudi Arabia, according to interviews yesterday.

The royal family of Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton facility in Little Rock about $10 million, roughly the same amount it gave toward the presidential library of George H.W. Bush, according to people directly familiar with the contributions."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn
/content/article/2007/12/14/
AR2007121402124_pf.html; April 05, 2008 5:27 PM
dwit said...: Don't get me wrong. I'm just a "Progressive Independent". I have no particular allegiance to either one per se.

I do, however, firmly believe the old adage: "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

With Clinton or McCain in the White House we will simply have a Bush or Clinton as president for at least 24 years straight. That, my friends, is an OLIGARCHY!; April 05, 2008 5:43 PM
dwit said...: Check out all of these donors to the Clinton "Foundation"

America Israel Chamber of Commerce $125,000

Aventura-Turnberry Jewish Center $150,000

Beth El Synagogue
$125,000

Antwerp Diamond High Council $200,000

Citigroup
$550,000

CLSA Ltd.
$700,000

Gold Service International
$800,000

Walmart Foundation
$1,000,000

So we have several Pro-Israel groups, a blood diamond broker, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, a consultancy that helps other companies relocate to China (CSLA), a very mysterious Columbian organization that doesn't even have a web page in English (Gold Service Int'l) and our ethical friends at Walmart.

I'm not making this stuff up. This is just the tip of the iceberg folks! Have look at the Salon.com article.

http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources
/2007/10/11/clinton/index1.html

Can you imagine what McCain surrogates would do with this information in a general?

It would be pretty funny, I admit, given old "straight talk" John's seedy past and current associations.; April 05, 2008 6:42 PM
countjellybean said...: Politico lists Alexander as committed to Obama and Thomas as uncommitted.

Clinton [13]:
Bosley
Burke
Donatucci
Farrell
Hardt
Mafnas
Malone
Martinez, Robert
Moss
Stapleton
Strauss, Bob
Taitano
Umemoto

Obama [9]:
Alexander
Brazile
Carter
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Johnson, Joe
Kirk
Smith, Edward
Watkins; April 05, 2008 7:33 PM
Anonymous said...: I voted for Bush I in 1992 and realized I was wrong, so it was Clinton in 1996. I never regretted
that vote. I had a good eight years although the right wing machine was hell to live through
emotionally.
I voted for Gore, got robbed. More right wing. Then Kerry, a weak candidate at best. Got Swift Boated.
This year quick off the spot for Obama and got picked as a delegate
for Obama. Our county convention was spirited but nearly civil. We were out numbered, but held our ground.
Since then I have tried to be objective. I have been reading and
posting on blogs.
The last couple of days I have read with dismay some of the hate spewed forth from Obama supporters
trying to change some minds.
Well, it changed mine and at least two more Obama delegates to the Texas State Convention. ( I emailed them some of this junk, then called them.)
I will switch to Clinton now.
If Clinton fails due to all in the surrogate "right wing. I will vote for Obama, and the Real right wing will probably get him too, probably helped by some idiot Clinton Backers.
I am begining to think the supporters of candidates can be meaner than the political machines.; April 05, 2008 9:44 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 05, 2008 10:46 PM
dwit said...: Jim,

Your political journey is much like mine. I was a John Edwards supporter at first, but when his campaign failed to pick up steam and sputtered out, I went to Hillary. I liked what Bill did for the most part, even though I was very troubled by the revelations after he left office.

It wasn't until I saw the Clinton attack machine come out that I began to look seriously at Obama. I was surprised that they used the same tactics of division employed by Rove against them.

As I studied more and looked at the money trail I became convinced more than ever that choice is between a Rupublitard, Liberal Opportunist, or Obama.

The one basic thing he has going for him in my eyes is that he still has some idealism left in him. I'm sure he will be worn down like the rest, but for a brief shining moment we may have some ethics in Washington.

I guess that's what I'm reduced to, hoping for a brief respite from the cynicism and filth. A little hope in this miserable post-apocalyptic world created by greed.

Who knows? Maybe we will have another Bobby Kennedy on our hands.; April 05, 2008 10:48 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hmmm... seems to me that the pledged delegates should base their vote on who the voters picked them to represent. And the super-delegates should base their vote on the CANDIDATE and not on what supporters say. The supporters aren't going to be the President - one of the CANDIDATES will be.

I am totally confused by what you mean by 'what the supporters' have been saying.

I thought the whole point was to judge the person/candidate on THEIR words and actions.; April 05, 2008 10:53 PM
Amot said...: This whole thing went too negative! Last month hatred grew too much. And yes those are the supporters and surrogates to say the worst words but they just repeat the words of the campaigns in more unpleasant style. I am glad we had a week with just few negatives. The problem for Clinton is that with no negatives she loses ground fast and I am afraid that in the final week before PA primary it will all start again :(
In my opinion should that happen supers have to stop it immediately! I know they never stopped a candidate to go all the way before, but now is not like any 'before'. Because of the nature of the candidates I think the hatred can not dissapear easily if at all and if it goes we can lose GE!
About pledged delegates switching at any level - county, district state or national - that is a disgrace! I think that even Edwards' delegates should and must stay in his camp until the end!!!; April 06, 2008 5:53 AM
UUbuntu said...: Folks, trust the process.

We have two good, if incompatible candidates, with different strengths. The purpose of the superdelegates is to provide some sort of referendum on the system so that a person with the nomination in April who self-destructs in June doesn't get nominated automatically in August.

Now, I'm not saying that Obama will self-destruct (he's run an extraordinary campaign, and has shown exceptional coolness in the heat of this battle), but if he does, we need the superdelegates to step in to nominate a worthy opponent. At this time, Hillary Clinton's dropping out won't help Barack Obama. It will only make her supporters feel robbed of their say.

Trust the process.

As a Clinton supporter, I marvel at Obama's ability to bring a disparate set of people together. I envy his supporters' enthusiasm, and his campaign's understanding that the goal is to secure delegates for the convention and to pursue that goal with a single minded focus. If he is even half the candidate he has shown himself to be so far, he'll win the general election easily. But if he's not -- if we discover a dead body in his basement (or something like that) -- then we should be ready to nominate Clinton, who will bring her own set of formidable strengths to the presidency.

Trust the process.

The voters vote, and the superdelegates will weigh the voters' preferences with their own political and governmental experience. They are unlikely to nominate the person with fewer pledged delegates unless they have a good -- and public -- reason to do so.

Conflict during our nominating process is quite normal, especially when our candidates' vision for the nature of government differs as it does with Clinton and Obama. But the nominating process is exactly that -- a process. And despite all of our worry here in April, we will nominate an excellent candidate in August, and we stand an good chance of winning the presidency this fall.

Trust the process.; April 06, 2008 9:33 AM
Amot said...: I trust the rules, the numbers and the logic!
Rules say she may run as long as she wants, but numbers and logic say - If she is behind in June and doesn't drop until August we are losing GE! You can't unite the party in two months!!!; April 06, 2008 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Info: these come from the Federal Election Commission; both candidates look similar. these figures are through Feb.
The links will take you to each candidates individual report.

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_08+P00003392
Individuals Who Gave To: CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM
Sorted By Transaction Type Then Last Name
Committee(s) Used In This Query:

HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT
The query you have chosen matched 119254 individual contributions.

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_ind/2007_P80003338
Individuals Who Gave To: OBAMA, BARACK
Sorted By Transaction Type Then Last Name
Committee(s) Used In This Query:

OBAMA FOR AMERICA
The query you have chosen matched 168606 individual contributions.; April 06, 2008 10:29 AM
Amot said...: Jim, nice info, and some interesting facts:

1. Internet donations and donors are not included, but still Obama prevails in number of donors.
2. Obama leads almost 4:1 in web generated money.
3. Both candidates have about the same average for offline donations - a little under $1000.; April 06, 2008 11:21 AM
countjellybean said...: List of Leaners.

Add Langan, remove Alexander

Clinton [14]:
Bosley
Burke
Donatucci
Farrell
Hardt
Langan
Mafnas
Malone
Martinez, Robert
Moss
Stapleton
Strauss, Bob
Taitano
Umemoto

Obama [8]:
Brazile
Carter
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Johnson, Joe
Kirk
Smith, Edward
Watkins; April 06, 2008 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Amot, I am pretty sure that the reports through Feb 29 have to include all doners, no matter the source or amount.
The total.
The totals for both pretty well match thier claims thru Feb.
Am I correct that FEC law states"
candidate filing must include all
all donations from all sources?; April 06, 2008 1:16 PM
MKSinSA said...: Jim,
Quick clarification: "Contributions must be listed separately on FEC disclosure reports once the total received from any one person exceeds $200 in an election cycle.:

Link: FEC Web Site; April 06, 2008 1:32 PM
Anonymous said...: After further reading of election law it appears contributors who stay under $200 in a calendar year do not have to be listed.; April 06, 2008 1:49 PM
Amot said...: Ok that makes it clear now...
Otherwise it turns out that both campaigns lie about number of donors. I think there is a big difference in the money and donors last three months. Otherwise the difference is $30M or so, but it is all in the last months and lets say the truth - she has fiscal problem.... I don't want to be nasty but the number of donors is important. DNC is short of cash and without a candidate able to find donors and raise money it is lost game!; April 06, 2008 2:03 PM
dwit said...: tyler,

What exactly do you mean by "self- destruct"? If a candidate has made it this far in the process and is leading in the popular and delegate count, despite some pretty incredible odds (race, name and Rovian style attacks),I think we have our guy.

Talk about vetted!

Super dels. would be fools to throw it to Hillary at this point. It would fracture party unity for years to come and you could kiss African American support goodbye forever.

Hmmm, now that I think about it that could be a good thing. We could get a viable third party out of this...NAW! Just remembered the Whig fiasco.

I'll have take a fresh look at that situation. Could be very informative here.; April 06, 2008 3:04 PM
dwit said...: Jim,

Nice work on the FEC numbers. Can't believe I haven't looked at this angle before.

Their campaign $ numbers are remarkably similar. Most of your mainstream media pundits always make it sound as if Obama were just crushing Clinton in fundraising. They seem to think he is grossly outspending Clinton.

The one thing that struck me was that Obama's under $200 donors blow Clintons out of the water...more than 2 to 1.

Obama:

Size of Donations
$200 and Under $78,069,202
$200.01 - $499 $16,998,789
$500 - $999 $16,959,438
$1000 - $1999 $27,070,851
$2000 and Over $56,773,187

Clinton:

Size of Donations
$200 and Under $36,069,988
$200.01 - $499 $9,056,505
$500 - $999 $10,374,868
$1000 - $1999 $24,056,199
$2000 and Over $74,982,856

That kind of says it all to me. We have one candidate largely beholden to a few big donors and the other has a more broad base of support.

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/
mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&
cand_id=P00003392&searchType=
&searchSQLType=&searchKeyword=; April 06, 2008 3:23 PM
dwit said...: Another very interesting phenomenon is how well spread out the Obama contributions are. His 50 state approach seems to be paying off. His Midwest donations blow McCain's out of the water in that typically "red" region. He has outraised Clinton there too, even in Ohio. But the most telling, in my mind, is the South. He is beating both of them soundly there with the exception of Florida. Not sure that one matters much these days anyway.

The one notable exception is South Carolina. Looks like the old Confederacy is still running very strong there.; April 06, 2008 3:48 PM
MKSinSA said...: dwit,

The map is a little misleading as it doesn't account for the $23,610,901.81 in Obama's or the $18,850.00 in Clinton's state-by-state totals where no state was given (internet?) nor donations from the Americans Abroad and other citizens living in foreign countries.; April 06, 2008 4:17 PM
Anonymous said...: I am now cross referencing donors for Clinton, Obama and McCain. and in some cases their ties and possible motivation.
Down the list fo Obama no. 8
AALAEI, FARAJ ATHERTON
CA 94027 12/06/2007 2300.00 CENTILLIUM COMMUNICATION/CEO 28930533855
AALAEI, FARAJOLLAH ATHERTON
CA 94027 09/21/2007 500.00 CEO 27931414652
Hillary Connection
Senator Hillary Clinton Takes Money from Pro-Regime Iranians
By Jim Kouri, CPP on Jan 20, 06
Senator Hillary Clinton yesterday accused President George W. Bush of mishandling the threat from Iran while she’s been accepting money from supporters of the renegade Iranian regime.
Wealthy businessmen Hassan Nemazee and Faraj Aalaei who are associated with the American Iranian Council, a pro-regime, anti-sanctions group, are vocal Clinton supporters and contributors. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Namazee has contributed $4,000 to Clinton’s reelection while Aalaei contributed $1,000.
Insight Magazine, published by the Washington Times, describes their lobby this way: “the American-Iranian Council [AIC], a pro-regime lobbying group [are] trying to get Congress and the Bush administration to lift the trade embargo on Iran.”
According to reports in Hillary Clinton’s home state, she’s also raising money from Gati Kashani, another figure linked with the Iranian Mullahs and who also supports the regime.
FROM American Iranian Council,
Clinton, Hillary
AALAEI, FARAJ
ATHERTON,AL 94027
CENTILLIUM/CEO
3/3/2006
$500
Iranian American PAC; April 06, 2008 4:17 PM
dwit said...: Here are some other interesting numbers.

Notice how large McCain's $2000 and over contributions are to his $200 and below?

McCain:
Size of Donations
$200 and Under $14,728,876
$200.01 - $499 $3,111,859
$500 - $999 $5,228,419
$1000 - $1999 $10,446,918

$2000 and Over $26,966,843

They are nearly twice as many!

Now have a look at Clinton.

Clinton:
Size of Donations
$200 and Under $36,069,988
$200.01 - $499 $9,056,505
$500 - $999 $10,374,868
$1000 - $1999 $24,056,199

$2000 and Over $74,982,856

Same deal as McCain.

Now, what do you think Obama's might be? Drum roll...

Obama:
Size of Donations
$200 and Under $78,069,202
$200.01 - $499 $16,998,789
$500 - $999 $16,959,438
$1000 - $1999 $27,070,851

$2000 and Over $56,773,187

He is the only one who has fewer WEALTHY donors relative to the working class. The way the media tells it, Clinton is the champion of the working poor.

Clinton, is destroying Obama among the rich. They are keeping her campaign afloat. These are the leeches bleeding us dry for health care, education and fuel. This is why many of us get a "business as usual" vibe from both Clinton and McCain.; April 06, 2008 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Some of the info on the AIC came from Gabrielle Cusumano at Townhall.com I gather he is anti-Clinton and not enamored with Obama.
I will not bore you with any more cross reference for candidates, as just a couple hours worth indicates
betting on both hores by the larger contributors.; April 06, 2008 4:35 PM
dwit said...: Jim,

Not sure what the "AIC" is, but I got my numbers from the same FEC site you turned me on to. I'm really just a curious noodler. Thanks for that info!

I don't own a television and get most of my media from the interwebs and a handful of magazines. I have a friend who is totally plugged in and he turns me on to fascinating people and phenomenon from time to time.

I don't usually do this or advocate it, but you guys have to read this guy Matt Taibbi. I have to give you this quote from his Rolling Stone article, bear with me.

It is commentary on how basically lazy and spineless Americans have become when it comes to national and world affairs. The old lemming or sheep analogy. Got to admit I see a bit of myself in his description.

Here is an excerpt...

"So instead of talking about the fact that Barack Obama once introduced a bill to give a tax break to a Japanese company whose lawyers donated fifty grand to his Senate campaign, we're freaking out for five minutes about the fact that Obama's pastor thinks America spread AIDS on purpose in Zambia. And instead of talking about the fact that Hillary Clinton took $110,000 from a New York food company she later helped by introducing a bill to remove import duties on tomatoes, we're ranting and raving about Gerry Ferraro's paranoid ramblings about Obama's blackness. We can't keep our eyes on the ball and really think about the serious endemic problems of our system of government because we're too busy freaking out like a bunch of cartoon characters over silly, meaningless bullshit. And then forgetting about that same bullshit ten minutes later, so that we can freak out all over again about something else later on."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/
story/19729398/generation_squeeb; April 06, 2008 5:09 PM
dwit said...: MKS said...

"The map is a little misleading as it doesn't account for the $23,610,901.81 in Obama's or the $18,850.00 in Clinton's state-by-state totals where no state was given"

I'm a little slow. Not sure what you mean about some states not showing up. Where did you get the above numbers?

Is there no FEC apparatus accounting for foreign resident donations? Are you sure they just don't require the candidates to verify their home state. Or are you referring to foreign governments or something?

Jim,

Sorry. I responded to your article in what must have seemed a strange way. It seems there was some delay in your postings between mine. I'm still reading yours.; April 06, 2008 5:30 PM
dwit said...: Jim,

It seems even the right wing "Washington Times" is now gunning for Hillary. That is an interesting turn of events, given most righty media have been trying to get her the nomination. I guess they may be just using the old shotgun approach. They're bound to hit the nominee no matter who that may be.; April 06, 2008 5:36 PM
Anonymous said...: No problem. I mispelled horse.; April 06, 2008 5:40 PM
dwit said...: Jim,

Here is a less partisan source on the AIC, for what its worth. It looks as though Karl Rove is still doing some work behind the scenes for the RNC.

"The American Iranian Council (AIC) was formed in 1997 as a bi-partisan think tank focused upon promoting better relations between the United States and Iran. Former United States Secretary of State Cyrus Vance was the original honorary Chair of the organization. The AIC is an academic research and education organization that is focused upon improving the dialogue between two countries that often fail to take into account misperceptions, misunderstandings, and mischaracterizations. The AIC seeks to help policy makers as well as concerned citizens become better aware of the interests in common to both countries."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
American_Iranian_Council; April 06, 2008 5:42 PM
dwit said...: I wasn't sure if it was a mispelling of "whore". Either way it makes sense. I mean that in the most androgynous way.; April 06, 2008 5:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Gotta sign off for today.Will check back tomorrow; April 06, 2008 5:55 PM
dwit said...: Oh, and I totally misspelled "phenomena". I was going for the plural.; April 06, 2008 6:02 PM
dwit said...: Good talkin' with you Jim; April 06, 2008 6:03 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hey dwit,

Once you get to the candidate's national map, right below it on the left you'll see a link "[CandidateX's] Current Presidential Filings." The numbers are under "4. Contributions by State," top of the list.

Hope that helps!; April 06, 2008 6:20 PM
Ron said...: Stop reposting your list of leaners it has no relivance and is bogging down the threads. Just like the size of Goverment that Sen. Clinton wants to create. Like the Poverty Czar and department to update her on the progress rebuilding Miss. and La. Sen. Clinton is a true Democrat Big Goverment.; April 06, 2008 8:57 PM
MKSinSA said...: Hi Ron,

I see you're new here and just so you're in the loop Countj's Leaners List is a useful tool we refer to in researching those superdelegates on the brink of endorsement. If this information slows down your computer to an unacceptable pace, there are any number of areas on the site which you may wish to comment.; April 06, 2008 9:34 PM
dwit said...: Ron,

Not sure where you stand politically, but I'm sure Jellybean is a little freaked out by debate and is doing what he/she knows to bring the temp down. That's my take anyway. But I generally agree this is not the proper thread for that kind of punditry.

You must be on board with Obama? Can't imagine if you are for small gov. that you would be backing McCain.; April 06, 2008 9:48 PM
dwit said...: MKS,

Thanks. I'll have a look.; April 06, 2008 9:50 PM
dwit said...: MKS,

Like I said, I'm a little dense and very lazy. Any idea why they haven't included these states on the map?

Wish I had time to go into what I'm sure are complicated laws regarding declarations.; April 06, 2008 10:03 PM
MKSinSA said...: dwit,

The top line is donations from individuals who did not explicitly designate a state and I'm guessing that these were either bundled (not just the infamous 'bundlers') and submitted en mass and over the internet.

The other locations are foreign countries that appear not to have a Dems Abroad chapter (citizens living overseas either temporarily or permanently).; April 06, 2008 10:14 PM
Keryl said...: Jim: Great point. I agree with everything except the Michigan, Fla thing. As a good dem, don't you want the party to stick to the rules, thus hopefully ensuring the future of the party?; April 06, 2008 10:33 PM
dwit said...: MKS,

Just looking at those state numbers not listed on the map. Did you notice the number for Hillary coming from D.C. donors?

$12,744,291.49!!!

Obama's in contrast are merely

$1,012,122.80

Tell me she is not the ultimate insider. Who are these donors? Lobbyists???

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M3/C00431569/
A_STATE_C00431569.html

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M3/C00431445/
A_STATE_C00431445.html; April 06, 2008 11:01 PM
MKSinSA said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 06, 2008 11:52 PM
MKSinSA said...: Gotta take the long way in:

DC map

then select zip 200xx (or whichever 3-digit zip from upper right dropdown); April 06, 2008 11:55 PM
dwit said...: MKS,

Thanks for the map. I'm just a little confused. It seems to only represent a fraction of the donations indicated here:

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2008/M3
/C00431569/A_STATE_C00431569.html; April 07, 2008 2:02 AM
MKSinSA said...: dwit,

Problem is I can't send a link with the search of donors included as it is a server-side delivery. I think you're looking for the donor list in DC, right?

Click on your candidate's name then under the map, select "Zip code" from the dropdown and "begins with" then "200" in the right-hand box. That will pull up the list of donors in that zip code.; April 07, 2008 2:26 AM
dwit said...: Thanks, I got the zip code list but it only represents about $5 million in donations. The link I provided indicates that Clinton has more than $12 million in donations from DC alone.; April 07, 2008 3:23 AM
Wolle said...: i just found a great analysis of the coming primaries (with regard to a still possible Clinton popular vote win without FL&MI)...i think it's a great work and it's really worth reading.

"I should also add that this isn't a prediction, it is a scenario. Predictions are foolish at this point. But I think it is a plausbile scenario, and it is why she continues to fight."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/
2008/04/no_really_hillary_has_a_decent.html; April 07, 2008 9:15 AM
UUbuntu said...: from dwit:
"tyler,

What exactly do you mean by "self- destruct"? If a candidate has made it this far in the process and is leading in the popular and delegate count, despite some pretty incredible odds (race, name and Rovian style attacks),I think we have our guy.

Talk about vetted!
"

I have no doubt that he's been vetted, and I don't worry too much about whether or not he can "survive" the campaign against McCain. I just disagree that we need to come together NOW -- at the beginning of April -- rather than at the beginning of June, after the states have voted and with some 10 weeks before the convention. I have no doubt that within a week of the last primary, many superdelegates will weigh in, and that -- between pledged delegates and announced superdelegates, we'll know the candidate in an official manner.

I also have little doubt that the nominee will be Barack Obama. He's not my first choice, but he will make an excellent candidate and potentially an extraordinary president. I also think he's likely to win in November.

Now, a candidates "self-destruction" (or just plain "destruction") is always possible, even with a candidate as cool and reasonable as Obama. I'm not saying it's likely, but there is always the possibility of dramatic revelations (Ferraro's husband's potential mob ties in 1984) or extraordinary events (Kennedy's assassination in 1968) changing the course of the election, and "calling the race" before when both candidates are short in delegates two months before the last primary seems irresponsible.

I'm not saying people should wait until the convention to "come together", I'm saying that we should wait until early June. Right now, it's early April, and without a clear winner yet (No, 150 delegate lead isn't a clear winner), we can afford to let the remaining primaries vote without their voters feel like their vote doesn't matter.

Relax. June is not August, and April is not June. The people will vote in primaries in the next 8 weeks, the superdelegates will announce en-mass in early June, and unless we are so consumed with Clinton vs. Obama cheerleading that we don't see the positives in our primary opponent, we'll have a candidate we all admire and support. We'll have a winner.; April 07, 2008 9:22 AM
jpsedona said...: Matt / Oreo - I was searching around on DCW to locate a summary of the differences between SD's from AP, CBS, CNN and your own. Is there anywhere that identifies / explains the differences between the sources? For example, it would be really helpful to understand why the AP has 6 additional SD's for Clinton in their counts. When you compare AP vs. CNN, there's an 18 delegate difference; that's pretty huge. I'd sure like to understand the differences.; April 07, 2008 10:31 AM
Richard said...: jpsedona - we don't know exactly what differences there are between the AP/CBS/ABC and DCW, because those news organizations don't release their lists. We do know that some of the difference is that these news organizations include candidates who have revealed their committments 'off-the-record' in phone interviews and in some cases people the campaigns say have committed to them. The problem with those kinds of endorsements (and what sets this site apart) is that there is no way of verifying the endorsement for ourselves. Also, it seems to many that endorsements made publicly and with specific quotes attached are far less likely to change than committments made behind closed doors and off-the-record. That's my take. Anyone else have more info?; April 07, 2008 11:07 AM
dwit said...: Got your point Tyler. I'm sure you mean the best. But, even though Bill thinks we should "chill out" he needs to realize that most Americans aren't sitting on $109 million plus.

This election will determine whether or not my sister in law gets the cancer care she needs. I'm pretty sure Chelsea isn't sitting on $50 thousand in student debt as I am.

This election is very real to those of us who languished through the Reagan/Bush eras. We can't afford to take the gamble that McCain and his Keating 5 cronies might take the White House because progressives can't get it together.; April 07, 2008 2:20 PM
dwit said...: JPsedona,

I believe you are looking for the Super delegate tracker. This is the open thread where we discuss issues important to REAL voters.; April 07, 2008 2:23 PM
Richard said...: countjellybean, I think your list of leaners is useful and I am glad you're tracking it for us. Please don't let what ron said keep you from continuing.; April 07, 2008 3:39 PM
countjellybean said...: MKS and Richard, thanks for the good words. Don't worry about me, I take Ron's words as a mark of distinction.; April 07, 2008 4:27 PM
dwit said...: Wolle,

Yeah, this is the kind of logic we all use when things look hopeless. It is human nature. it is the instinct of self preservation. But all too often in the real world it is wishful thinking.

Nobody is more for the underdog than I am. Hell, I'm a bit of an underdog. So, I definitely admire Hillary's spirit.

Bottom line is that she and Bill are not REAL underdogs. He is a former President and she is a Senator and before that a successful corporate lawyer (Rose Law/clients including Tyson Foods and Wal-Mart). They are multi-millionaires. They have "made it" and I am just afraid they have forgotten where they came from.

I think Hillary has a great platform, but I think she is swimming in special interest money.
That scares me. Take a look at the FEC site Jim, Amot and MKS have provided links for. That says it all to me.

I realize Obama has big corporate money too. Difference is that most of his donors are under $200.

Hillary's and McCain's money mostly come from the top. This tells me that Obama is more electable in a "general"; April 07, 2008 4:28 PM
MKSinSA said...: dwit,

Just got a chance to take a look around the FEC stuff. The map is a month older than the list. It's through 02/29/2008 while the list is most current, 03/20/2008.

I thought you were looking for the names and employers who gave in DC. That detail seems to only come off the map, my bad.; April 07, 2008 4:35 PM
UUbuntu said...: Dwit -- I think we agree. I worked for McGovern in 1972 and have been in progressive politics since then. I think we have two very good -- and very different -- candidates, and our press' and our bloggers' choosing to promote their differences in negative lights doesn't help the situation. We won't lose in November if we don't blow it in April. The fact that many supporters of both candidates behave badly and impatiently is a bigger problem than the candidates' messages themselves.

If I sound sanguine, I'm not. I share your nervousness at this election's outcome. But it's not the June or August outcome that I fear. It's the November outcome. That's the prize, and we need to keep our eyes on it and not be distracted by the flaws in our candidates' primary opponents.

What the candidates need to do now is to focus on McCain, and they are (or Obama is, anyway) putting primary focus on him.; April 07, 2008 4:36 PM
dwit said...: Tyler,

Amen! Let's encourage Hillary and Bill to use their attack dog mentality on McCain! If she had done that in the first place this may have been a very different race. She should have highlighted her work on behalf of children and health care. Unfortunately, she fell into the trap of trying to portray herself as tougher than a man. Its the old Margaret Thatcher complex. I do,however, still believe her donor list is a problem.

I like that Obama has kept his eye on November for most of his campaign. I guess that is why I like him. There is no sense of entitlement with him. He just keeps slingin' the facts instead of mud.

Thanks for the discussion. I do think we are on the same page.; April 07, 2008 5:02 PM
dwit said...: Thanks MKS! Yes, I am interested in those names, but I am also confused on why that $12 million figure from DC is buried under an unassuming link. That number is huge! It represents more than 10% of her entire war chest.

Please correct me if I am misreading that.; April 07, 2008 5:15 PM
MKSinSA said...: dwit,

My SWAG on the delay is that the campaigns probably have to get the main summary info in by a certain time and are given a week or so to get the individual donors in. When those get in (likely in electronic format) the FEC updates their map.

Due to some political infighting, they're operating at a shortfall. Don't know how the commission shortage impacts worker bees, but I'd bet it slows things a little. All in all, they're doing a great job in keeping this thing updated. (OK, so the geek in me really likes the map!); April 07, 2008 5:24 PM
Anonymous said...: What is going on. Obama delegate totals have been dropping in Burnt Orange Report,COUNTY-BY-COUNTY BREAKDOWN. He has now dropped below 52%,current 3972 51.85%
at this rate she will win Texas overall; April 07, 2008 8:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama lost 14 Texas County Caucus delegates since Friday, but no explation; April 07, 2008 8:54 PM
Amot said...: "An error in the file had too many delegates reported for Harris County district 13 overall. This has been resolved, but reduced Obama's count by around 17 delegates." 2 or 3 more mistakes like that may cost him Texas. Overall number of Texas delegates has been reduced too!; April 07, 2008 9:14 PM
Mike Ruth said...: We need to keep the focus on the politics of Unity, not the politics of Division. Division *might* (maybe) get a nominee who can (perhaps) squeak by in November.

But we need a landslide to change the national agenda and reverse 8years of GW Bush entitlement rule. The landslide has to be strong and broad and inclusive enough to carry the moribund establishment Congressional Democrats (and Republicans with a heart) forward.

A divisive and bitter mudslinging nomination that goes on and on might still yield a Democratic president. But if that new Democratic can't (or won't, owing to vested interests) get the Congress to pass the necessary MAJOR laws that need change, then the opportunity to change America will be lost for yet another generation.

Superdelegates! Wake up! Your moment is here to unify the party not just to win the presidency, but to win the contest of history for what the USA will be for the next half century or more. The Democratic president has to move Congress to vote us out of Iraq. To vote us into restoration of the Gulf Coast, voting rights, habeus corpus and back into the Geneva Conventions. The new president will have to get us back to a balanced budget after trillions of wasted Republican dollars. The Republicans will dig their heels in against all of these needs. Only a president who can count on at least solid Democratic support is going to be able to get anything done that needs doing.

Superdelegates! Quit farting around with your petty loyalties and internecine squabbles and delicately coy half-endorsements. Declare your Superdelegate vote NOW and let's get this nomination over with and start uniting for November ... and BEYOND when the going REALLY gets tough.; April 07, 2008 9:50 PM
Bill UK said...: For Obama fans (me included) the RealClearPolitics Poll average:- Democratic Presidential Nomination has Obama on his highest ever rating!

Obama.....48.8%

This is 0.2% higher than before the Wright smear tactics by Clinton hit the headlines. He has a lead over Clinton of 6.8%, and things may soon be getting even better as Obama's rating is still affected by a 'Tie' result (45% each) in the NBC/WSJ poll conducted on March 24-25. As soon as this poll is waived by a more up to date poll Obama could well exceed 50% whilst Clinton could well be below 42%!

What is even more impressive is a diary entry by 'thezzyzx' at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/7/141514/8254

The diary entry explains how in actual fact Clinton's task with SD's is even harder than it first appears. The author cites figures from this site and shows that when the ad-on superdelegates are apportioned they are likely to break 36-28 in Obama's favour. Now subtracting these superdelegate ad-ons from the superdelegate total leaves only 263 or so and not the 330+ that is the total SD figure yet to declare. This means that Clinton has to win over 75% of these remaining SD's! In other words excluding ad-ons Clinton needs to acquire greater than a 3:1 advantage in endorsements from the non ad-on superdelegates.

Just thought those are some interesting figures to brighten up the start of a new week, and of course only 2 weeks to go now until PA, you know that State where Clinton had a lead a few weeks ago of 26% according to one poll.; April 07, 2008 10:19 PM
Bill UK said...: I have to ask a question about the 'electoral college'. My understanding is that the 'electoral college votes' (Clinton camps newest 'goal post manauvering) awards each State with a number of votes. However it is also my understanding that places like American Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico receive no 'electoral college votes'. Is this correct?

The reason I bring this up is because if my understanding (above) is correct then it would seem the Clinton camp have just stuck the preverbial two fingers up at Guam and Puerto Rico (still yet to vote) and of course AVI who have already voted. If this is correct then the press in Guam and Puerto Rico should immediately be informed that their votes are totally worthless according to the Clinton camp!

Now I wonder how voters in Guam and Puerto Rico would feel about Clinton if they knew how she felt about them and their votes?

Just a thought.; April 07, 2008 10:32 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Last Tuesday, I gave a prediction of upcoming primaries. Here's an updated prediction. Polls for Penn and NC have been coming in regularly, and polls for some of the other states are starting to be taken.

For those states with polls, I'll use an average of the latest polls; if only one poll is available (WV and Ken.) I'll use it. For the rest, I'll split the vote at 55% to 45% for the consensus 'favored' candidate.

Like last time, I also realize that the delegates in each primary (except Guam and South Dakota) are apportioned by the vote in the specific districts, and also for the state as a whole - for this purpose, I'm ignoring that apportionment and treating the delegate count as if the candidate receives a uniform vote total across the state. This will skew the prediction to some extent (some districts will go for/against each candidate much differently than the state/territory as a whole), but most likely it evens out over all 10 primaries.

We start with the current Green Papers pledged totals:
Clinton - 1250
Obama - 1414

Pennsylvania (158 pledged delegates [PDs]) - current poll averages show Clinton 48%, Obama 41.4%. 48% of 89.4% gives Clinton 53.7% of the vote.
Clinton: 88
Obama: 70

Guam (4 PDs) - no poll, thus Clinton gets 55%.
Clinton: 2
Obama: 2
(Note - For either candidate to get 3 of the 4 Guam delegates, they need one vote more than 62.5% of the total vote.)

North Carolina (115 PDs) - current poll averages show Clinton 31.5%, Obama 48.5%. 48.5% of 80% gives Obama 60.6%, Clinton 39.4%.
Clinton: 45
Obama: 70

Indiana (72 PDs) - Average of three recent polls: Clinton 51.3%, Obama 41.3%, or 53.7% for Clinton, 46.3% for Obama.
Clinton: 38
Obama: 34

West Virginia (28 PDs) - Rasmussen poll of March 13 shows Clinton at 55%, Obama at 27%. Clinton thus gets 67% and Obama gets 33%.
Clinton: 19
Obama: 9

Kentucky (51 PDs) - SurveyUSA poll of March 31 shows Clinton at 58%, Obama at 29%. Clinton thus gets 67% and Obama gets 33%.
Clinton: 32
Obama: 19

Oregon (52 PDs) - no polls. 'Conventional wisdom' says Obama, so he gets 55%.
Clinton: 23
Obama: 29

Puerto Rico (55 PDs) - no polls. 'Conventional wisdom' says Clinton, so she gets 55%.
Clinton: 28
Obama: 24

South Dakota (15 PDs) - no polls. 'Conventional wisdom' says Obama, so he gets 55%.
Clinton: 7
Obama: 8

Montana (16 PDs) - no polls. 'Conventional wisdom' says Obama, so he gets 55%.
Clinton: 7
Obama: 9

Totals:
Clinton - 289
Obama - 274

Clinton - 1250 + 289 = 1539
Obama - 1414 + 274 = 1688

DCW shows the super delegate count as Clinton at 246 and Obama at 221. The pledged and super counts for each would be:
Clinton - 1539 + 246 = 1785, or 235 delegates short of the nomination.
Obama - 1688 + 221 = 1909, or 114 delegates short of the nomination.

That means Obama would need to get 114 (34%) of the remaining undeclared supers to win the nomination, while Clinton would need 235 (70%).

Mike; April 08, 2008 1:26 AM
Bill UK said...: Mike, great work, but see my post immediately above yours and please view the link to the post on Daily Kos.

Because 60+ of the superdelegates remaining are actually add-on delegates they can be calculated (with a fair degree of accuracy) who they will be for.

Using a mixture of your calculations and those from the Daily Kos link the figures would be as follows:

Clinton

Mike's figure 1,785
SD add-ons 28

Total 1,813

No. extra SD's required 190.5

Obama

Mike's figure 1,909
SD add-ons 36

Total 1,945

No. extra SD's required 78.5

There is a total remaining of 326 SD's but subtracting the add-ons of 64 allocated above this reduces to 262 SD's yet to declare or be apportioned.

Also we then have the 5 members of the Pelosi club (I will ignor those that have endorsed Clinton previously)plus Jimmy Carter and Campbell (Montana) which everyone must now surely see will be solidly in the Obama camp. This therefore gives another 7 to Obama, this now makes the SD's required by each candidate as follows:

Clinton 190.5

Obama 71.5

from a total of 256 SD's.

Therefore the percentage of superdelegates in reality required is:

Clinton 190.5/256 = 74.4%

Obama 71.5/256 = 27.9%

I think this is about as accurate as we can get at the moment, and I am sure the Clinton and Obama camps have calculated along the same lines, hence the reason why the Clinton camp have all but abandoned the superdelegate argument and have now started switching to the ludicrous argument that it should be 'electoral college votes' that count!; April 08, 2008 5:49 AM
Amot said...: Bill_UK as usual you are correct!
My estimations are very close to yours though I project that Obama will come out with a net gain from the last 10 contests and as a winner of the popular vote (MI not included). I expect him winning +285 delegates for total of 1705 pledged. Add your 36 add-ons, add "Pelosi club", add Carter & Campbell, add 221 supers he has now - 1970!!! He needs merely 55 of the rest. If he keeps his speed of one delegate per day, on June 3rd he will have it! No need Clinton to drop out, he will have the nomination secured!; April 08, 2008 9:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Not so fast Mike in Maryland & Bill UK
The nomination will not be legitimate unless Florida & Michigan are counted. I will use your numbers . With Michgan & FL included , Hillary will have 2017 delegates and Obama will have 2006 delegates.Out of the remaining 362 super delegates and using the same ratio as today , Hillary will get 191 and Obama 161.Thus total for Hillary will be 2197 and Obama will have 2178. Thus Hillary wins.

The numbers may be off a bit here. It does not matter. In electoral college method, Hillary will get 50% more electoral votes than Obama.THAT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE !!! ( This is how the General Elections will be run in November)No Democrat should ignore that unless you are so biased like(extreme leftists) Kennedy and Kerry who are all time losers and blind to the facts.

So not giving the nomination to her will be suicidal and 28% of Hillary supporters will rather vote for McCain than an inexperienced candidate like Obama who does not know right from wrong and Wright's shadow hanging over his head will result in victory for the Republicans as all current polls are showing.

If we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win the battleground states, just like Ohio. She has won Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Arkansas, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Tennessee.

Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama; April 08, 2008 1:53 PM
alaric said...: It's the general election that is important.

Winning the general election and putting a Democrat in the White House is the only goal we should be working toward.

Both of our potential nominees are excellent Democrats and are held in high regard for their views by a majority in our party. But, as in the past, it's the moderates, the undecided, and the "swing" voters who will decide the general election. Democrats need a nominee that will appeal to them more than McCain.

If we nominate a candidate that is seen as "far left" or radical, we'll lose these middle voters whom we desperately need to vote Democrat in order to win the general election against McCain.

Make no mistake, McCain is courting the middle voters even to the point of alienating the Right wing of his own party. So we need a candidate that is seen as centrist. A stable, experienced politician who can build unity to achieve the goals which will benefit everyone. Practical Democrats know that's what is needed for a win in November.

Senator Clinton is viewed as a moderate Democrat and a centrist. She is disliked by both extremes, the far-left as well as the far-right, placing her right in the middle. Which is exactly what we need for a win in November.

In the general election, Clinton's position on the war will actually benefit the Democrats because it mirrors the swing voters' position exactly: Early support for the nation in the wake of 9/11, turning to dismay at the Bush administration's incompetence. It's a reasonable position that will resonate well with the majority of voters.

The problem is not Democrats voting for McCain; they won't. The challenge facing us is getting an electable candidate to win against McCain.

Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to capture the middle voters and ultimately lead the Democrats to a long overdue victory for the White House.; April 08, 2008 2:37 PM
jpsedona said...: Michael, several aspects of your analysis related to "Thus Hillary Wins" are wishful thinking. There is zero chance of any of the FL & MI delegates being included unless both candidates agree. And until one concedes, they won't agree. So, what you are really looking at is the contests through June determining the winner. The votes in FL & MI will NOT determine a winner in the nomination process... it's not going to happen.

When the SD's jump on the band wagon of the concensus winner through June 6, the winner will seat the delegations from FL & MI. This won't change the outcome of the nomination at that point.

If Hillary scores a knock out in the remaining primaries and the SD's jump on her bandwagon, it won't matter if she goes 50-50 in Michigan and Florida. If Obama essentially breaks even through the remaining primaries, he'll be ahead by any measure not counting MI & FL. The superdelegates will jump on his bandwagin, including Hillary supporters. He can then be gracious and seat the FL delegate in proportion to the primary votes. In MI, Hillary will allow 50-50 because she will have conceded the nomination at that point and even taking a majority of the delegates won't bring her close once the SD's endorse Obama.

That's what's going to happen, you can place a bet on it!; April 08, 2008 4:40 PM
Bill UK said...: Concerning Florida and Michigan, those that think the full delegate count from those States will be seated 'as is' are simply deluding themselves. This is the polite way of saying they are talking rubbish.

There is no way in which Michigan result will stand, Obama was not on the voting slip and Clinton's name should not have been on there either, except she 'forgot' to remove it! (Don't worry it was probably due to sleep deprevation or memories of sniper fire in Bosnia or her bringing peace to Northern Ireland by eating fish and chips or of course wondering how much money she and her husband made by supporting NAFTA, etc..)

As far as Florida goes it is a farse, the Democrats in the STate legislature did not object to the early running of the primary and were in fact supporting it. They directly went against the rules and therefore must be punished (as must Michigan).

There are several scenarios to get both sets of the delegates seated at the convention. However, punished they must be and punished they will be!

Either both sets of STate delegates are split 50/50 between the two remaining candidates, or the split is based on the national popular vote (excluding Florida and Michigan), and at the same time have their votes reduced by 50% each.

If you think any other solution drastically different to the above is going to happen you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

As for the new Clinton whine of 'it should be 'electoral votes that decide the nomination' this is total rubbish. May I ask how many electoral college votes Puerto Rico has? Or how many electoral college votes Guam has? I am sure the voters in these territories would love to know now just how highly Clinton thinks of them and theimportance of their votes!; April 08, 2008 5:18 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Bill UK and Amot:

I based my figures on what is known as of the time I wrote the message. I'm using the same philosophy as the team at DemComWatch - unless and until a delegate makes an unmistakable endorsement, I don't include them.

That is why, as to add-ons, I can't in good conscience factor in the entry made by 'thezzyzx' at Daily Kos - it is speculation on his/her part. That speculation may be correct, then again it may not be - we don't know how s/he is determining how the add-ons (who still haven't all been chosen) are leaning.

Also consider, some add-ons will be chosen by the party's state central committee, some chosen at a state party convention, and some by other means. We've seen in the Texas convention that votes can change. Who knows if/how they'll change in other states?

When the add-ons are chosen and make their endorsements, they can and will be added to the tally I'm keeping. It's the old "We know what should happen, but that's not necessarily what WILL happen" scenario. And I'm not counting chickens before they hatch.

Amot - I'm unsure how you figure Obama will come out with a net gain of delegates in the remaining primaries. In which states do you show differences from my figures? This estimation, compared to my previous one, shows a bit of "a drift" towards Clinton mainly because I now have some poll figures from West Virginia and Kentucky that I didn't have last time, and those figures show the potential voting tilted much more towards Clinton than what I guesstimated for her last week. I figured her at 55% in those two stats, but the polls I've seen show her at about 67%.

Are you figuring in that one candidate or the other will be stronger in certain Congressional Districts, thus your scenario differs from mine? Are you figuring that one candidate is favored in a state, where I show the other candidate? Are you using different poll numbers? I'm using the poll numbers I can find, and not guessing where those numbers will be on election day - the scenario is as it exists today from my perspective, not as I think it will be on election day in that state/territory.

Mike; April 08, 2008 5:38 PM
Amot said...: Yes, Mike, you found it - I do projection on CD level (except for PR - I do general calculation there). I asked Matt and Oreo in another post to start a thread dedicated to polls and projections only but it looks they don't buy it yet! I will try to make a Google sheet and give you a link. I think you read my projection here dated April 2nd. It was Obama +4. Little have changed. Recent polls have confirmed OR and I believe you can easily calculate OR 29/23, MT 9/7, WV 9/19 and SD 8/7 by yourself. Those are easy to predict on district level. KY 19/32 is a little bit tricky (CD1 2/3, CD2 2/3, CD3 4/4, CD4 2/3, CD5 1/4, CD6 2/4). I altered IN and now my projection is Clinton +4, but CD6-9 are absolutely hard to tell yet, and tie is very likely after the bus tour this week! NC goes now 71/44 instead of 70/45, 3 variable CDs here, and also if the spread goes to 25% one more PLEO Obama. PA confirmed tie. Only 2 CDs can go other than projected (unlikely to happen). I used four sources to make regional crosstabs. And we have Guam - I bet it goes 70% or more Obama, and he needs 62,5% to secure 3 out of 4 there. Last one - PR. I guess he will use Bill Richardson and the local governor the best possible way. Plus he is making serious inroads with Latinos, actually he is winning PA Latinos according to recent polls. But nontheless I will assume she will carry PR 60%:40% and will give her net gain of 11 delegates.
Total Obama gains: Guam +2, NC +27, MT +2, OR +6, SD +1, total +38
Total Clinton gains: KY +13, WV +10, PR +11, IN +4, total +38
PA - Tie, Total all - Tie!!!
That is the worst scenario, I think he will tie in IN for total of +4, and he will be -3 or -5 in PR instead of -11. I know you have questions - go on asking :); April 08, 2008 11:48 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 09, 2008 12:16 AM
Unknown said...: Florida and Michigan did not vote "normally". They voted under the assumption that their votes wouldn't count. Also, the candidates did not campaign in the states.

It is both of their faults for going along with this boneheaded decision. Now Dean is just burying his head in the sand and hoping it will go away.

The vote can not count in FL and MI. It could not be certified as a fair vote. There has to be a new vote.

Finally, I don't like the word "disenfranchised." It sounds like we don't have the right to own a McDonalds. We have the constitutional right to vote, and voting is a process which includes the primaries.

It doesn't address whether we are being disenfranchised from a right, or from a tradition. According to Howard Dean, voting in a primary is not a right, just a tradition. A right can't be taken away without committing a crime.

But I do think the right to vote means the right to participate fully in the voting process that is in place. How can you say the right to vote is just for the general election, but not for the primary?

Its my right to vote. Howard Dean and anyone else involved in the decision to "disenfranchise" me should be prosecuted.; April 09, 2008 12:19 AM
dwit said...: alaric,

Couldn't disagree more. If the Bush and Reagan presidencies have shown us anything its that you run to the base to win. Its the zealots who make it to the polls and light fires under asses.

If your definition of "moderate" is "Hillary" then you must love Lieberman. Why not just go for McCain?; April 09, 2008 12:21 AM
Amot said...: I think both Obama and Clinton can win GE against McCain! Or they can both lose! But if we are going to vote at the primary thinking about the future why not ask the next future question - who will be the best president? We don't have to elect Clinton just because she is electable (unless she goes on with the kitchen sink strategy that kills both her and Obama chances). I think Clinton has clear and simple strategy to win GE. 15 or 16 states and that's all. When you do the math you see it can be done, but you can't make a mistake or you lose it! Obama wants to do it the more elegant way - play in 30 or more states, lose some, win some and get into the White House! I like that more since he can make mistakes and compensate them! They say he can't win FL! And MI! He never campaigned there and we know how great campaigner he is! I bet he can win FL if he spends a week or two there! And MI! And PA! Any swing state he wants! If he plays good he can achieve major victory - winning 100 delegates more than McCain! But major victory is not the aim... we are aiming at better president! Well, anyone is better than Bush :) Let's say we are aiming at the best president possible! Sorry Hillary, that's not you! I don't like misspeakers! I don't want President, who will deceive me consciously and than play the misspoke card! Or lapsus lingua card (Richardson case)! In NY they don't pay attention to such small things, go back and get re-elected!

About FL - I changed my mind and now I think they had partially fair vote, that can be used to create 50% reduced delegation! The numbers (turnout, polls) say enough voters took part and the results reflect the preferences in the state (at that time).; April 09, 2008 1:05 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Amot,

Thanks for the reply.

I don't think Penn will end up in a tie. There are too many districts with an odd number of delegates - All except CD 6 (with 6 delegates) and CDs 5, 10. 16, 17, and 19 (w/4 each) have odd number of delegates, along with the 20 PLEOs.

CD 2 with 9 delegates should be somewhat easy for a delegate to get more than a 5/4 split, needing just under 61.2% of the vote to go 6/3. If a CD has 7 delegates, the winner has to get about 64.2% of the vote to get a 5/2 split. A 5 delegate district is even more difficult, with the winner needing 70% plus one vote to get a 4/1 vs 3/2 split.

Obama could get one or two 5/2 splits in 7 member districts (CDs 1, 7, 8, 13 and 14), with CDs 1, 7 or 8 the most likely, but I think Clinton will get the 2/1 split in CD 9 and all the 3/2 splits (CDs 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 18). I also think all the even number delegate districts will split evenly.

This would change my predicted PA result from 88/70 to 86/72 or possibly 84/74. Depending on the exact state-wide vote split, it also could slightly change the At Large and PLEO split, but only by 2 or 3 either way total.

In Indiana, CD 1 and 7 are the most favorable for Obama, but since they are both 6 delegate districts, it would be difficult for him to get a 4/2 split in either. I don't think either will get a large enough vote split in any other district to tilt Indiana from a 38/34 split unless Obama wins statewide, then he wins the state 38/34 or 39/33. I don't see that happening, though.

We agree on WV, KY, SD, MT (even if we get the KY delegate count via different routes). Obama may win Guam, but less likely (IMO) of getting the 3/1 split than a straight-up win. And you are splitting NC 71/44, where I have NC at 70/45, so the difference matters very little. If he gets a 24 to 26% win there, though, it changes the At Large and PLEO margins a small amount. I have him winning at just under 20% for a 23/15 split. A 24% Obama win wouldn't change that, but a 26% win would change it to a 24/14 split. To get that, though, would also mean a delegate or two more in a couple of districts, so the total would change the split by 4 to 6 in his favor.

In effect, the difference in our figures boils down to Pennsylvania, where I don't see an even split, but you do. And the biggest variable will be in the At Large and PLEO delegates, depending on whether Obama continues to close the margin.

We'll know what happens in two weeks. In the meantime, I'll continue to refine my estimates, and post at least one more update.

Mike; April 09, 2008 1:17 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Roy Tee-

I think Dean is correct.

Voting in a primary is much different than voting in the general election.

The democratic primaries are for picking a 'nominee', not 'to elect' a person like in the general election.

Every 'party' has a right to set the rules they adopt for picking the person to represent the party in the general election.

I suppose if I wanted to start a new party called the < fill in the blank > party then the rule could be for each of the candidates to draw straws to decide who the candidate would be to represent the party in the general election.

I must confess that I don't know all the rules but that is sorta how I understand how it works. I'm sure someone here on the blog will correct me if I've mis-spoke.; April 09, 2008 1:19 AM
Amot said...: Ok, here is my detailed PA (Obama/Clinton):
CD1,7,8,13,14 - 4/3; CD2 - 6/3;
CD3,4,11,12,18 - 2/3; CD6 -3/3;
CD5,16,17,19 - 2/2; CD9 - 1/2;
CD10 - 1/3; CD 15 - 3/2
I see we differ in CD10. And we disagree on CD15. I agree CD2 most probably will go 6/3. There are moderate (30%) chance for 5/2 in CD1 and small (10%) one in CD8. I also think surprise can happen in CD9, but I need to see some more polls to change the projection.
CD delegates go 52/51 Obama - I think you have the same number!
I don't know how you calculate at-large and PLEO - I assume she will win with less than 5% and they split 17/18 and 10/10. Even is she wins by 5,7%-11,5% she nets 4 delegates from PA! Can't figure out how big win do you expect for her to net dozen or so delegates?
About In - I expect 4/2 in CD7 otherwise I agree. But I make a prediction here about him improving and winning the state by 1% or so!And I also expect him to get 3/3 in either CD8 or CD9 (another option 3/2 CD6). In my current projection he wins CD7, ties CD1-5 and loses the rest - IN is very unlucky for him regarding delegates distribution (on the other hand PA has it in his favor).
NC - I expect surprise from CD9,12&13. I have projection of 20% lead for 71/44, but there is a large procentage unsure voters and I found also that the turnout has not yet reached its potential. If that happens we may see changes in the 3 districts plus move of one PLEO and (very unlikely) one at-large toward Obama. PA results will influence that too! There is small but visible trend that neutrals vote against her in order to end the race for the good of the party though they think she is otherwise good candidate.
Guam has caucus - do I need to say more :); April 09, 2008 2:22 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: "Guam has caucus - do I need to say more :)"

For some reason, I thought Guam was a primary - and now that I know it's a caucus (confirmed it at The Green Papers), I agree with you on Guam. It shouldn't be hard for Obama to get the 62.5% + one vote to get a 3/1 split based on past history.

Mike; April 09, 2008 5:01 AM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 09, 2008 5:31 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Amot,

"I don't know how you calculate at-large and PLEO - I assume she will win with less than 5% and they split 17/18 and 10/10."

The method I've used for At Large and PLEO is based on the current poll average. I'm not projecting a change of the polls into the guesstimate (even if I want one!).

As of now, the polls are showing Clinton averages (projecting to 100%) 53.6% and Obama at 46.4%.

The projecting is that undecideds will break in the same manner as the current polls. I could 'fudge' them to break differently, but by what factor and to whom? I won't project unless or until there is more info on to whom the undecideds might break, and to what extent. Two weeks out is still early for that.

There are 35 At Large delegates, so:
35 X .536 = 18.76, or 19 delegates for Clinton, and 16.24, or 16 for Obama.

If the margin goes down to Clinton with 52.8%, then the At Large split goes to 18/17.

PLEO delegates number 20, so:
20 X .536 = 10.72, or 11 delegates for Clinton, and 9.28, or 9 for Obama.

If Clinton wins by less than 5% of the vote (between 50% + one and 52.5% minus one), the PLEO goes to a 10/10 split.

As it is, just a 1.25% shift in the polls (if the election reflects the polls) could mean a 3 delegate shift in the At Large and PLEO delegate split without any shift in the CD delegate split. At the rate of shift some polls are showing, it could be a REAL tight race in the Keystone state.

Mike; April 09, 2008 5:48 AM
dwit said...: Let's not forget Guamanian culture is historically matriarchal. Anybody have any firsthand knowledge of the culture there today?

My friend is originally from there and her mother certainly is a very gregarious and outspoken lady.; April 09, 2008 5:50 AM
dwit said...: I guess talk of the Guam vote is little superfluous anyway. I let my curiosity get the best of me on that one.; April 09, 2008 6:24 AM
jpsedona said...: Roy Tee,

You said "Its my right to vote. Howard Dean and anyone else involved in the decision to "disenfranchise" me should be prosecuted."

When it comes to the selection of a presidential nominee, you are not guaranteed a vote. This is not a general election (local, county, state, national).

At one point, all of the delegates to the conventiosn were selected by state party officials. If a state wanted to adopt this approach today, it would be "legal". Of course the DNC would NOT permit it, and since they make the rules, that state's delegation would probably not be seated at a convention.

Consider that in FL, the courts did not intervene in the process since it's all associated with the Democratic party. This is the same reason why states are allowed to choose Dem only selection process or one open to Dems & independents (or even one with republicans).

You are not entitled by law to a vote in the nomination process. It's a party process and the party makes the rules. So, as far as prosecuting the DNC & Dean, I suggest that you change to the Republican party to show your displeasure.; April 09, 2008 10:17 AM
MKSinSA said...: jpsedona,

You make a good point. I'd say if anyone was "disenfranchised" it would certainly be registered Independents in closed primary states. Heck, we don't even have a party to play in. Then again, as I'm Democrat-leaning this primary season and had the opportunity to select a party, I've not felt this sense of "disenfranchisement" as I've generally not had a horse in the race.; April 09, 2008 10:33 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I think that the people that should be the most upset are the folks in Michigan and Florida that were told before the primaries that the votes would not count so they stayed home and DIDN'T VOTE - and now the Clinton camp is so intent on having the two states count without having 'everyone' having their voices heard.

If I lived in Michigan or Florida I would be furious at Hillary.

Obama was the one playing by the rules and he seems to be getting the most back-lash from the Clinton spin. It is disgraceful.; April 09, 2008 2:17 PM
Amot said...: Mike, your calculation is correct. I have one only thing to add - if Cllinton either wins or loses by less than 5% PLEOs go 10/10!
And about polls - I am using the last surveys conducted by PPP, Rasmussen, ARG, Strategic Vision, Quinnipac and Insider Advantage! Medium is 3,66% lead, with the proportion ot 10% undecided - 4% lead - 52% Clinton, 48% Obama.
If you take a better look you will see that Survey USA poll must be considered statistical noise and must be excluded. I don't input in my prediction turnout, students (they are not reachable most of the time), newly registered voters (not in the database of the pollsters yet) and anything that can happen during next two weeks! This is a tie projection of the situation as is! Smile, those are good news :); April 09, 2008 2:40 PM
dwit said...: You are right on about that MKS. Nobody seems to care about the independents until things are looking a little rough.

Dems are lucky that many of us happen to be civil libertarians. My fiscal conservatism has certainly been tested, however. Fortunately for dems again that Republitards seem to be even more careless with our money.

http://progressiveindependent.com/shalom/pia/about.htm; April 09, 2008 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Ohio Democratic Primary
Tuesday, March 4 | Delegates at Stake: 161

Polls: 3 weeks out Clinton leads by almost 20; 1 week out Obama closes fast down about 5, day before Obama wipes out Clintons lead, Tie.
Results, Clinton wins by 10

New Hampshire Democratic Primary
Tuesday, January 8 | Delegates at Stake: 22 Pols 1 week out Clinton up by about 15; last day, Obama takes lead by about 5.
Final Clinton wins by 2.
My Pennsylvania Prediction: Clinton by 11; April 09, 2008 4:17 PM
dwit said...: Amot, Jim, Mike. These are interesting numbers. Think you guys might be on the wrong thread, though. This is the "open thread". There are a ton of delegate trackers out there.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2007
/12/delegate-tracker.html

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/
ultimate-delegate-summary.html

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/
ultimate-delegate-tracker.html

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/
superdelegate-history-tracker.html

Most of us here are waaay over all the talk of party insiders deciding this thing. I happen to believe, some dems will lose seats over this. So be it. Maybe we'll finally get a 3rd party...DOUBT IT!

Here we unearth the hypocrisy and kid ourselves that anybody else gives a flyin' f@ck.

Kind of nerdy...but fun!; April 09, 2008 4:31 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: My Pennsylvania Prediction: Clinton by 3
But I am still holding out hope and praying that Obama will win Pennsylvania and then Clinton will drop out.; April 09, 2008 4:31 PM
MKSinSA said...: Dang you people!

You made me go and do it ... my Pennsylvania Prediction: Clinton by 9. I HATE you all :)

P.S. I'm also going out on a limb to pick Kansas Jayhawks for National Champs?; April 09, 2008 4:53 PM
Anonymous said...: I kind of agree with Jim that Clinton will win Pennsylvania by 11. Survey USA is one of the most accurate polls as they are not bribed by money heavy candidate.They are showing

In addition I do believe that Clinton and Obama will not agree on how FL & MI votes will be counted. Delegates from FL & MI will be seated at the convention with the provision that they vote freely on the second ballot.That is the only way you avoiddivision in the party.

No matter what DNC does , there are powerfull people on both sides and dispute will not be settled till the convention and on the second ballot Hillary will win as she is the more experienced candidate and not burdened by Wright affair. This is the right thing to do as she is leading in electoral votes by 50% margin over Obama and Democratic party is not stupid to nominate a weak candidate.

Obama's totals thus far have come in great part from state caucuses nearly as much as from actual primaries. (Eleven out of the 30 states and other entities he has won held caucuses, not primaries. Washington held both, as did Texas, where Obama won the caucuses and lost the popular vote.)

Of the two systems, caucuses are by far the less democratic -- which may be why there will be exactly zero caucuses in this fall's general election. By excluding voters who cannot attend during the limited times available, the caucuses skew participation toward affluent activists and students, and against working people, mothers and caregivers, and the military. Clinton's victories, by contrast, have come overwhelmingly in states with primaries, not caucuses.

Obama is certainly entitled to the delegates he won in the caucuses. But he can hardly, on that account, claim that he is clearly the popular favorite.; April 09, 2008 5:15 PM
dwit said...: Tony,

I am from Washington State and I can tell you that Obama won both the caucus and popular vote here.

http://vote.wa.gov/elections/wei/
results.aspx?ElectionID=3

AND HE IS WINNING THE POPULAR VOTE NATION WIDE! That even includes Florida and Michigan.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/
democratic_vote_count.html

HE IS THE WINNER! Hillary doesn't have a chance unless she takes every primary from here on out by at least 70%.

Anyone with sense knows that ain't gonna happen.; April 09, 2008 5:38 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Tony,

Clinton won the popular vote total in Texas. If she is the nominee, do you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY think she'll win Texas in the General Election against McCain?????

Obama won Maryland, both the popular vote and the delegate vote. If he is the nominee, do you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY think he'll lose Maryland in the General Election against McCain?????

Obama won Vermont, both the popular vote and the delegate vote. If he is the nominee, do you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY think he'll lose Vermont in the General Election against McCain?????

Just those three examples blows the hole in your poor attempt at an argument.

The rules used in the primaries for winning the nomination are different than the rules for winning the General Election. Those rules were set in place in 2006. If Clinton didn't like the rules, she had the influence to change them then. She didn't because she thought she would be handed the nomination, so the fine points of the rules didn't matter to her and her supporters.

Now she is behind. She wants to change the rules in the fourth quarter.

Is that the mark of a leader?

Mike; April 09, 2008 5:42 PM
MKSinSA said...: Okay,

Why can't we just agree that an MKSinSA/dwit or dwit/MKSinSA ticket could win this?

Leah - Attorney General.
Countjellybean - Secretary of Treasury.
Mike in Maryland - Secretary of Education.
Tyler - Secretary of State.
Mikeruthgis - Secretary of Education.
Subodh/Michael/Jackie - Secretary of Defense
jim - Secretary of Health and Human Services
Richard - Secretary of Labor
wolle - Secretary of the Interior
bill in UK - Secretary of Commerce

Perhaps we can have a primary for the top positions? Felt a need to get caught up in the "silly season."; April 09, 2008 6:10 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Amot said "about polls - I am using the last surveys conducted by PPP, Rasmussen, ARG, Strategic Vision, Quinnipac and Insider Advantage!"

I'm using the polls posted at http://realclearpolitics.com/polls . For Pennsylvania, I saw the SurveyUSA poll as a REAL outlier, so I didn' include it. Also the PPP poll (at the time I did my guesstimate) was an outlier (though not as far) in the opposite direction, showing Obama up by 3.

To try to get a more accurate number, I tossed both outliers and used the average of the other polls. That's probably why we're off by a small fraction, but that fraction is magnified to some extent in the delegate count.

I see that PPP has put out another poll now, with Clinton at 46 and Obama at 43. It is much more in line with the other polls, so I'll probably use PPP in the results next time. That SurveyUSA poll is STILL the outlier, though, and I don't trust it. Clinton by 18 when Insider Advantage has her by 10, and the others show her lead in the mid-single digits? Something seems very wrong with that SurveyUSA poll, given that all the others are in so much closer agreement, and they average more than 10 points lower.

Mike; April 09, 2008 6:36 PM
Anonymous said...: dwit & mike from Maryland.

Do you think Obama has any chance of winning FL, MI, PA & OH? zero zip --End of the story. GE lost.He will be in the freezer for rest of his life like Kerry, Dean, Kennedy ,etc. He will never be nominated again.

As for the total votes are concerned , with FL & MI Hillary is behind by 80000 votes . Once PA is done she will start leading again without ever losing the countagain.

Finally, there is the disquieting question of acknowledging what kind of democracy will determine who wins the presidency in 2008. Strong arguments could be made that, in a thoroughgoing democracy, voters choose presidents with a direct, plebiscitary system. The candidate who commands a majority of the popular vote nationally wins the election. But, interesting as they might be as an academic exercise, such musings are irrelevant to the politics of 2008. We have a winner-take-all system, but it operates on a state-by-state basis . Like it or not, we will choose the president under the indirect and fractured democracy of the Electoral College.

Obama has tried to reinforce his democratic bona fides by asserting his superior electability, and by claiming that Clinton's supporters are more likely to back him in November than vice versa. The polls, however, show otherwise. And even more important, the polling data on the electoral vote totals show an outcome very different from the one suggested by Obama. The latest state-by-state figures updated from SurveyUSA, indicate that if the election were held today, Clinton would defeat McCain in the Electoral College because of her lead in big, electoral-vote-rich states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- and McCain would beat Obama.

In the final analysis, though, the fights inside the Democratic Party aren't really about either an ideal American democracy or the American democracy that actually exists. According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a candidate arguing this way. But everybody should see it for what it is -- not something new or transformative, but one of the oldest ploys in the playbook of American politics.

Let us stop being partisans and start using brains for a change and find a way so that we win the GE in NOV.; April 09, 2008 6:44 PM
Amot said...: Tony, let's say me and you run for mayor of my city! And we both don't campaign! Who will win? YOU?!?!
Ladies and gentlemen, you forget something very very important - Obama never campaigned in FL and MI he is somewhat unknown face there! He is a hell of campaigner and recently he does well even with blue-collar workers! After he spends a week in MI and a week in FL he will win the both in GE. I am sure he can win in any other swing state if he concentrates his efforts there. After PA you will admit he makes miracles after he visits the place. BTW am I the only person believing he can win TX (I think he needs VP who can help him win there)?
GE polls are just numbers now when he is yet unknown in many of the states - they had so many contests on Super Tuesday that he did not caimpaign the best way!
I am afraid of one thing only - March 4th scenario! To win big in PA Clinton needs negative campaign - like 3AM ad and NAFTA scandal! Clinton can win GE if she wins the nomination in a fair manner. That is possible only if some major bad news come out for Obama! I wish she doesn't try to make such news herself, because she and the party will lose half the Dems forever. You can't win anything only with the core of the party!

About posting about polls and delegates here - it is open thread :) you guys post here about FL and MI while I post in the special thread. I asked Matt and Oreo to give us thread dedicated to predictions and polls. Since there is no such I will post where the debate is!

It looks like there is no Secretary position for me :(((

About PA - margin is important but most important are delegates gained! And in this state Obama is in favorable position. He can even lose by 10% and still win district delegates.

Those gonna be two very long weeks!; April 09, 2008 7:19 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Tony said, "Let us stop being partisans and start using brains for a change"

It is painfully obvious that you are the one playing partisan for Clinton, and twisting and contorting things so that they favor Clinton.

How do you count 'popular vote'? Not count the caucuses? Clinton and Clinton die-hards say 'you can't count caucuses.' So we toss out the results from Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, American Somoa, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Democrats Abroad, Nebraska, Virgin Islands, Washington state, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming and Guam and tell the people who participated that they can 'go to hell', even though those states followed the rules set forth by the Democratic Parry? In effect, that's what the Clinton people are saying.

If she can't follow the rules for the primaries and caucuses, what will she say and do when if she finds herself behind in the run-up to the General Election? Wyoming is too small and is overrepresented in the Electoral College? Idaho voters don't reflect the views of the rest of America? Texas is too corrupt to be allowed a say in American politics? Utah is too Morman?

But when states did NOT follow the rules, you want to change the rules so their votes can count?

On another point - If Hillary wants to state that she would be able to lead the country from day one, doesn't the fact that she didn't have a Plan B for winning the nomination if Super Tuesday didn't go her way (and it didn't) speak volumes about her [in]ability to plan ahead?

And speaking of [in]ability to plan ahead, why did she wait until the primary season began before she started making noise about the 'poor voters of Michigan and Florida'? Why didn't she try to get their votes counted back in the summer of 2007? Why nothing then, but when she saw the results, she said it was 'a crime that the votes don't count'? Remember, in October, 2007 (less than 3 months before Iowa voted), she stated that the votes wouldn't count.

Her lies about NAFTA, sniper-fire in Bosnia, and the Ohio mom who was 'denied health care' do not speak much about her ability to separate fact from fantasy.

Her inability to admit that her vote on the Iraq war resolution was a mistake doesn't show she can admit she made a mistake, and learn from those mistakes. What does that say about her ability to face reality and the facts if she were President? One of Bush's main problems is his inability to face facts and realize the facts differ from his "through the looking-glass" mentality.

The more people learn about what she says now compared with what she said and did in the past will increase her negatives. Her inability to make a simple "I made a mistake" statement on even ONE of the above incidents (Iraq war resolution? Sniper fire? Ohio health tragedy? Etc., etc.), let alone on several, makes her candidacy very problematic to many people.

Mike; April 09, 2008 9:33 PM
dwit said...: Yes Tony he will win MI and PA. Look at the African American population in both. Even Ed Rendell has said that.

Florida, who cares? We'll make up for that in the Midwest. They are a Red state with a Republican Legislature and Governor anyway.

Keep the dream alive bud!; April 09, 2008 10:01 PM
Amot said...: Mike, Mike, stop it! You are partisan now!!! We have to secure positive campaigning by both sides so they hit McCain instead of each other! Some say Obama wants FL and MI not seated so he can keep his lead as big as it is. I heard rumors that now Clinton is afraid of seating FL and MI with a reasonable deal because that seting will not be enough for her to evaporate the lead and there will be no reason to postpone the supers' decision after June 3rd. I don't care! I know the rules and by the rules DNC BRC can make a decision about both delegations WITHOUT asking the campaigns if they agree or not! I have my opinion on how MI and FL must be seated. I changed that opinion 3 times so far each time due to new facts coming to my knowledge! I think we need to seat them both fair and by the rules and we must do everything possible to reduce the division of the party! Only Democrats can take the victory away of the Democrats. Play by the rules and let the best man/woman win!; April 09, 2008 10:05 PM
Amot said...: dwit, have you forgotten Obama has not campaigned in FL? With good VP choice, solid Latino support and some campaigning he will win easily FL... and TX!; April 09, 2008 10:12 PM
dwit said...: Amot,

I would be thrilled, but I'm not counting on it. I don't think we should make the same mistake of putting all of our eggs in that basket.

I don't think either candidate should spend too much time there. They haven't proven very reliable for dems for many years.; April 09, 2008 10:17 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Whoohooo!

"Leah - Attorney General."

How surprised I was to see that!

Glad I wasn't chosen for Secretary of 'Labor' ;)

p.s. Maybe I should run for president - I would be able to play the gender card, ethnicity card, religion, and midget card since I am an Italian-American Catholic woman that is only five foot tall :); April 09, 2008 11:16 PM
Amot said...: Dwit - that is what I like about Obama's strategy - he will try to win 20 swing states instead of 5, that giving him the possibility to lose 5 or more of those states and still win the GE!

Leah - you give people 4 different reasons to hate you - Barack and Hillary have problems giving them only a single one each :)

Hey, people, I have been disenfranchised! Finally!!! I can't run for President since I was not born in USA! Now I can play victim :); April 10, 2008 1:23 AM
MKSinSA said...: Leah,

In an effort to unite our DCW party and to end the partisan strife, I am bowing out of the DCW primary and endorsing Leah. I ask our Super Delegates, Matt, Orea, Quon Mom, Yoursi, Charlie Anthe and Mr Super to back our midget Italian-American Catholic woman as our nominee.

While it appears I overlooked Amot, I'm actually engaged in a bitter fight with him for the position of Chief of Staff.

My best wishes for our dream team: Leah/dwit '08.; April 10, 2008 2:40 AM
Yousri said...: MKSinSA said...

"I ask our Super Delegates, Matt, Orea, Quon Mom, Yoursi, Charlie Anthe and Mr Super to back our midget Italian-American Catholic woman as our nominee."

As a “DCW SUPER DOPER”, I will vote for Leah/dwit '08 if Leah has the support of the DCW majority Readers. However, to be fair I will vote for dwit/Leah '08, if dwit has the support of the big SUPERs Matt and Oreo.
I am in a new Club with rainbow color. :-); April 10, 2008 3:16 AM
dwit said...: Mks et al.,

I am flattered, but I am not seeking nor will I accept the nomination. I do, however, like the sound of an Italian midget somewhere on the ticket.

Jim strikes me as a potential fiscal conservative/entrepreneur. I think he'd make a great Sec. of commerce. Sorry, Bill. How does ambassador to the UN sound? MKS?; April 10, 2008 6:28 AM
Amot said...: O.K. As a Chef-of-Staff-to-be I think I found the perfect VP for Leah. Shaquille O'Neal!!! He is African-American, man, GIANT, sportsman, he doesn't belong to a specific religion, but his mother is Baptist and his stepfather is Muslim! Isn't that a dream ticket? Leah and Shaq! WOW! Leah, you have to consider the option!; April 10, 2008 8:50 AM
jpsedona said...: Tony,

You said: "As for the total votes are concerned , with FL & MI Hillary is behind by 80000 votes."

That's not accurate. You have been drinking the cool aid that the Clinton campaign wants us to believe. Anyone who spouts the 80,000 number is trying to deceive the listener by ignoring a number of facts.

If you are interested in counting "every vote" then you need to count the popular votes from the states that don't report the popular vote from caucus results (IA, NV, ME, WA). ClearPolitics shows the lead at 204,227 when you include these caucus states plus FL & MI.

Of course this 200,000+ lead is based on Obama receiving ZERO votes from MI. Now, if we believe there isn't a voter in MI that would have voted for him, let's hand Hillary the nomination now.

In reality, MI popular vote poses all types of problems. I doubt that every "uncommitted" vote in the primary was for Obama since it wasn't a 2 person race at that point. Additionally, voters stayed home knowing that there vote wouldn't count.

Had each Clinton and Obama both campaigned & were on the ballot, it's possible that Hillary may have won by 10-15 percent. Turnout would have been greater, but there's no way she would have won by a margin of 328,000 votes. Undecided was 238,000.

If those who voted in MI were voting against Hillary, then the best we can estimate on the actual results is 238,000 votes for Obama (at that time).

ClearPolitics shows the lead at 204,227 when you include these caucus states plus FL & MI. So, adding 238,000 undecided to this would give Obama a popular vote lead of 442,000 votes.

At BEST, Hillary comes out ahead with blowouts in PA, WV, IN, KY & PR with a popular vote lead of 100,000. And this will not win her the nomination. If the nomination gets down to arguing how many votes Obama might or might not have received in MI, it's all over for her.; April 10, 2008 10:09 AM
Subodh said...: The Credentials Committee will be the one that ultimately decides whether the state delegations are seated at the convention, especially if the situation remains unresolved going all the way up to August. While each state will be barred from voting on the seating of their own delegates, they can vote on each other's, creating some interesting opportunities for horse-trading votes.

The DNC announced that Florida and Michigan's representatives to the standing Credentials Committee will be seated, regardless of whether their delegates are ultimately seated at the convention.
Neither Obama nor Clinton have a majority of votes on the Credentials Committee to sway it either way should a challenge reach them. It is believed that by including Florida and Michigan on the committee, it would benefit Clinton as the states will have the ability to press their state's case and vote on the other's status. Combined the two states have 14 votes (8 for Florida and 6 for Michigan - Appendix D of the Call to Convention).
THIS IS WHY both FLORIDA & MI delegates will be seated because Credentials Committee will vote for that because of the presence of FL & MI in the Credentials Committee.
GO HILLARY GO !!!; April 10, 2008 10:58 AM
countjellybean said...: Thanks for the nomination. I have to admit, I like the sound of "under secretary". ;)

New List of Leaners. Add Hugenin and Campbell.

Clinton [15]:
Bosley
Burke
Donatucci
Farrell
Hardt
Huguenin
Langan
Mafnas
Malone
Martinez, Robert
Moss
Stapleton
Strauss, Bob
Taitano
Umemoto

Obama [9]:
Brazile
Campbell, Margaret
Carter
Griffin
Johnson, Denise
Johnson, Joe
Kirk
Smith, Edward
Watkins; April 10, 2008 11:06 AM
Amot said...: Well, looks like major endorsement is coming!
"Powell Praises Obama"
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4622268&page=1; April 10, 2008 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Let us all have peace between Obama & Hillary camps. Eventually TRUTH will prevail. see
www.ThisIsNoSecret.com
Love and peace & Truth will be the winners. Let the process continue !!!; April 10, 2008 11:27 AM
UUbuntu said...: Trust the process.; April 10, 2008 1:01 PM
Hope 4 Obama said...: PA state senators Shirley Kitchen and Vincent Hughes, and state representatives Jewell Williams, Harold James and Tony Payton Jr. were supposed to announce their endorsement of Obama at 2pm ET. Anybody heard anything?

Also Philadelphia city councilmembers Curtis Jones, Bill Green, Jannie Blackwell, Donna Reed-Miller, Jim Kenney and Wilson Goode, Jr. were supposed to do it with them.; April 10, 2008 2:55 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hope-

Where did you hear about that at? Do you have a link?; April 10, 2008 3:06 PM
Amot said...: Leah, as a President-to-be you should not be that easily excited every time you read the word 'senator' :))) You have my endorsement!; April 10, 2008 4:17 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Subodh,

The Convention as a whole must vote to accept the Platform Committee AND the Credentials Committee reports. Unless and until the Convention as a whole votes to accept the reports, those reports are just recommendations.

I don't think you are old enough, but in the 1960s, there were several conventions where there were competing slates of delegates from several Southern states because of segregation policies in those Southern states. The Credentials Committee gave a report to the Convention as a whole, and the Convention voted on whether to accept or reject the report, thus determining which slate of delegates from those Southern states were seated.

So for you to state "THIS IS WHY both FLORIDA & MI delegates will be seated because Credentials Committee will vote for that because of the presence of FL & MI in the Credentials Committee" is incorrect.

Mike; April 10, 2008 4:54 PM
Hope 4 Obama said...: I called the writer at PA Inquirer and asked her if it happened. She said it did. She finally posted it and there is one more.
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080410_Obama_to_receive_Phila__endorsements_today.html
Press Conference today: PA state senators Shirley Kitchen and Vincent Hughes, and state representatives Jewell Williams, Harold James and Tony Payton Jr. endorsed Obama just now; as did Philadelphia city Council members Curtis Jones, Bill Green, Jannie Blackwell, Donna Reed-Miller, Jim Kenney and Wilson Goode, Jr. I think they are all Superdelegates, but I am not positive.

City Council President Anna Verna, who did not attend the press conference, also informed Obama that he has her vote as leader of the 36th Ward in South Philadelphia.

Former Oregon governors Barbara Roberts and John Kitzhaber gave their endorsements today (but I think we knew these endorsements were coming.) The Democratic Party of Oregon holds its platform convention this weekend.

Wayne Holland, the chairman of the Utah Democratic Party endorsed him too.; April 10, 2008 5:32 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Amot and everyone - Ya'll have put some big smiles on my face today reading all the posts up above :)

Hope- The PA folks are all state officials and are not super-delegates ;(; April 10, 2008 6:45 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Hope,

Unless any of the PA state senators, state representatives and/or city council members are added as Super Delegate Add-Ons at some time in the future, they are not Super Delegates.

The three add-ons will be determined on 6/7/2008 by the Pennsylvania State Democratic Committee.

Some might be selected as PLEOs (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) after the April 22 primary, but if they are in that category, they are pledged delegates, not Supers.

Mike; April 10, 2008 6:46 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hope- also Barbara Roberts and John Kitzhaber are not super-delegates.

Holland is a super and DCW added him to the Obama's list this morning.

Nice that we're getting so many endorsement - I wish a few more had been Super D's!

I'm looking forward to the day we get like 10-20 in one day!; April 10, 2008 6:51 PM
Hope 4 Obama said...: BUMMER!!!!; April 10, 2008 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Elton John, who has sold records and filled arenas for four decades, played a benefit concert for Clinton at Radio City Music Hall.

"I've always been a Hillary supporter," John, 61, said before launching into his 1970 breakthrough hits, "Your Song" and "Border Song." "There is no one more qualified to lead America."

The English singer, composer and pianist added: "I'm amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them …. I love you Hillary, I'll be there for you."

Smart people with brains are supporting the more experienced candidate who will be needed in economic tough times with depression like symptoms. Remember the great properity we had under Clinton.; April 11, 2008 12:13 PM
MKSinSA said...: "Michael"

"I'm amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country."

This from the man who popularized the use of one of the most derogatory and anti-feminist words of the times in his 1970 song, "The Bitch is Back" -- back when radio stations had standards and initially refused to play it.

This from the man who put into the hands of conservatives staging audio protests at every stop of Hillary Clinton's 2003 booksigning tour their weapon of choice, his song, "The Bitch is Back."

Elton John's political views don't impress me.; April 11, 2008 1:13 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Michael said: "Smart people with brains are supporting the more experienced candidate who will be needed in economic tough times with depression like symptoms. Remember the great properity we had under Clinton."
_____

Hmmm... Well I am a smart person with a brain and I am supporting Senator Obama.
Just like Gore did not invent the internet - Bill Clinton was not responsible for the DOT COM prosperity which happened during his time in the White House.
Clinton is responsible for NAFTA which is hurting America today!

If you want to start stereotyping people by whom they are supporting 'be careful' because the polls have shown that there is a larger percentage of Clinton supporters that have a lower education compared to the higher percentage of Obama supporters that are college educated.; April 11, 2008 1:31 PM
PseudoPeach said...: My Prediction:
Obama is going to get the nomination on June 1st, following the Puerto Rico primary.

Rationale:
If the flow of supers toward him continues at the modest and fairly steady pace it has made since 2/10 (~1.5/day), he'll be approaching 2025 on the eve of the PR primary, such that any respectable showing there will give him the majority. I estimate that he'll have about 2002 delegates on 5/31.

Assumptions:
Current delegates 1638
PA 86/188
GM 4/8
IN 42/84
NC 75/134
WV 17/38
KY 24/60
OR 38/65
and 1.5 supers/day

Deconstruct away!; April 11, 2008 2:38 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: PseudoPeach:

In your assumptions, the delegate totals you give are for pledged and superdelegates. For example, PA has 158 pledged delegates, and 30 Superdelegates. You listed PA giving Obama 86 of 188. It would be extremely difficult for Obama to get 86 of PA's pledged delegates unless he actually wins the state with about 51-52% of the vote, depending on how he does in several of the large (delegate number-wise) Congressional Districts around Philly, and close-in to Pittsburgh.

Here's how I'm currently figuring the outcome for PLEDGED delegates (Obama's numbers first):
PA 70/88 (could go anywhere from 68/90 to 75/83 w/Clinton win, unless Obama wins, then it could go about 85/73)
GU 3/1
IN 34/38 (might go 35/37)
NC 68/47 (could go from 65/50 to 73/42)
WV 9/19
KY 19/32
OR 29/23
PR 25/30
SD 8/7
MT 9/7

That would total about 273 for Obama in all the remaining primaries, and 290 for Clinton.

Current pledged + current Super + projected:
Obama 1415 + 222 + 273 = 1910
Clinton 1254 + 248 + 290 = 1792

Obama would need 113.5 (35%) of the remaining 324 Supers to get to 2023.5, Clinton 231.5 (71%) of 324 to get to 2023.5.

I look for the PA number to end up closer than 68/90, and also for Obama to cut into Clinton's numbers in WV and KY (Obama hasn't campaigned in either state yet). Also, I think OR will go a bit better than 29/23 for Obama.

If Obama actually wins in PA, or even just comes close to a tie, then the current poll numbers will go out the window, and the remaining primaries will skew heavily towards Obama.

Mike; April 11, 2008 6:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Bull? Obama suffers from foot in mouth.
Probably loses the vote of anyone who is religious, owns guns, dislikes immigrants or is anti-free trade.

From a speach at a fundraiser in Calif. as reported by Mayhill Fowler of the huffington Post. She is a contributor to Obama who has maxed out and a former supporter

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html

Obama
"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. "; April 11, 2008 7:55 PM
Anonymous said...: There is no scenario possible withour FL & MI being counted.Obama supporters on this blog keep on harping that Obama wins after June 2 . No way possible . Winner is not possible till the convention.You need 2208 Delegates to win and neither side will have it. The majority of FL & MI delegates love Hillary and with their votes and other super delegates majority of whom prefer a more experieced candidate , the race will go to the convention and Hillary will triump. TRUTH is bitter but in the end TRUTH always wins.She will select one of the Governors as running mates and will trounce the Republicans in Nov.Any other way we lose because all the Republicans who supported Obama till now will go back to Mccain. Expenditure of 4 to one against Hillary will have no effect in the coming weeks. More bad news (the TRUTH) against Obama will hit the airwaves in the next 10 days.; April 11, 2008 8:01 PM
jpsedona said...: Tony,

From your post it's apparent that you don't realize your candidate is terminal. Denial is just one step on the path to acceptance.

Any agreement on seating the FL & MI delegates won't happen until there's a clear winner. There is no way that Hillary will want to split the MI delegation while she's still in the race. After the SD's jump on Obama's bandwagon after the final primary, he will offer to seat the delegates in a fashion that won't cost him the nomination.

There really aren't too many superdelegates that will back Clinton in a delegate fight. People already have a low opinion of Hillary and a delegate fight is not going to help her in the general election. If she were to stay in until the convention, she will loose the majority of her own superdelegates. It's called self preservation.; April 11, 2008 8:47 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Tony-

1) The number of total delegates needed to to win the democratic nomnination is: 2024

2) It is not a party rule that all 50 states must vote. In previous years the nominee was decided before all state had a chance to vote. It is a fact that FL and MI broke the rules and now the DNC does not have to recognize them under the rules of the DNC.; April 11, 2008 9:08 PM
Unknown said...: This race is over...Obama will lose in PA- probably lose around 20 delegates- but he knows that and has already factored that in...he will win NC and probably lose by a little in Indiana...but it is largely becoming irrelevant what happens in these individual races...in a traditional race individual primaries are important, because once a candidate loses a few- he or she can no longer raise money...this is not one of the those races obviously....quite possibly Obama may limp a bit going down the stretch....Hillary said ending the race early would be like ending a basketball game with 2 minutes remaining...she is right, but if you use the sports analogy you must also recognize that the only thing that matters is the scoreboard, and not how many "big plays" you had (i.e. big state wins)....or who would be stronger in the next round....

It is clear that the Superdelegates will decide this- but my count, Obama needs somewhere around 323 superdelegates to win this....and he has around 223 right now....he should get another 40 based on being able to control the add ons in states he won...there are 6 in the Pelosi club right now, which means he needs only around 54 other supers...Lord only knows how many are really in the Pelosi club- you don't get to be speaker of the house by having zero followers...

As I have stated before, to believe HRC can win, you must believe that a massive and angry mob of superdelegates will somehow rise up in defiance of their constituents and party leadership and conspire to deny an African American the party's nomination in favor of a candidate who is widely disliked and has run a terrible campaign...; April 11, 2008 11:55 PM
UUbuntu said...: Tony: "There is no scenario possible without FL & MI being counted."

That statement makes no sense to me. Unless something changes, FL and MI won't count.

I support Clinton (and I hope something changes to allow those states to weigh in in a fair manner), but right now, the situation is this: 2024 delegates required to secure the nomination, and Clinton is behind by about 135 with some 890 or so (delegates and superdelegates) to go. Those are facts. Nothing more, nothing less. Just facts.

Maybe something will happen with MI and FL, but I don't hold out much hope at this point.

Clinton's nomination is possible, but at this point, it's a very long shot -- maybe 10% chance.

My sense is that she'll win PA by 10, lose NC by 10-15 and split the remaining states. Unfortunately, MI and FL blew their chance to make a difference in this nominating process.; April 12, 2008 12:32 AM
UUbuntu said...: Jim -- what is it about that statement that you disagree with?

Obama's statement sounds like a pretty accurate assessment of small town America to me -- promises of return to greatness every 4 years followed by disappointment in the reality of the declining economic situation. If that doesn't cause bitterness and frustration, I don't know what does.; April 12, 2008 12:42 AM
Unknown said...: As for the projections- here is how my projections are (Obama first):

73-85 PA
2-2 Guam
34-38 Indiana
62-53 NC
11-17 WV
21-30 KY
28-24 OR
25-30 PR
9-7 MT
8-7 SD

(Obama loses 20 delegates in upcoming states); April 12, 2008 1:53 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Jim-

Here is Obama's response to Clinton and McCain:

Obama's response to Hillary and McCain:

"Here"s what"s rich," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton says, 'Well I don"t think people are bitter in Pennsylvania. I think Barack"s being condescending.' John McCain says, 'Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? He"s obviously out of touch with people. '"

"Out of touch?" Obama said. "I mean, John McCain, it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he"s saying I"m out of touch?"

"Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I"m out of touch?"

He concluded his argument by telling the audience that it is, in fact, the opposite.

"No. I"m in touch. I know exactly what"s going on. I know what"s going on in Pennsylvania, I know what"s going on in Indiana, [and] I know what"s going on in Illinois. People are fed up."; April 12, 2008 3:38 AM
Anonymous said...: my video message to BARACK OBAMA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvQ6J3CCDfY; April 12, 2008 8:23 AM
Anonymous said...: Obama's words" analyized "antipathy to people who aren't like them"

antipathy synomyms
repulsion
abhorrence
hostility
dislike
hatred

Does Obama know what antipathy means? If he does, then he really thinks little of the voters in PA.; April 12, 2008 10:15 AM
MKSinSA said...: Obama's words" analyized "antipathy to people who aren't like them"

antipathy synomyms

bad chemistry
bad blood
hard feelings
ill will
personality conflict
dislike
UNKINDNESS; April 12, 2008 10:22 AM
Anonymous said...: Obama will tell a different story every time he meets with voters...and it will be printed until he buries his original statements from the headlines.
Remember WRIGHT...What Obama actually said has already disappeared from here...now we just get spin from him describing what he said,,,and his spin is so much kinder than the truth.

THIS IS WHAT HE SAID DOES IT SOUND LIKE WHAT HE SAYS HE SAID
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Comments like 'Bitter' will sink you Mr. Obama. So what you are telling me Mr.Obama is that i am bitter because i lost my Job, i am bitter that i can't pay my bills on time, i am bitter that my children are not getting the food and healthcare they need, that i am bitter and am turning to the almighty GOD for help. WOW MR.OBAMA WOW. people like you make me SICK.

Obama showing his Racism once again:
Talking about the Typical White People of PA, "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
The only thing he can relate to is the black community. What if McCain had said the same thing about the black community?

Stop explaining yourself. I'm tired of your excuses and explanations. If a presidential candidate has to explain that yes they are patriotic and yes they do love America they are not going to be elected. Period. Be it a democrat or a Republican. Pride in America should eminate from a candidate naturally, no questions about it. It should not have to be packaged and sold to the voters. We can get plastic idols in Hollywood. Hillary or McCain for POTUS.

The media is going to spin this story and try to "water" it down. I agree with David from Texas. The difference here, is that OBAMA said this himself...no fabrication, no paper trails, nothing to hide under. He said it and you can bet the American voter will keep this in their mind in the upcoming primaries, and, if he wins the nomination, in the General Election. First, he supported racist remarks, shady deals with Rezko, lied about NAFTA, lets his wife run around like a loose cannon, now put down blue collar white America, and last night, heard that in Puerto Rico, he has shady dealings down there with a drug lord. This guy is a fake....keep posting, everyone....force the media to put Obama out there for who he really is! We are tired of his deception.....its time for him to drop out!; April 12, 2008 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama’s Nefarious Affiliations
There is no way a white man with the same background and credentials as Obama could ever be elected to any office in this country.
Look at Obama’s affiliations:

- Senator Meeks who openly hates whites and gays and is listed prominently on Obama’s campaign website as a major Obama supporter and backer and is one of Obama;s super-delegate. Mr. Meeks has been integral in helping Mr. Obama succeed in politics.
- Larry Sinclair claims in 1999 Senator Obama’s arranged to meet him in a limousine, sold Senator Obama cocaine and then gave Senator Obama oral sex. Subsequently Larry and Obama went to a hotel and preformed oral sex again. Mr. Sinclair is testifying in court under oath that these allegations are true.
- Rashid Khalidi a fundraiser for Obama and is one of Obama’s close friends. Khalidi Khalidi claim Israel as a "catastrophe", has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and works on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization all this while the State Department was involved in PLO anti-Western terrorism and had labeled the PLO as a terror group.
- Robert Malley an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group.
- Mr. Auchi is an Iraqi billionaire and major financial sponsor for Obama’s rise to power throughout the past years.
While working with Saddam Hussein, Auchi made his fortune through the selling of arms in Iraq and the funneling of money from the Oil for Food program (no wonder Obama voted against invading Iraq). Mr. Auchi should have been tried along side Saddam Hussein for his crimes against humanity.
- Mr. Rezko is Iraqi and Obama’s and Auchi’s long time friend and a major mob figure. Rezko is NOT known for his civic sense of duty and does not do favors without asking something in return.
- Mr. Wright is a racist who hates America and whites with Hitleresque triads. Mr. Wright has been Mr. Obama’s spiritual mentor for over 20 years. Before the media exposed Mr. Wright, Mr. Wright was on Obama’s campaign staff as Obama's chief religious advisor. Mr. Wright and Mr. Meeks are ideologically closer to Karl Marx and Black Nationalism, than to Christianity.
- Mr. Ayers of the Weather Underground, a group that killed police and tried to bomb the US Capitol, served with Obama on the board of the leftist foundation called the Woods Fund.
- Mr. McPeaks is Obama’s military adviser and national campaign co-chairman who claims that American Jews are the "problem." and “Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel.”
- Michelle Obama trumpets Obama as “the second coming of the messiah,” and also states that she “has never been proud to be an AMERICAN in her adult life".
The list goes on…
How can Obama’s bad judgment to choose to affiliate with criminals and fanatics be justified?
Had Hillary Clinton had any of the above ghosts in her closet, she would have been thrown out of the election long ago.
Hey everybody - am I missing something here?
It is also interesting to note that many Obama supporters seem to harbor angry rage in their rhetoric; is this what they have learned from Rev. Wright? Are we resurrecting Mussolini?; April 12, 2008 1:46 PM
UUbuntu said...: From "Nancy": "Comments like 'Bitter' will sink you Mr. Obama. So what you are telling me Mr.Obama is that i am bitter because i lost my Job, i am bitter that i can't pay my bills on time, i am bitter that my children are not getting the food and healthcare they need, that i am bitter and am turning to the almighty GOD for help. WOW MR.OBAMA WOW. people like you make me SICK."

If you were such a person, why would you be angrier at Obama? I would think that you would be angry at the current Federal and State govenments for managing an unworking economy and creating your misery. I would think that be far angrier at our current President than at one of the Democratic candidates for office.

I don't understand if you are intentionally misinterpreting his statement (as do the Clinton and McCain talking heads) or if you genuinely don't understand what he's saying.

In short, he's saying that because you get screwed by the past 8 (or more) years of governmental choices, you turn to non-governmental options for solace, some of which are helpful, some of which are not. The solution is better government, not antipathy to people who don't look like you.; April 12, 2008 3:02 PM
UUbuntu said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 12, 2008 3:11 PM
UUbuntu said...: Jim -- Obama understands the meaning of antipathy. You appear to not. Your synonyms are inaccurate and appear to have been selected from a thesaurus.

For your edification,
Here's the definition of antipathy; April 12, 2008 3:13 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Tony:

All you are doing is spreading LIES.

Larry Sinclair has taken TWO lie detector tests and FAILED miserably.

I stopped reading the rest of your post because you apparently are not interested in facts - only false truths.; April 12, 2008 3:46 PM
RobH said...: Hey Kids....."can't we all just get along?"

From reading these posts it is hard to believe we are all on the same team. Don't we really seek MOST to overcome the damage of the past eight years? Have we forgotten the bigger picture? The vehemence of the personal attacks is really counterproductive. We really do need to chill out.; April 12, 2008 3:47 PM
RobH said...: Anybody besides me notice how the postings here are perfect reflections of the candidates themselves? BO supporters tend to be logical, calm, reasoned, brief. HRC supporters tend to be vicitmized, hysterical, deluded and exhaustive.

Guess which I am?

Go ahead, Nancy and Tony, prove me wrong. Meet me back at reasoned discourse.; April 12, 2008 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Tyler,
Thanks for your edification.
In the definition you linked
Note the synonym "enmity" there.
Then click on it.

From your dictionary For your edification.
synonym: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses.; April 12, 2008 4:04 PM
UUbuntu said...: I'm a solid Clinton supporter. I don't really appreciate being lumped in with the likes of some of the posters above. I suspect some of them (not all of them) to be McCain supporters in disguise, or at least Republican cheerleaders. None of them appear to have public profiles. Many of them may be the same person.

Having said that, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The goal of this process is to find the best candidate who will represent our views and obtain at least 270 electoral votes in November. Whether that candidate is Clinton or Obama is of only minor concern to me. The real issue is how do we as Democrats establish our message as the party of peace and prosperity in this time of war and insecurity.; April 12, 2008 4:10 PM
UUbuntu said...: A synonym is not the same as a definition. Obama used the term "antipathy", not "enmity", and while those words have similar meanings, they don't mean the same thing.

It's like saying that "indifference" means the same thing as "ennui".

One of the beauties of the English language is the wide variety of words with similar, though not identical meanings.

If Obama had used the term "emnity" in his statement, I might have felt that that could be an accurate choice of words too, given the situation that many lower and middle-income American are in these days. But it wouldn't have been the statement he made. And it wouldn't have meant the same thing.

The problem with Obama isn't that the words he uses are wrong. It's that the words he chooses have complex meanings, and Americans are a simple people.; April 12, 2008 4:26 PM
RobH said...: Tyler,

The very tone of your reply defines you as different from, and excluded from, the generalizations I made from these 400 posts. Thank you.; April 12, 2008 4:29 PM
RobH said...: Hey y'all:

I personally believe that regardless of how strident we are in support of our candidate, we'd all be better served by toning down the personal nature of these posts and striving for some level of civility.

Civility encourages listening. Listening to others whose opinions differ from our own is the basis of all learning. Informed discourse is where its at.
Screaming your views is not.

PS: Nancy/Tony - here's hoping you vote for Barr in the General.; April 12, 2008 4:35 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 901 Newer› Newest»

Welcome to Democratic Convention Watch

Blog Archive

Democratic Convention 2008

Democratic National Convention History

Denver & Colorado Democrats

DCW in the News

Friends of DCW

2008 Republican National Convention

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Open Thread

901 comments:

Tags