Democratic Convention Watch: Open Thread

Tuesday, April 01, 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!

Previous Open Thread here

1552 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 1552 Newer› Newest»

Aunt Jean said...: yamaka leah is right about the florida law but the fact remains that him and edwards of their own accord took their names off the ballot in michigan and they would have done it in florida if they could have. Jean; April 25, 2008 4:14 PM
Aunt Jean said...: you all have a nice day I have to go to work. Jean; April 25, 2008 4:17 PM
Amot said...: I read Ben Smith at Politico on a regular basis. Not a big thing, many of you do so... But I just want to share a nice experience I had minutes ago - out of 20 first page stories one was in 'Delegates' category, one was 'Clinton' and the rest 18 were filed under 'BARACK OBAMA'!!! Cute, in'it?; April 25, 2008 4:18 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 25, 2008 4:23 PM
dwit said...: Ariane,

Yes, indeed. I remember Super Bowl XL as if it were yesterday.; April 25, 2008 4:24 PM
jpsedona said...: Gator,

That Mondragon has helped in fund raiing is less signififcant than the fact that in Puerto Rico, he is a big big name. He could tap everyone who didn't max out for Clinton, but more importantly it's all about influence. He could bring some SD's on board and change the status of the race in PR.; April 25, 2008 4:25 PM
jpsedona said...: Gator,

With respect to Pelosi on all points, you nailed her exactly.; April 25, 2008 4:27 PM
dwit said...: Man! I forgot what a helluva woman Elanor Roosevelt was.

"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people."
-Eleanor Roosevelt

Damn it! I'm just an average mind after all.; April 25, 2008 4:28 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: jpsedona. McClintock reads these comments?

I agree, except I heard that the voters in Puerto Rico go the way of the governor. He went for Senator Obama, but he is involved in some scandal involving corruption.

On Pelosi: Thank you.; April 25, 2008 4:42 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 25, 2008 5:07 PM
Amot said...: Someone call 911, he is going to commit suicide! We need our NY Democrat badly or Hillary will lose it...; April 25, 2008 5:17 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Wow. anonymouw ny democrat. I'm not asking you to reveal your identity, but after reading your post, are you anyone that can actually make a difference?; April 25, 2008 5:27 PM
Richard said...: I divide states up as follows:

Blue States: States which the Democratic candidate, whether Clinton or Obama, will win. These states and their number of electors are: CT 7, DE 3, DC 3, CA 55, HI 4, IL 21, ME 4, MD 10, MA 12, MI 17, MN 10, NJ 15, NY 31, OR 7, PA 21, RI 4, VT 3, WA 11, WI 10

Total: 248

Since 270 electors are needed to win, the nominee will need 22 electors in addition to the 248 baseline.

Swing states Clinton could win:

Arkansas 6
Florida 27
Missouri 11
Ohio 20

Swing states Obama could win:

Colorado 9
Iowa 7
Missouri 11
New Mexico 5
New Hampshire 4
North Carolina 15
Nevada 5
North Dakota 3
Ohio 20
Virginia 13

What does this mean?

In order to win, Clinton must win one of the following three combinations:

OH + AK (26)
OH + MO (31)
FL (27)

Obama can win with any of the following forty-nine combinations:

OH + one of: NC, VA, MO, CO, IA, NV, NM, NH, ND
NC + one of VA, MO, CO, IA
VA + one of: MO, CO
NC + NM + NV
NC + NV + one of NH, ND
NC + NM + one of NH, ND
NC + NM +ND
VA + IA + one of NV, NM, NH, ND
VA + IA + one of NV, NM, NH, ND
VA + NM + NV
VA + NV + NH
VA + NM + NH
MO + CO + one of IA, NV, NM, NH, ND
MO + IA + one of NV, NM, NH
MO + NM + NV + one of NH, ND
MO + NV + NH + ND
MO + NM + NH + ND
CO + IA + NM + NV
CO + IA + NV + one of NH, ND
CO + IA + NM + one of NH, ND
CO + IA + NH + ND
CO + NM + NV + one of NH, ND
IA + NM + NV + NH + ND

Conclusion:

Clinton has the same three ways to win that Gore and Kerry did in their losing bids, while Obama has forty-nine new and exciting ways to expand the Democratic Party.

Who has the better claim to 'electability'?; April 25, 2008 5:27 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: amot. Are you being serious and backing Senator Clinton or are you being sarcastic and backing Senator Obama?; April 25, 2008 5:28 PM
Amot said...: I wrote 'Hillary will lose it'! Isn't that clear enough? He is NY Democrat and he has some obvious deviations. If she lose the base core of NY Dems like him (as we have seen recently most have one or more deviations) she will lose it... her Senate seat :))))); April 25, 2008 5:40 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: richard. Your theory is interesting(are you a math guru?)except that Senator McCain is not as strong as President Bush.; April 25, 2008 5:40 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: amot. She won't have to worry about that soon. You sound a little....hot under the collar?(just a general thought. No offense intended.); April 25, 2008 5:47 PM
Richard said...: Gator: By all means, tell me what other state you think Clinton can win? Or did you mean that you think Obama can win FL too? In that case, it becomes 50:3.

I am not arguing that Clinton can't win; I think there is a good chance that she could. I am merely pointing out that to do so she must win either Florida or Ohio, two states which have broken our hearts in the past. I like Obama's odds better.; April 25, 2008 6:04 PM
Amot said...: We are Dems, every vote counts, even the suicidal ones :) I better worry because she has damaged herself significantly during this campaign...

Richard, why do you think she can WI,WA and OR? I hardly doubt she can win any of those. She must win the rest plus FL plus OH plus AR or MO (I don't think she can win any of the last two). Her only chance for the office are the must-win states plus FL,OH and NH... About Obama - your list plus CO, IA and NM give him 269, he needs just one more state, any state in the list and NH is again the easiest to win... Or she can ask Hillary to run as independent in AR instead of him. That will make her party hero if she wins there!; April 25, 2008 6:12 PM
Amot said...: Sorry, HE can ask Hillary!
Btw, I think Obama can win FL, don't forget he hasn't been there yet and there is much negativism against him influenced by FL PLs. If they back him and he makes his face known in the state he can win it!; April 25, 2008 6:16 PM
RobH said...: Richard,

Your analysis is incisive. Excepting the math, which many might find tedious, the conclusion is as powerful as I've seen put forward. It is powerful in it's simplicity, if you will.

Don't know how to do this, but you need to get the theory, and the conlusions, into the hands of the Obama campaign.

In an environment, where his opponent is constantly 'spinning' new metrics by which her candidacy can be still considered credible, creative methods to counter her fantasies always have value.

In the daily world of MSM psoition taking by the campaigns spokespersons (Axelrod and Garin writing op eds in the national press) I would love to see Axelrod put this general idea forward as a counter to her 'arguments'.; April 25, 2008 6:27 PM
dwit said...: Mostly agree Richard. If you look at the Clinton race of '92 or The Carter race in '76 you can see two plausible scenarios, especially if Bob Barr runs. I think Texas is a long shot for either, but a few smaller states can negate them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1976

Because Obama has done so well in the West and Midwest his victory could look very much like Bill's in '92.

Hillary, definitely CAN take some of the West, like Cali and Nevada, but as someone from Washington State, I can tell you our state is very pro Obama and the eastern half absolutely hates Hillary (evangelical conservatives galore!) Many folks may just not show up to the polls if she is on the ticket.

Oregon, remains to be seen, but they are often maverick in nature as well. Just look at the money Obama has raised in our small states, far disproportionate to their size.

Hillary may very well take Florida and Ohio, but that is a crap shoot.
And let's not forget how well Obama has played in the South and Mid-Atlantic. She doesn't have what Carter or Obama have going for them in the South.

McCain, on the other hand, really has no chance in any of the West Coast states. Obama does stand to take at least some of the West. Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana at least.

He's got Iowa, Illinois, and all the upper Midwest wrapped up pretty tight. Yes, even Michigan.

Pretty much all of New England.

I think even Ohio and Pennsylvania will come around when they see the alternative of 4 more years of George Bush.

Even conservatives I know are ready for some new blood and Obama seems to be the less repugnant of the three. I dare say, my Republican bud from Colorado is even a little enthusiastic about old Barack.; April 25, 2008 6:50 PM
Yamaka said...: Whatever the Candidates said or did is immaterial, at this very crucial point in the Nomination process.

3 million voters went to polls obeying their State Law. Their choices MUST be reflected like any other State's in the process.

If they are disenfranchised by the Party, then the Party ceases to be the National Party.

It deserves to be destroyed from the bottom up.

Please join the ground swell to begin the end of the Democratic Party, as we know it, starting Aug at Denver.

Convention MUST not go on - it must be STOPPED from Day One.

Votes are Holier than Pope!

True Democrats, Stand Up, Fight for the holy rights of voters from ALL STATES.

Long Live Denver Assault!

Cheers. :-) :-); April 25, 2008 6:53 PM
vwis said...: ed iglehart,
Read your work and several of your links, also your bio. I liked it very much, you are living a significant life. It reminds me of the old Jewish proverb: Every man should raise a child, plant a tree, and write a book. Writing poetry is hard. You have to be write a book and condense it to prose. Thanks for sharing yourself with me and us.; April 25, 2008 6:54 PM
vwis said...: Jean,
Thanks, I figure I am your new best friend. lol
Now aren't I humble.; April 25, 2008 6:56 PM
Anonymous said...: hey pelosi,

keep pressuring superdelegates to nominate the unelectable Obama, I am a Registered democrat and i am mad as hell, i am going to encourage everyone i know to launch campaigns against anyone who endorses Obama, you think the republicans are bad, JUST WAIT BECAUSE DEMOCRATS WILL BE JOINING THEM IN AWESOME NUMBERS THE MINUTE YOU ANNOUNCE AN OBAMA NOMINATION, END THIS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION AND RESPECT THE VOTES OF ALL THE PEOPLE FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN INCLUDED, OTHERWISE FACE THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ENORMOUS DEFECTION FROM THE PARTY, MYSELF BEING ONE, FIGHTING DEMOCRATS, JOINING WITH THE CAUSE OF REPUBLICANS, OBAMA IS NOT A TRUSTWORTHY OR HONORABLE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE!

IF YOU ENDORSE OBAMA BEWARE THERE ARE ALL EYES ON YOU, IF YOU STUMBLE IN THE LEAST EXPECT TO LOSE YOUR NEXT RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN!

AFFECTIONATLY YOURS, MAD AS HELL, AND NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!; April 25, 2008 7:00 PM
jpsedona said...: Richard,

I think that your list & combinations are pretty good (and informative). I don't agree with all the combo's but I think your argument about Obama having more paths to the nomination is a credible one.

What would be interesting is to identify the 'risk' states running against McCain. Who puts more traditional states at risk? Not that the traditional battleground states (FL,OH,PA) but the states Dems need focus more time on & defend.

I see the risk states as poaaibly being WI, NH, ME, MA, MI.; April 25, 2008 7:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama can't win the GE unless you relocate all Blacks to the midwest,
all Latinos to Texas and declare negative advertising a felony.
Otherwise it is Carter vs. Reagan
all over again; April 25, 2008 7:12 PM
Amot said...: Dwit I agree your analysis on GE map. I think that since he have the advantage to chose VP second after GOP with the correct person Obama can aim at 320+.

I have a request. Since you live in WA can you make a good prediction what will happen at CD convetions in your state and what the split will be? I have tried to find all the numbers but some LD's results were out of my reach...; April 25, 2008 7:12 PM
vwis said...: Richard,
Obama winning either of the Carolinas is long shot. They are very conservative. I can't remember the last time a dem won either. Also, one you didn't mention was Kansas. A red state, but he won by 70% in the primary. The most important thing is that his mother was from there. The southern is very influenced by generational pull. His mother was white and she and his white grandmother raised him with their ideas, and background. We call him black, but he he was raise with white values.; April 25, 2008 7:14 PM
Somerled said...: Yamaka-

Sounds like a terroristic threat to me... In the name of the PATRIOT ACT, devil, COME OUT!!! lol

Why do I have the creepy feeling you're sitting in your underwear slurping green jello through a straw while you write this stuff?; April 25, 2008 7:15 PM
vwis said...: Dwit,
I heard McCain met with Huckabee, today. I expect a VP announcement shortly. That is if things go well. MSNBC asked Huckabee about the Rev. Wright issue (being a pastor he knows about sermons and their influence on churchgoers). He said that what a pastor says on the pulpit does not mean that the members agree. Gee, its usually hard enough to keep them awake. Rev. Wrights inflamatory style is used to perk people ears that all. Even he doesn't believe it, trust me I don't know much, but I know that.; April 25, 2008 7:23 PM
jpsedona said...: dwit,

AZ, NM and CO are trending Dem. WI, IA and MN are trending Rep.

I suspect that CO & NM might both go Dem for Clinton or Obama.; April 25, 2008 7:23 PM
vwis said...: ed inglehart,
I read you fuzzy math lesson to Jean. I laughed so hard. I learnt the same method of math you did. I was always was good at math, but found it boring up until today.; April 25, 2008 7:26 PM
dwit said...: Wow Jim! I never saw that coming. You guys really do have some deep- seated race issues. I happen to be white and live in the West and my cousins are from Minnesota and Wisconsin and they are white and voting for Obama.

I think you and Jean need to get some help with that.

And, btw, Many African Americans do live in the Midwest. I suggest you visit Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, St. Louis, Memphis, Nashville etc...

Besides, if Hillary is the candidate of WHITE America, I think we are better off without her. You already have John McCain to choose if that is the kind of America you are after.

What's the dif? Might as well just settle for 4 more years of Bush.; April 25, 2008 7:26 PM
Somerled said...: I believe 'yamaka' is actually a Karl Rove pseudonym...; April 25, 2008 7:27 PM
dwit said...: JP,

Where do you get this stuff? Half of my family lives in RURAL Wisconsin and Minnesota. They are no where near Rep. Really. Give me your links on that. Sometimes I think you are simply just a contrarian!; April 25, 2008 7:30 PM
jpsedona said...: Here's an interesting story from MSNBC FirstRead:

DNC TO TAKE ON FL, MI ISSUE AGAIN

Essentially the DNC has until June 29 to resolve the MI & FL issue, otherwise it goes to the credentials committee. And that would make for a lonnnnnng summer...; April 25, 2008 7:30 PM
RobH said...: vwis,

One drawback that is predictable from a Huckabee VP is that he would likely perform poorly in the required VP candidate role of attack dog. He's just too.....nice.

I give you as proof his unfailingly sympathetic comments to Obama re Wright. Since the beginning he has made it clear - as a pastor - of his understanding of Wright's positions and excusal of Obama to be painted by them.

Just can't see it, but others have fallen by the wayside and it may happen. Could we actually have a civil general?? ...........Nah.; April 25, 2008 7:34 PM
jpsedona said...: dwit,

I have spent more time in WI and MN than anyone would want to. Look at the results from WI & MN in over the last 8 elections. It's clearly trending Rep. However, don't take my word for it, do some reasearch.

Here's an article from 2004:
Wisconsin

Here's an article for both WI & MN:
WISC and MN; April 25, 2008 7:41 PM
jpsedona said...: RobH,

In watching the Rep debates, I would say Huckabee is sharp on his feet and has a good wit. I think if he were the VP on the Rep side, we might see a more subtle and appealing approach than Chaney. He has debating certain and people skills that remind me of Clinton.; April 25, 2008 7:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Dwit,
I was just trying to help, they will not help him in the deep south,so relocate them.
The Hispanics will hurt him
in any state not solid red.; April 25, 2008 7:44 PM
jpsedona said...: dwit,

Did you read the articles on WI, MN? Care to reverse your comments of earlier?; April 25, 2008 7:49 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Here's an example of what is slipping under the radar while we have fanatical fights over the Democratic nominee:

From the South Bend [Indiana} Tribune:
"GOP candidate defends speech at Nazi gathering"

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/NEWS01/804220396
(TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/5v89rx)

Mike; April 25, 2008 7:52 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Catching up, working backwards:

Richard, Sedona, et al:

Fantastic thinking! In fact, you should be afraid about losing Ohio!

Here are the most recent polls:

ND McCain + 6
VA McCain + 8
AR McCain +19
IA Obama + 7
NV McCain + 5
NH McCain + 3
NM McCain + 6
NC even
OH McCain + 2
FL McCain +15

McCain v Clinton
CO McCain + 14
MO Clinton +1
ND McCain + 20
VA McCain + 16
AR McCain + 7
IA McCain + 6
NV McCain + 11
NH McCain + 6
NM McCain + 3
NC McCain + 11
OH Clinton +11
FL Clinton +1

So you might want to redo your little game with Clinton putting into play FL (maybe?), MO (not really likely), and OH, and Obama CO (not really likely), IA and (maybe) NC, BUT possibly losing OH.

But it seems you had fun with your "combinations" exercise.; April 25, 2008 7:53 PM
Anonymous said...: If Obama is the Dem's choice, Nader will pick up about 20% of the folks that voted for Clinton and McCain will pick up about 10%
McCain will waltz in without a majority; April 25, 2008 7:53 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Leah ~~ I'm glad you so strongly support the rules of the DNC, as those rules include assigning 20% of delegate votes to SD’s, who are allowed to vote for any and all reasons, and whose votes will not be counted until the convention. (Dean calling for the SD’s to make up their minds now is counter to logic, IMO.)

If, in following those rules, the SD’s vote to make HRC the nominee, I am glad that you support those rules!; April 25, 2008 7:55 PM
Anonymous said...: MSMWatch2008
Ditto Ditto; April 25, 2008 7:58 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Sedona,

1. that pledge is about the process; it in no way is a vow to not count the votes as a result. But thanks for the quote; it may (wishful thinking) stop some people from stating – again and again – that HRC broke the rules when she had those 2 fundraisers. (Nothing about those damn Obama ads, though . . . tsk tsk.) Sweet.

2. When you called the scribblers vermin, were you talking about Clinton supporters, or was that directed at the media? Just wondering if I missed the slam and Aunt Jean got it right.

3. That entire ‘rap’ about “Using only the popular votes from the primary for 2/3 of the delegates leaves 1/3 of the delegates not represented by the popular vote toals (sic) in Texas.” is totally illogical, and I cannot believe that not one of your math-skewers has reacted.

Since we are all so attuned to math, can’t we agree that Texans who caucused do not get two votes in this election? It has already been pointed out several times that to vote in the caucus one had to first vote in the primary. Ergo, the primary vote is THE vote - the one and only vote - for Texas. BTW, someone asked it somewhere, Washington (state) also had both a primary and a caucus.; April 25, 2008 8:01 PM
jpsedona said...: Jim,

Nader will get 20% of Hillary's vote??? 20% might not vote at all but they are not going for Clinton.

He's not going to pick up as many votes as 2000, and that was less than 3 million. In '04, it was less than 250,000.; April 25, 2008 8:05 PM
Anonymous said...: If the only way to defeat the Zebra Kid is to distroy him, it won't be Hillary, but the far Right.; April 25, 2008 8:06 PM
RobH said...: Yamala,

Your desperation is showing. First, the delusional rants that no one read, but you think the SD's will find and somehow benefit from. Now, these statements:

"It deserves to be destroyed from the bottom up."

"Please join the ground swell to begin the end of the Democratic Party, as we know it, starting Aug at Denver."

"Convention MUST not go on - it must be STOPPED from Day One."

You've revealed your true colors. Your sentiments are craven. You are no Democrat. And you are desperate.

You are a cancer, my man. I advise quarantine.

Oh sure, we'll get a couple posters say they value your input (Jim, AnonNYDem, Jean?)

But here's a fine idea. How about all real HRC supporters who stand by Yamaka's approach of "war, destroyed from the bottom up, and end of the Democratic party" take a step forward right now.

Uh, that sound of crickets you hear is the sound of reasonable HRC supporters, sideling away from you to the far corner of the room....; April 25, 2008 8:07 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: On the other hand, you might want to parse this: the votes that are being counted, and that means the “assumed” caucus votes but not the real votes in FL & MI, are:

BO 50.92%
HRC 49.08%

The delegates apportioned are at:
BO 52.74%
HRC 47.26%

Want to make some weird mathematical formulation with this info?

So BO has benefited from DNC rules to the tune of 103 extra delegates, and if we had a winner-take-all process the delegate count would be:
HRC 1391
BO 1362
. . . WITHOUT Michigan and Florida.; April 25, 2008 8:08 PM
Anonymous said...: jp
It is not 2000 and alienation is rampant; April 25, 2008 8:08 PM
Anonymous said...: MSMWatch2008
You can't use logic and fact on lemmings. I like it though; April 25, 2008 8:10 PM
ed iglehart said...: It was me who called scribblers (media/journalists) vermin.

It was an appropriate group term and not applied to any individual, living or dead, real or imagined.

;-)
ed; April 25, 2008 8:11 PM
RobH said...: MSMwatch:

"you might want to redo your little game..."

"But it seems you had fun with your "combinations" exercise"

So dismissive......; April 25, 2008 8:12 PM
Anonymous said...: They don't care about "one man, one vote anymore than the Supremes did in 2004; April 25, 2008 8:12 PM
RobH said...: Hey Ed,

Check your e-mail at tipiglen when you get a chance.; April 25, 2008 8:14 PM
jpsedona said...: MSM,

"When you called the scribblers vermin, were you talking about Clinton supporters, or was that directed at the media"

I never called anyone vermin.

As far as caucuses in general go, would ANY state hold a caucus if they knew that there was ANY consideration that popular vote could reverse the voters of their state?

It's still about delegates. If Hillary can persuade the SD's to back her, hey she's the candidate. However, I think the chances of that are miniscule. The only way popular vote comes into play is to convince pledged delegates, other than that it's irrelevant.

I'll be back later, but comment as you wish I'll eventually get to it.; April 25, 2008 8:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Lemmings,Please register for the upcoming run to the cliffs. robh,jp,leah and dwit, I already signed you up. Any more?; April 25, 2008 8:40 PM
13ben said...: As defined:

The law of averages is a lay term used
to express a belief that outcomes of a random
event will "even out" over a large sample.

As invoked in everyday life,
the "law" usually reflects bad statistics
or wishful thinking rather than any mathematical principle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JUDGING BY THIS PRINCIPLE - AND USING THE FOLLOWING DATA (DCW):

4047 total delegates:
3253 Pledged, 794 Super

Pledged Delegates remaining: 408 (1/2 = 204)
CLINTON 1336 - OBAMA 1491

Super-Delegates remaining: 304 (1/2 = 152)
CLINTON 256 - OBAMA 234

Total Remaining: 712 (1/2 = 356)

CLINTON needs 60.7% of total remaining to reach 2024 delegates
OBAMA needs 42.0% of total remaining to reach 2024 delegates,

Pennsylvania primary delegate allocation:
CLINTON 84(53.2%), OBAMA 74(46.8%)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Pennsylvania primary of April 22, 2008
can in NO WAY be construed as a victory for Sen. Clinton.

If Clinton is to make any progress
towards reaching 2024 delegates before Obama,
SHE MUST MAINTAIN a 60.7% average in delegates.

She fell 7.5 percentage points short of that progress.

Picture this: (an extremely rosy one for Clinton)

If Clinton wins every single remaining contest
by the same margin as Pennsylvania,
the result would be
OBAMA 1916(1628plgd) - CLINTON 1809(1553plgd).

She would have to convince 71%
of the remaining 304 Super-Delegates to NOT NOMINATE
the electorally selected presidential candidate.
Basically requesting 217 high-ranking
Democratic Pary members to commit political suicide.

She did not meet the benchmark in Pennsylvania.

Thereby, if Hillary Clinton is as loyal
to the Democratic base as she claims,
it is time she got to work making Barack Obama
the next President of the United States.

Her political future depends on it. Our country's future depends on it.; April 25, 2008 8:41 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: ed - I thought I got that right, thanks.

Sedona, I'm sorry, I messed up, thought you were the verminizer.

I disagree that the only way the popular vote comes into play is to convince the pledged - it's to convince the SD's. I agree it's all about persuading the SD's, at this point for both of them. I agree HRC's chances are slim, but one of the main points she can make -- if she can make it after all the voting has been finished -- will be that she has won the popular vote. I think it's her best if not only argument, but if it is the case, then it is a very convincing one.

Looked at from all angles, at the slim margin between these two, it is ridiculous to suggest that HRC has no right to keep on in this race, and if it were any other candidate I do not believe we would be hearing this.

(I'm not saying that you, jp, have suggested that! I don't have a clue!); April 25, 2008 8:48 PM
Anonymous said...: New lemming list
Lemmings,Please register for the upcoming run to the cliffs. robh,jp,leah and dwit, I already signed you up. Any more?
ADD Amot and 13ben; April 25, 2008 8:50 PM
13ben said...: The anti-lemming:

Best Case

She has to convince 71%
of the remaining 304 Super-Delegates

She has to convince 217 high-ranking
Democratic Pary members to commit political suicide.

She has to convince them to NOT NOMINATE the electorally elected presidential candidate.

The reality of it.; April 25, 2008 8:57 PM
13ben said...: If the voting math was reversed, I would be supporting Clinton by now.

But the reality is what it is.; April 25, 2008 9:00 PM
ed iglehart said...: George McGovern speaks out on moving goalposts and other commonsense matters.

Listen to the man.

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; April 25, 2008 9:09 PM
RobH said...: OK, I'll be far more direct on this, and far less PC.

On Weds. Rush Limbaugh's redio program spoke of a dream outcome of "riots in Denver", and a "repeat of Chicago 1968".

He explained on-air: "Riots in Denver at the Democrat Convention would see to it we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said. "And that's the best damn thing (that) could happen for this country as far as anything I can think."

His website today had a section titled: "Screw the world, riot in Denver".

And, amazingly, today from Yamaka, we have his incidiary comments of "war, destroyed from the bottom up, and please join the ground swell to begin the end of the Democratic Party, as we know it, starting Aug at Denver"

Is there any question anymore who Yamaka is? Let's treat him accordingly.; April 25, 2008 9:14 PM
RobH said...: Jim,

Not running to the cliffs, my man.

Running to a new political reality, free of the poison of partisanship and sseking the best in us all. What do you seek?

Same ol' same ol', wh?; April 25, 2008 9:18 PM
RobH said...: Hey Jim,

we'll save a spot for you anyway; April 25, 2008 9:19 PM
jpsedona said...: MSM,

Back for just a few mins. I think Hillary should (and will) run as long as she wants. My perspective is that she will be squeezed out. One or two uncommitted SD's here or there. She is about to pick up some more delegates from add-ons, but Obama will have an edge in add-ons. Those are likely to be for the candidate that won the state.

For her to remain viable, she must stop the trickle of SD's to Obama. She cannot afford to lose 3-4 delegates to Obama each week. I believe that this is one reason why Bayh is urging the Indiana Congressman to not make any endorsements.

But after May 6, if the results are as predicted, it will be close to mathematically impossible to catch up in pledged delegates. Once that's the case, the SD's will use that as a reason to come out for Obama. I believe that they will come out for Obama before FL & MI is resolved so that they can lock in their decision to the situation as of the day they did it.

Just my opinion...; April 25, 2008 9:23 PM
jpsedona said...: Jim,

Feel free to call me Lemming if that makes you happy while you're drining the cool-aid...; April 25, 2008 9:24 PM
jpsedona said...: RobH,

Yamaka is Rush's alter ego... I wouldn't be surprised... other than Rush seems to more coherent. Have you asked Yamaka if he's on any prescriptions?; April 25, 2008 9:27 PM
dwit said...: JP,

Those are two op-ed from 4 and 2 years ago respectively! The political landscape has changed dramatically since then. They are the only articles I have seen advocating those theories.

I can find OPINIONS to back up any claim I want. You got to do better than that to convince me.

Not to mention Wisconsin voted for Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl. These are politicians as liberal as they come.

I've been to the upper Midwest on numerous occasions and these people are generally well educated and progressive-minded.

Michigan? Forget about it, look at the African American population stats. alone, 14.3%!

40% uncommitted? No other candidate on the ballot? Not to mention all of the Obama write ins that were not counted because of party rules.

Levin and Stabenow are both dyed in the wool dems.

Even Dukakis won most of the Upper Midwest! A Republitard hasn't won those states since Reagan.

I think the facts speak for themselves on this one. I'm not even totally convinced that Indiana is on board with a Republican candidate this year. The turnout numbers there will be very telling.

I generally agree with you, but sometimes I'm convinced you get more out of confrontation than simply advancing the facts. I think you can tell by my posts that I love to debate, but I have to concede facts when I see them.

Hell, I've even agreed with Jim and Gator on occasion.; April 25, 2008 9:47 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Jim,

Do you support or renounce the rants of Aunt Jean? The lack of concern that minors might be reading the filthy language in what she writes shows me that she is not material to be a parent, nor a productive and concerned member of society.

Do you support the unsourced and defamatory writings of Yamaka? Many times s/he has written as fact where someone has asked the writer to prove the assertion from a reliable source, but s/he ignores them. If someone is going to say something is fact, then that person should be willing and able to back up the assertion. To not want to do so, or not be capable of doing so, is the hallmark of an anarchist who is not willing to engage in civilized conversation.

Not to even consider Yamaka's delusional "conversations with the candidates". If s/he can't separate reality from fiction, I believe some members of the medical community would consider checking to see if the patient is in need of immediate and competent medical attention.

Oh, and if you now consider me a lemming, go ahead. But you better first read up on the latest scientific evidence about lemmings voluntarily throw themselves over a cliff. If you continue believing a myth that started from faked footage in a 1958 Disney film would show that you are a believer in the old maxim "Repeat a lie often enough and it will be believed." I think the loudest proponent of that maxim lived about 70 years ago in central Europe, and the maxim was then picked up by a certain Wisconsin Senator, and later picked up by Karl Rove and many others of the lunatic right.

Keep calling us lemmings, and you'll go a long way to prove that you are a Republican plant and shill.

Mike; April 25, 2008 9:50 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: richard. I did a state-by-state comparision to about 20 states(thanks to Pollster.com and RealClearPolitics.com) and came up with this:

Electoral Votes
Senator McCain 199
Senator Clinton 164

Here are Senator Clinton's wins:
Arkansas 6
California 55
Maine 4
New Jersey 15
Ohio 20
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 21
West Virginia 5

Senator Obama 198
Senator McCain 157

Here are Senator Obama's wins:
California 55
Colorado 9
Iowa 7
Maine 4
Michigan 17
Minnesota 10
Nevada 5
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey 15
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 21
Washington 11
Wisconsin 10

Now, let's factor in your theories
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will recieve the following:

Connecticut 7
Delaware 8
D.C. 3
Hawaii 4
Illinois 21(I already gave Senator Obama this state in my total)
Massachusetts 12
Missouri 17
New York 31(I already gave Senator Clinton this state in my total)
Rhode Island 4
Vermont 3

These are states that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama would lose:
Arizona 10
Florida 27
Indiana 11
Missouri 11
New Mexico 5
North Carolina 15
Texas 34
Virginia 15

That would give:
Senator Clinton 274
Senator Obama 256

The following states are still at-large:

Alabama 6
Georgia 15
Idaho 4
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 9
Mississippi 9
Montana 3
North Dakota 3
Oklahoma 7
South Carolina 8
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Vermont 3

From that group I think Senator Clinton can win Tennessee which would put her at 285.

From that same group, Senator Obama would probably have to put Louisiana, Mississippi and South Dakota in his column to give him 282.; April 25, 2008 9:59 PM
Bob in Vancouver said...: I'm a Canadian and I live in Vancouver, and my comment is more of a question. Has anybody noted that it is more than likely that Obama's popular vote after Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon, etc. will exceed that of Clinton even when you add in her proportion of the Florida and Mitchigan votes. She only exceeds the popular vote at this very moment and is using it to suggest that she is leading in at least this one measure, when infact, Obama is more than likely to recover the lead in the popular vote when the other primaries are finished.; April 25, 2008 10:05 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: amot. No one will EVER get 320+ Electoral Votes. That is simply unrealistic.

robh. I find your comments unreasonable(6:27 post.)

Jim. Are you supporting Senator Clinton?; April 25, 2008 10:21 PM
dwit said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 25, 2008 10:22 PM
dwit said...: Yes Bob, I think that is the conventional wisdom, but I have to hand it to Hillary. She has studied Uncle Karl's playbook well. Her success is proof that people are generally still swayed by his guerrilla tactics of LIE and retreat.

I think education level has a lot to do with it, but that can't be the only factor, as many states lower on the socio-income ladder have gone for Obama too.

His states, however, tend to be states with many maverick independents. That tends to be the ethos of the West as I'm sure you can attest.; April 25, 2008 10:24 PM
RobH said...: Gator, pray tell, what part, or parts, do you find unreasonable?

Is it:
a) my atatements of it's usefulness, or
b)my acceptance of the his math, or
c)my editorializing regarding her spinning, the credibility of her candidacy, or her fantasies?

If it's a) or c), that would probably fall in the category of the value of listening to viewpoints other than one's own. Come to think of it, that applies to b) as well. As I will abide your assumptions at 9:59, I'm sure you can abide Richard's earlier, yes?

Or was it something else? Was there something unreasonable in my enthusiasm for his analysis?; April 25, 2008 10:33 PM
countjellybean said...: Here are some more numbers the using the data from the main page at electoral-vote.com.

Clinton - 6 states, 83 votes:
Florida
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Missouri
Ohio
West Virginia

Obama - 16 states, 168 votes
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oregon
South Carolina
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin

Blue - both candidates beat McCain by more than 5 points - 155 votes:
California
Delaware
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont

Red - Both candidates trail McCain by more than 5 points - 132 votes:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia
Wyoming

On the other hand, the site also presents results of national head-to-head matchups, and this method favors Clinton, 284 to 264.

In Clinton v. McCain, Clinton wins, 284 to 244, with WI a toss-up. In Obama v. McCain, Obama wins, 264 to 259, with NC a toss-up.

.......

As far as Florida goes, I think it is important to find out if people were charged to get into the events where Hillary Clinton spoke just before the primary. If people had to pay to get in, it was a fundraiser. If not, it was campaigning.

.......

I'm curious to see what Jean thinks of Jim calling Obama the "Zebra Kid".; April 25, 2008 10:39 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: robh. I find the whole thing to be negative towards Senator Clinton. I understand the concept, perhaps it's that I wish it was put in a more respectful manner. It makes it seem as though Senator Clinton has no good qualities. I know what she has done in NY as a senator. I wish that would be brought out. That's all. However, your usage of words, presentation and preparation was terrific.

As for my 9:59 post, that was for RICHARD in a response to a post he had asked me to comment on, yet I get zip in the way of responses about it from him.

I appreciate your abidance(is that even a word?) of my 9:59. I work very hard on those types of posts.

Overall, I find you(and leah) to be the most reasonable of Senator Obama's loyal bloggers. I like to think I am reasonable as well, in addition to fact-filled.; April 25, 2008 10:54 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: mike in maryland. I think yamaka and aunt jean are like me, with some differences.

yamaka is witty, funny, and creative. Is he delusional? I'll let you be the judge of that.

Aunt Jean is passionate, fearless, and perhaps standoffish. She does throw the kitchen sink, but can go too far at times.

As for myself, I am like them in that I think I am witty, passionate about this nomination process, but where I differ is that I am thoughful with how I phrase my posts. I also try to be informative.

Overall, I think the message is that I think Senator Clinton is be ing made out to be something she is not: evil. We just want the good points brought out as well.

Your thoughts?; April 25, 2008 11:02 PM
RobH said...: Gator,

Peace be to you. Any time we can have a coming together in good will of adversarial poitions, it is a benefit to us all, the discourse, and the larger success of the party.

Thanks for your kind words. I know Leah has been (in my mind inappropriately) dissed, and your alternate viewpoint is welcomed.

We would all do well to put things in "a more respectful manner". Speaking for myself, I find my patience sorely tested sometimes with what I guess are, in fact, republican plants. The encouragement of Yamaka to tear the party asunder, in direct parallel to Rush's encitement, really tests my patience, and I'm not as restrained as I guess I could be. Ditto the abject racism of Jean and Jim. I try, but sometimes .......

Reasonable, and civil discourse is always valued.

Thanks.; April 25, 2008 11:08 PM
Yamaka said...: Dear True Democrats:

Some of you think that I advocate "terrorism". No, I advocate massive Civil Disobedience to totally paralyze Denver so much so the Convention cannot be held. No material will be destroyed, and no one will be physically hurt. Our approach is purely non-violent means of achieving a morally justified end. This is what we learned from Mahatma Gandhi.

Why all this direct action?

The Democratic Party Officials are bent upon disenfranchising 3 million voters of FL and MI, which is against the doctrine of Full Inclusive Democracy.

How will we do it?

We expect several million people from ALL fifty States to descend on Denver a few days before the Convention. They will make massive human chains, and block all buildings and hotels where the delegates and super delegates will stay; they will also envelope in multi-layers the entry ways of the Convention Center. No one can enter or leave.

Police can come with their attack dogs, water canons, bullets etc. We will stay put and resist arrests. The whole event will be video taped in HD and broadcast on the WEB live to tell the world as to what is happening in Denver, and why.

Therefore, don't worry - it will be safe for everybody else, except for the participants: we may be hauled to prisons, and tortured.

Fine with us. Because our cause is just and we will prevail.

Folks, you have a choice: Be fuzzy talkers or be activists and do something about your grievances.

We Believe in Action.

As simple as that.

Cheers. :-) :-); April 25, 2008 11:21 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Senator Clinton has advanced a lot of methods of pushing forward 'alternative counting methods' (Electoral College, total vote, big state/small state, blue state/red state), so I thought I would explore one that I hadn't heard being advanced.

What would be the results if you count votes and delegates in the states that have an 'open primary' (any voter of any party can vote in a party's primary) or 'modified primary' (party members and Independents can vote in a party's primary). These state's primaries are a lot more representative of the options that the electorate has in the General Election, where a voter can vote for any candidate. In a closed primary, the voter can only vote in the primary of the party of their registration (D's only in the D primary, R's only in the R primary, Independents can't vote in the primary).

According to The Green Papers, the states that have open or modified open primaries and have already voted are:
New Hampshire
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Georgia
Illinois
Massachusetts
Missouri
New Jersey
Tennessee
Utah
Virginia
Wisconsin
Ohio
Rhode Island
Texas
Vermont
Mississippi
Pennsylvania

Total votes cast for each candidate in the above states (according to TGP):
Barack Obama: 11,485,664
Hillary Clinton: 9,850,359

Obama wins by 1,635,305 votes.

Total delegates allocated to each candidate in the above states also according to TGP):
Barack Obama: 880
Hillary Clinton: 850

Obama wins by 30 delegates.

Note: For Texas, I counted only the votes cast in the primary, not the votes cast in the caucus. Thus the argument of one vote/two votes is not considered. The effect is that Senator Clinton gets an acknowledged advantage in both votes and delegates in Texas.

Does the above exercise mean anything? Not really, since the rules state that the candidate that meets or surpasses the 50% plus one delegate vote at the convention wins the nomination. But it is an exercise that demonstrates that not all 'alternative counting methods' will come out in favor of Senator Clinton, and that what might be considered a more realistic scenario goes against her arguments.

If anyone wants me to post the spreadsheet information, let me know and I'll post it.

Mike; April 25, 2008 11:30 PM
Somerled said...: Yep Yamaka is DEFINITELY a repugnantcan...; April 25, 2008 11:37 PM
billyjay66 said...: Yamaka
Hmm Rioting in the street in Denver huh? Maybe I will be able to hear the rumble. Denver is just an hour away. Your dream & Rush's dream too. Be sure to bring your buddy along!!!; April 25, 2008 11:42 PM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: robh. Here is what I know:

Aunt Jean told me she throws the kitchen sink when she blogs due to others bashing Senator Clinton. I actually used the kitchen sink phrase and she agreed.

As for yamaka, he told me his posts are satirical. He is not a Republican plant(at least, not in my opinion.), however, I find him colorful.

Overall, I think we are all friends with the other bloggers who support our candidate of choice. It is if we can cross over to the candidate we don't support and be friends with those bloggers. When I say friends, I don't mean on a personal level, rather as what I call ''blogging friends''. I like to think I am friends with everyone on here, some more than others. In the end, I think yamaka and jean just want Senator Clinton's good side brought out.; April 25, 2008 11:49 PM
RobH said...: Hey Yamaka,

The "democrats" are going to disenfranchise their own so you, Yamaka, will "fix" things by disrputing Denver for us all?

You've been exposed, d*psh*t. Take it somewhere else. You don't even pretend to be a Dem anymore you lying sack.

Have you noticed how many real HRC supporters are supporting you tonight? None. You're alone. Be gone, loser. Take your
Rove/Limbaugh laughable tactics and fade into that black night. You would expect several millions, Yamaka, but you'll be disappointed and standing alone in the street.

You may be hauled to prison and tortured all right. An ironic outcome for you, the lowly Republican street level operative. Your own strategists and heroes mainulate you into taking the fall for them, while they sit fat and happy and Halliburtoned.

Oh, you poor, poor pawn.; April 25, 2008 11:56 PM
RobH said...: PS, y'all:

No Yamaka's at Cornell, no Yamaka's at Stanford. You'll find Ijeomi Yamaka in the phone book.

Goodby, laughing stock.; April 25, 2008 11:58 PM
Richard said...: Thanks to everyone who took the time to read and respond to my post. I don't have time to reply to everyone individually right now (I will try to do so tomorrow if I get time, but I'm in the process of buying a house and I work Saturdays).

Meanwhile I want to offer a couple of general statements about my analysis which may help people understand some things:

1) I did not say that all of the possible combinations I listed for Obama wins were likely. Some are decidedly unlikely. I was merely pointing out that if Obama can put the states I think he could into play, those are possible winning combinations.

2) Listing states as swing states for a particular candidate is not a declaration that I think they will win, only that I think they could win in those states. Obama will by no means win all of the states I list as possibilities for him, and my great fear is that Clinton would not win some of those I list for her.

3) I did not consult polls in determining most of my decisions, but relied primarily on historical voting trends. Certain states are blue and certain states are red regardless of who the candidates are. One of the reasons I didn't do this is that current poll results are, IMO, skewed by the bitter internecine fighting and not likely to be representative of ultimate results. Yes, I realize that this makes it subjective, but I would bet that it also makes it more accurate.

4) While these lists could probably be improved in many ways, there is one thing that I am very confident of: I do not think that Clinton can win any state not on my Blue State or Clinton State lists. To me that is a very scary thought.

5) I have already offered this challenge to Gator: if anyone can suggest a state not on my Clinton list or Blue State list which she has a plausible chance of winning, I am all ears.

[@Gator: What I get from your post is that you think Clinton could win WV. If that's the case (which I highly doubt), winning MO + AK + WV or OH + WV would give her victories, a net gain of two possible paths to victory.]; April 26, 2008 12:01 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: good evening somerled. Here is more on 1984:

States Won
Gary Hart 27
Walter Mondale 19
Jesse Jackson 4

Popular Vote
Walter Mondale 6,952,912
Gary Hart 6,504,842
Jesse Jackson 3,282,431

Aside from Rev. Jackson's stats, if Senator Clinton is able to win the popular vote, it is eerily similar to this year.; April 26, 2008 12:04 AM
RobH said...: Gator,

I'm afraid I've given away any claim to reasonableness tonight. Believe what you chose to regarding Yamaka, and with sure knowlege that I, too have found him "entertaining" across the weeks, but:

There's direct correlation between Limbaugh's call to riot this week, and more specifically today, and Yamaka's call to riot, today.

He's a Republican troll (IMO) and if you chose to belive otherwise I think you're naive (IMO). Look at what he advocates and ask yourself how that serves Democrats. It doesn't. It's craven.
Anyone who advocates "the destruction of the party", "war", and "riot", earns no civility from me.; April 26, 2008 12:04 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: I noticed an error I made in my 'alternative counting method'. I included Pennsylvania, which has a closed primary.

I also had an error in the spreadsheet that miscalculated the vote totals.

Correcting the above errors, the adjusted figures are:

Total votes cast for each candidate in the above states (according to TGP):
Barack Obama: 10,447,711
Hillary Clinton: 9,996,657

Obama wins by 451,054 votes.

Total delegates allocated to each candidate in the above states also according to TGP):
Barack Obama: 806
Hillary Clinton: 766

Obama wins by 40 delegates.

Mike; April 26, 2008 12:06 AM
Yamaka said...: Another Conversation with Sen BHO:

-Good Evening, Senator.

-Hi Yamaka, What's up, my man.

-Well, Senator, I watched pastor Wright in Bill Moyer's interview on PBS. Your former pastor, nay.. the current pastor (Moyer said he will retire only next month!) is a very articulate man weaving politics, history and religion very eloquently. He was very clear about one point: that in the past 20 years, you never confronted him about the things he preached from the podium. He has been preaching so many very politically controversial matters for so long with his characteristic abrasive style, but you did not object it even once! How come, Senator?

--Well, Yamaka. When you hear him talking religion, Gospel, politics and the contexts he uses never sounded objectionable to me. I have applauded many times his preachings. But, when you carefully analyze his teachings there is an element of anti-White, anti-American nuggets buried in each and every sermon. I did not have the guts to confront him, for he is my pastor who baptized me and my children to Christianity. That's as simple as that.

--Very clear, now. Another matter, Senator. What's going on with Jim Clyburn the SC Congressman, who has been throwing low punches at Bill Clinton. Is he stirring up the pot again? Is it a tempest in the tea-pot?

--Well, Yama, from Day One our Strategy has been to hit Bill Clinton as hard as possible so that our BigMoneyBags and the FAR LEFT will be energized to go against his wife Hillary. That's working very well. So, for now, I am happy.

However, there will come a point that we will fall on our own swords and die of foul play. The 38 million Left-leaning Americans are watching. Most of them love Bill and Hillary very much. They will be put off. Even when I steal the Nomination with the arcane moribund Rule of the Party, those people will just abandon me and the Party by leaning Right. This means me and the Party will lose the WH and the Congress! That is going to be the result of our Grand Strategy against Bill Clinton, the only Democrat who won the WH twice with 370-379 Electoral Votes! Well, I know it is damn shameful, but that's our Destiny, I guess. Yama, I got to run. Insha Allah, we will meet again.

-Very well, Senator. Thanks for your time. Insha Allah, we will meet again. Bye Bye Good Night.
-----------------------------

Oh well, another day another Conversation!; April 26, 2008 12:08 AM
billyjay66 said...: Gators

Hi! You are right. When it can stay friendly - we can gain from each others opinion. I responded to you about how I used to support Hillary and why I changed. You responded respectfully and came back asking me if I still thought the talent of Bill would still be an asset. If Hillary were pres.

If it came to that - I think the oppositions ability to divide and create chaos would be incredible. AND Bill's ways of "helping" Hillary have been pretty bizarre at best. I just found Bill's campaign (in '92) so inspiring compared to this mess; April 26, 2008 12:08 AM
RobH said...: Gator, now I've taken several deep breaths. I nominally believe in fairness, though my last posts haven't sounded very rational.

I think you are being beyond PC.

You say:
"I think yamaka and jean just want Senator Clinton's good side brought out."

And He says:

"It deserves to be destroyed from the bottom up."
"Please join the ground swell to begin the end of the Democratic Party, as we know it, starting Aug at Denver."
"Convention MUST not go on - it must be STOPPED from Day One."

How do you square the two? Does his approach sound like just "wanting to bring out HRC's good side"?

Honestly, recognize him for what he is.; April 26, 2008 12:12 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: richard. My information is based on polls. Answer this:

Did I answer your post?

Good luck with your house.

Tennessee.; April 26, 2008 12:23 AM
Yamaka said...: We will call off our Struggle Against the Party if they just announce this:

"The Date Rule was poorly implemented by the Officials. Therefore, we don't want to disenfranchise the 3 million voters of FL and MI.

As such, the Magic Number is 2208 and not 2025 delegates, as we previously announced, period"

Once this is implemented, I will support ANY candidate who achieves the 2208 threshold, period. Whether it is Sen Obama or Sen Clinton. Fine with me.

I want the Nomination Process to be fair to the Full Inclusive Democracy.

I have said this before, and
I am not a listener of Rush or any other Republican. I have been a Democrat for a long long time. And, I am a FOB - Friend of Bill.

What we have is a Struggle Inside the Democratic Party. Nothing more or nothing less.

Cheers. :-); April 26, 2008 12:29 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: robh. I understand where you are coming from. Maybe my corollation was off, but I think you get my point. I am amazed, but also proud, that this night audience, thinks I am the voice of reason as far as rationale, fairness, etc.; April 26, 2008 12:33 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: When people protest, march, and go to jail for JUST CAUSES such as the woman's right to vote, the right to vote for blacks, the ending of wars, etc. I see no problem with civil disobedience. BUT to protest and cause unrest only because you don't agree with the DNC rules then that is insane and wrong. I hope that anyone that goes to Denver and causes a disturbance will end up in jail and I hope that they also arrest Rush for inciting to riot.; April 26, 2008 12:34 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: yamaka. ''We will call off this struggle''.

Who is we?; April 26, 2008 12:35 AM
Yamaka said...: "Who is we?"

As I said before, all the volunteers believing in our Cause of Count ALL Votes; it may be anybody who would like to come to Denver before the Convention.

It is a grass-root Movement.

I organize people from my Precinct.

:-); April 26, 2008 12:49 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: I have two points of view:

1. I think the whole Florida and Michigan fiascos are a perfect example of why Howard Dean is not a good DNC Chairman. It makes no sense to have states like Nevada vote ahead of Florida and Michigan. All the states wanted was to matter because these are states that the Democrats need come November. However, it was Gov. Crist who moved the primary up. How is that fair to Democrats?

2. I find Rush Limbaugh laughable and offensive and do not take him seriously. His strategy to apparently help Senator Clinton win because he thinks she would be easier to defeat would backfire on him if it ever came to pass.

yamaka. In any way you want to view this comment(and i'm not quite sure myself how to view it.):

You are one of a kind on here.; April 26, 2008 1:04 AM
Yamaka said...: gator:

Thanks for your input.

Please read my 6:53 pm post and the ones later.

My rationale will be clearer.

Believe me, I am NOT a listener of Rush on this matter or any other matter.

Some others here ARE listening to him regularly!

You have to listen to voters of FL and MI to know how hurt they are!

If people think that this matter is going to go away w/o DNC making necessary correction, they are seriously mistaken, IMHO.

Cheers.; April 26, 2008 1:14 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: yamaka. I read them already.; April 26, 2008 1:23 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: Did everyone except me fall asleep?; April 26, 2008 1:39 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: GatorsChampions4Ever said:
"It makes no sense to have states like Nevada vote ahead of Florida and Michigan."

The decision to place Nevada and South Carolina in the front of the primary process was for a two-fold reason:

The first was the result of many saying that there was a geographic disparity. Many were saying that the voters in the South were being ignored, as were the voters in the West.

The reason those two states were chosen is because they are relatively small, and the party wanted to keep the 'retail politicking' of small states at the front, so that candidates who might be viable, but lacked massive amounts of cash, would still have an opportunity to be noticed, and thus gain traction. If they did well in the smaller states, then they might be able to gain some financial backing and be able to compete on equal, or at least more equal, footing in the larger states, such as Michigan and Florida, which because of size (population and media markets), are much more expensive states in which to campaign.

South Carolina was chosen over Florida because SC is a lot smaller, and thus less expensive, than Florida. Iowa and Michigan are both considered Mid-West, and the Mid-West would already be covered by Iowa, but the West would still be left out, so enter Nevada - small from a population standpoint, and with most of the population in the south, in reality it is basically a one media-market state.

The timing and decision on which states would go early, and which would go later, was by the full DNC, which in 2006 was effectively controlled by those favorable to Clinton. Howard Dean had one vote on the rules. Yes, as Chairman, he had influence, but there was a lot of antipathy towards him, as many felt he had been shoved into the role of Party Chief by MoveOn, among others.

That is what I understand is the how and why of the logic that was used for the choosing states in the early primaries. Iowa and New Hampshire, on tradition, going first. Then Nevada and South Carolina, small(ish) states, thus less cash needed to compete, and for geographic considerations, were chosen to go next. This plan, theoretically, would give geographic distribution to the early primaries, and also give underfunded candidates at least some opportunity to get noticed and be viable.

Dean may have been the architect of that plan (I don't think he was, though, but I'm not sure). But even if he was the architect, if the rest of the DNC hadn't agreed to it (and remember, the majority of the membership were those who backed, and still back, Clinton), the current plan would not have been implemented.

Mike; April 26, 2008 1:48 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: mike in maryland. Well said. Who in the DNC, as you state, is still backing Senator Clinton?; April 26, 2008 2:00 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: I don't have the names, but if you look at the front page of DCW, you'll see that there are 143 of the non-Michigan, non-Florida members of the DNC who have endorsed Clinton, vs. 117 endorsing Obama, and 138 who haven't announced yet.

By that count, you can see that there is a very strong contingent of DNC members who support Clinton.

Mike; April 26, 2008 2:07 AM
billyjay66 said...: gators,
you can go to the wiki superdelegate page. There you can sort, click on the arrow by endorsement. Then if you click on the arrow by position, you will have all the DNC (and reps, etc). I don't have the link but google superdelegates and look for a wiki page; April 26, 2008 2:24 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: For all the folks in a tizzy about Florida and Michigan...

DNC to hear MI and FL challenges on May 31st

TO: DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Members

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC)

SUBJECT: Meeting Announcement–May 31, 2008

DATE: April 25, 2008
__________________

* You can read the letter on the front page of this website (DCW); April 26, 2008 2:26 AM
Aunt Jean said...: mike from maryland your figures are wrong are should the tgb is wrong.Clinton 9728923 obama 10140788 difference obama 411865. the pledged delegates obama 799 clinton 774. Gator I don't know to take that in a good way or not but I did like the first two words about me. Thanks. Hello everyone even to the ones that doesn't like me or says bad things.; April 26, 2008 3:05 AM
Aunt Jean said...: leah there is no good way to solve the problem about michigan and florida. I understand where you are coming from when you say it's not fair to count them but in my heart and mind every voter has a moral or fundamental right to have their voice heard. So to me it is unamerican to not count them.It was a stupid rule to begin with. Jean; April 26, 2008 3:10 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Did someone on here buy a house in tenn. I lived there for 17 years then moved back to Tx. because of family. Sure do miss it. Its a wonderful so much to see.I lived in a small town called Hichman it's about 55 miles fron nashville going east on I40 I loved living there.It was very peaceful. Jean; April 26, 2008 3:21 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah I know that you think I'm a racist and I guess deep down A little of me. But there are reasons and I have fought that for many many years my father was murdered by 2 black men and I also had a cousin that was coming home from the service that had a stop over in New Orleans well he was murdered and robbed. Anyway I was very racist then. Then I got pregnant and was on the outs with my family and on my own having a very hard time well I met this little old black and she helped me learn that not all blacks were bad she was wonderful and I learned to really care about her. As I got older I realized something there is trash in every race not just black. Yes I do have 2 nephews that are and loved very much even if they are turds ha ha.So do I consider myself racist no not really or at least I hope that I have learned something in my life.I'm not a bad person. Jean; April 26, 2008 3:35 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean said:
". . . It was a stupid rule to begin with."

But it was in the rules adopted in 2006, by the DNC, and the rules that EVERY candidate agreed to run under when they announced their candidacy.

The time to change the rules was BEFORE they were adopted, not during the game. Did you read the proposed rules, and register your protestations to that or any other rule, with the DNC prior to the enactment of the final 2008 campaign rules?

The next opportunity to change the rules begins after the November, 2008 General Election, in preparation for the 2012 election cycle.

If YOU, aunt jean, don't like the rules, let the DNC representatives of your state know, and propose to them different rules. I'm sure they'll be happy to entertain your proposed rules, IF you have well-reasoned arguments as to why they should be adopted, but don't expect any rules you propose to be enacted unchanged, if at all, since there will be many people, endorsing all kinds of changes, that will compete for the attention of the DNC members as they go about deciding on what the rules should be in the 2012 race.

Mike; April 26, 2008 3:36 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah I forgot woman in little old black I bet she didn't weigh 100 lbs soaking wet and she was 87 I think. Jean; April 26, 2008 3:39 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike in Maryland as a matter of fact I did. Jean; April 26, 2008 3:41 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: aunt jean,

IF in fact you did know about, read, and register your disagreements with the proposed rules, I'm sure with your well-reasoned discourse, grammatically-correct writings, and demonstrated civil tongue (as you have amply demonstrated at DCW), your protestations were given serious consideration.

NOT

Mike; April 26, 2008 3:48 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike in Maryland believe it or not I have written letters that was grammatically correct even managed to keep a civil tongue.lol. After midnight my brain gets kind of fuzzy I think it has to do with age. lol lol.All joking aside it is hard for me because I've been deprived a good nights sleep for at least 2 weeks. It's just been hard for me to fall asleep and my mind feels mushy. Jean; April 26, 2008 4:57 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike heck it took me 4 times just to get the word verification right to send so I'm heading for the sack have a nice day. Jean; April 26, 2008 5:01 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean said:
". . . I have written letters that was grammatically correct. . . ."

Another great demonstration of that very concept.

NOT

Mike; April 26, 2008 5:20 AM
Ariane said...: Aunt Jean, I have lived briefly in central Tenn. about 50 mi south of Nashville, it was such a beautiful area.

Thank you for your honesty in sharing a bit of your history with race and racism. It is a deep wound in this country and like a very persistant weed, once it is implanted in how people are raised or through generalizing from some bad experiences, it is very hard to get out. It can be lessened by getting to know individuals like the elderly Black woman you met. That is a start ahd sounds like it was a big step. I hope you may get past condeming the majority of Black people which it sounded like you do. Words like some of those you have used can be very hurtful.

I don't blame you for defending Sen. Clinton or getting upset a things said on forums & blogs. I have gotten very angry myself at things on some other online forums, and I sometimes have had to stop and rewrite something before posting it, because I realised I went overboard from being so mad. It can be a good idea to stop, take some deep breaths, read aloud the words and think, how is this going to sound to people? Would I like people who know me in real life to hear this? Also remember there are people reading besides the ones who made me mad in the first place, including lurkers who don't post themselves. What kind of idea will everyone who reads it get about me, and will it make them less likely to listen when I want to try to convince them of some point? Then take some more deep breaths and read it AGAIN before hitting Publish. :)

For example you were right that it made no sense to count the people in Texas caucus separately since anyone who caucused had to have also voted in the primary, so it would be counting them twice. But saying that in the middle of a bunch of insults and swear words make people less likely to hear the point you were making.

btw I hope you did notice that the person (I cant recall who it was) who used the term "vermin" which I think is what made you most angry, was actually referring to the Media, not Clinton supporters. someone else asked if he meant the media and he said yes. (and I'd say "vermin" is a pretty apt description for the way some of the media has acted.); April 26, 2008 5:38 AM
ed iglehart said...: Try arguing that an full house should beat four of a kind (because all five cards are matched up) in the middle of a game of poker, and see how well you get on.

"Rules is rules," and the goalposts may be moved (by mutual agreement), but AFTER the current game is over.

It's clear to me (and George McGovern) that all the participants in the current exercise have agreed to the rules BY ENTERING, whether they understood them or not.

It's also clear that HRC (through her proxies or otherwise), opted for the more severe of the penalties on offer.

The cause of democracy and 'fair play' is not advanced by these shenanigans. The time to agree a better set of rules and regulations will be after the GE, but considering that the present rules were created by essentially the same sort of folk, it doesn't inspire optimism...

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; April 26, 2008 5:41 AM
Amot said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 26, 2008 6:40 AM
ed iglehart said...: Amot,

"FL should be seated as is for both pledged and unpledged, but they should know that if they break the rules again in the next 20 years they will get automatically 100% penalty."

For what reason? There was a notable lack of resistance from the elected Democrats to the primary date. There is absolutely no reason to change the already determined penalty, and to do so would diminish what remains of DNC authority/credibility.

Learn from experience, and make 'better' rules for next time, but don't twist the game in progress. I can only bring yet more acrimony and division.

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
Namaste -ed; April 26, 2008 6:50 AM
Amot said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; April 26, 2008 6:55 AM
Amot said...: To be honest, when all that FL and MI thing started to grow I thought the initial decision for 100% instead of 50% penalty was wrong. What Mike posted last evening made me think why 100% was the better choice. I had not paid attention to the fact that having two large primaries plus two small ones plus two small caucuses in the very beginning of the season would efectively kick-out of the race all candidates but Hillary and Barack! Mike wrote his analysis with a different purpose but I found it very helpfull. In my opinion the minimum 50% penalty should only be applied to small states if they decide to move their primary. Large states should get minimum 75% to 100% penalty. I also believe FL Dems are not as guilty as MI Dems. Now I am totally convinced that MI Dems deserved 100% penalty - Dems moved the voting date 3 weeks before the allowed one and they never said they are sorry. My position on striping all MI supers of their votes is now as solid as concrete. MI voters deserve some presentation so RBC and both campaigns must find a way to seat the delegation of pledged delegates with half vote each.
FL should be seated at 50% as is for both pledged and unpledged, but they should know that if they break the rules again in the next 20 years they will get automatically 100% penalty. FL is rich state - I think they can afford to run party sponsored primary of their own if the state law violates the rules. I also think that since DNC sets the rules they must also participate with money and co-sponsor such contests by 25% to 50% depending on the state party's needs!
Probably a lottery must be run each cycle to chose the early voting states, but I think that it is better for the party to have only few small contests at the start just as Mike pointed!; April 26, 2008 6:56 AM
ed iglehart said...: Sorry Amot, but ANY messing with the rules after the game has begun is bound to be seen as "partisan" and manipulative.

The rules must stand, or there is no reason in having them.

xx
ed; April 26, 2008 7:14 AM
Amot said...: Ed, about your FL question - no matter what we say, there was a primary there with a good turnout and all names on the ballot. The polls say the results are pretty fair. It was ran after the four allowed early contests. Dems in FL have part of the fault but not all of it. Voters think it was a fair contest, even Obama supporters think so. 50% to me is the fairest penalty. One more thing - if seating a dozen more delegates costs him the nomintion than he does not deserve it! I bet on June 4th 50-100 more supers will join him and make it over!
Really, he must end this FL and MI mess asap. May 31st is a good day to end it. He can be generous and he must be or more bitterness will be seen in the days to come...; April 26, 2008 7:16 AM
Amot said...: OOOh, Ed, you know, everyone has the right to appeal! I think given the situation 100% penalty is unfair to FL voters and should be reconsidered!; April 26, 2008 7:25 AM
ed iglehart said...: I reckon the Florida voters, who have indeed been wronged, should look closer to home.

The DNC set the rules.
All agreed to abide
Florida legislators broke the rules
Florida Democratic legislators sat on their hands
The Penalties were set
And agreed

The referee's decision is final
And in this case the Video confirms it.

The winner is clear anyway.; April 26, 2008 7:36 AM
ed iglehart said...: Smile!; April 26, 2008 7:38 AM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Been here for awhile, but been keeping to myself. There has been a lot of conversation around Florida and Michigan votes and whether they should be counted or not. As several have stated, you hate to not have everyone's vote count, but at the same time everybody know the rules before the first vote was cast. Many went to the ballots, but others decided why vote when it isn't going to count. Having been a Florida Resident/voter during the Hanging Chad fiasco, I can see why Floridians are upset. They need to face it that their Republican leaders hosed them again and elect them out of office. OBTW, my vote didn't count in the Hanging Chad recount, because Florida law prevented Absentee Ballots from being recounted. So when they did the recount, they didn't count. Gore might have won (he did in my mind).

Back to the current race. Either candidate will beat McCain. If he keeps making mistakes like he did on the 9th Ward this week the Republicans would be smart to replace him at the convention.; April 26, 2008 8:07 AM
Dave in NC said...: My, this blog has turned into a hospice for Clinton supporter.

Aunt Jean, it's called spell check; use it!

It even works after midnight!; April 26, 2008 8:54 AM
ed iglehart said...: Reverend Wright, interviewed by Bill Moyers.

Un-missable!

He notes that deeds undertaken with evil intent can be turned to good.

I was reminded of Faust and Bulgakov,
"That power I serve, which wills only evil, yet forever does good."

Poor Satan, doomed to frustration.
xx
ed; April 26, 2008 9:13 AM
Dave in NC said...: I'm so impressed with all the math wizards (except the one poster that is clearly a kindergarten drop-out), I was expecting to see Fermat's Last Theorem proved here.

Here are some simple numbers for the rest of us:

Obama takes half of the remaining pledged delegates and 2/3 of the remaining uncommitted supers and wins on the first ballot by about 140 votes.

That's about 52% to 48% or a 4 point spread (3 point spread for you Aunt Jean).

But at the convention, a win by a single vote means victory, not further discussion.

And BTW, the convention is and has been Obama's ONLY opportunity to knock Clinton out. No candidate can force another candidate to bow out.

Clearly Clinton hasn't had the dignity, altruism or even common sense to put party and nation ahead of her own desires and bow to will of the people; a piece of humble pie that has had to be consummed by nearly every non-winning candidate (and their supporters) in history; April 26, 2008 9:17 AM
ed iglehart said...: NC Dave,

"Obama takes half of the remaining pledged delegates and 2/3 of the remaining uncommitted supers and wins on the first ballot by about 140 votes."

If Obama takes half of the remaining pledged delegates and only 1/3 of the remaining uncommitted supers he still wins on the first ballot.

It's already decided!

;-)ed; April 26, 2008 9:33 AM
ed iglehart said...: "IT'S SPRING, THE TULIPS ARE IN BLOOM AND THE SAP IS RISING. Which may explain why the whole world seems to be going around the bend.

Here, in this blessed land, for example, we're supposedly engaged in the momentous quadrennial quest for a leader. So instead of a reprise of the great debates between Lincoln and Douglas when they were in solemn pursuit of that role, we have Hillary and Obama putting on their traveling Punch-and-Judy act, with John McCain playing the happy spectator, urging each, with a fine display of nonpartisan gusto, to bop the other. (There's some suspicion John, imbued with an old-fashioned sense of chivalry, whenever he gets a chance has been stealthily slipping Hillary a pair of stylish brass knuckles.)

Hillary is proving beyond cavil the validity of the adage that hell hath no fury like a woman being denied a shot at the presidency. And Barack, for all his transformational and transcendent claims, is giving a pretty good imitation of a crybaby because that nasty little girl is intent on taking away his rattle. For gosh sakes, if he thinks those powder puffs being tossed at him in what strikes us as a disappointingly tame dust-up are rough, let him just wait until, if and when the clones of Karl Rove are unleashed.

Meanwhile, the present occupant of the White House, whose lease is unremittingly running out, again last week insisted there's no recession......

Alan Abelson, my favourite columnist. Click the link for the full thing.

xx
ed; April 26, 2008 9:41 AM
Dave in NC said...: ed,

My point exactly. I was just sticking with reality instead of worst case scenario.

Well selected picture, I'm still laughing. :D; April 26, 2008 9:43 AM
Yamaka said...: Dear Democrats:

Good Morning, ALL.

It's a rainy morning in Houston.

Did you get a chance to watch Bill Moyer's piece with pastor Wright? If not, I urge you to listen.

He is a firebrand pastor! An interesting man!!

Good, Alexis Herman the Chairman of Rules and Bylaws Committee is hearing the Challenges from MI & FL. I hope something useful comes out of it.

She can avoid the Massive Train Wreck in Denver!

Believe me Democrats, I am a Constructionist, not an Anarchist!

Cheers. :-)
_______________________________

How are our "Children" doing? Your Piper's best days are already behind with MS!!

How is the Coronation Ball in Hyde Park going?

Lots of dancing, wining and dining?

Enjoy before the Day of Judgment comes!

Smile and vote for Hillary for REAL POSITIVE CHANGE. The First Woman POTUS.; April 26, 2008 10:21 AM
Dave in NC said...: To the sad poster who calculated the delegate count if it had been "winner-take-all":

If IA had been w-t-a, then Obama's delegate lead could have lead to victory in NH.

He would have deffinately had more momentum coming out of SC (Jesse Jackson ring a bell?) and that could have lead to victory in NV, NM & TX.

Except that with the Feb. string of 12 in a w-t-a scenario, Clinton wouldn't have been around for TX.

Rewritting history is tough, isn't it? ;); April 26, 2008 10:21 AM
vwis said...: ed inglehart,
I read your Abelson link.
Both the media and Karl, I believe would prefer Sen. Clinton in the WH due to the fact that they have to be careful not to attack Obama as hard, because he is black and don't want to appear racist. They would lose black support even if it is a small %.
Rush's command to following lemming to vote in the Dem primaries I believe could backfire on him. Many Reps who are joining in and registering as Dems have had the interest peaked and come out to listen to Obama and are being inspired. In the end the could vote Dem in the GE. That could put TX, Ohio, PA, WY, MI and all remaining state into play. What do you think?; April 26, 2008 10:30 AM
ed iglehart said...: Ah, the subjunctive, refuge of losers....
;-)
ed; April 26, 2008 10:30 AM
Dave in NC said...: Good morning Yam!

How in the world would you know what the weather is like, what sitting in that windowless basement in your underwear with bottles of zits, bugers, and bodily fluids in the corner?

I look forward to seeing you at the convention.

I'm sure you will fly in on your magic carpet trailing fairy dust and will be recognizable by the pocket saver on your dynamite vest.

We can share a beer, but I'll pass on dinner; I'm no fan of "the dish best served cold".

However, I suspect I will miss you as my convention is being held in Denver, not Saint Paul.

:)

Love and peace my brother; April 26, 2008 10:31 AM
Richard said...: Aunt Jean: I thank you for being honest about your racism. Having acknowledged that you are racist, I would appreciate if you would now stop posting about race altogether, as your racist views come through in every post you make about race, even in the language you use (talking, for instance, blanket statements about "blacks" and even your use of "black" as a noun). Please just stop.

Gator: Rereading your post by the light of day, I still can't figure out your nubmers at all, and in particular how you claim to be "factoring in [my] theories." I do see now that you think Senator Clinton can win both West Virginia and Tennessee, which are two states I do not have listed for her. In that case you add to her paths to victory OH + TN, TN + MO, and TN + AR + WV. This would give her a total of eight paths to victory. I think, however, that both of these states are, to say the least, highly unlikely to be won by Clinton.

So, is that all you've got?

Dave in NC: I made a similar analysis not long ago and came to the same conclusion. Using my predictions for Obama electors in the upcoming states, I calculate that Obama needs only 30% of the remaining Super Delegates to win outright on the first ballot, while Hillary needs around 62% (the two percentages do not add up to 100% because of Edwards' pledged delegates). In short, it is already over and if Hillary cared at all about our party rather than her own power she would have dropped out long ago. Since she does not, however, we will have to wait for the convention for Obama to make his knock-out blow and endure another three months of vitriol against our party's destined candidate while McCain runs largely unopposed.

It is for this reason - her refusal to put the good of her party and her nation ahead of her personal ambition - that I have switched my loyalty to Obama and will not vote for her in any future primary including 2016 (as I might have had bowed out gracefully in this one).; April 26, 2008 10:32 AM
ed iglehart said...: All,

That last comment was not aimed at any person, real or imaginary, but at the general mood of "it might have been..."

My brother, who belongs to an anonymous organisation says, "Fair is a word most often used by losers."

;-)
ed; April 26, 2008 10:35 AM
vwis said...: robh,
Huckabee does not have the toughness to be an attack dog, but McClain is seen as steely. JMcs drawback is he doesn't do well with conservatives. Romney is a conservative, only to appeal that sector, and his Mormon background. Romney has ruled his self out after TX last weekend. Chris M discussed the other possible candidates last night, but when asked they said no. Huck only wins by default. Not much of a win.
There has been so much interest in the DNC race theirs has paled in comparison. It is not a good sign for the GE for them. Oh so sad! lol What do you think about Rush's plan to tear apart the DNC?; April 26, 2008 10:47 AM
Yamaka said...: Dave in NC:

Keep writing. I love your humor.

Our ideologies may be different, but we are united by our fun and humor.

God Bless You.

Oh, because of the rain, my pool needs a "Shock",, it's getting dull!

Cheers.; April 26, 2008 10:51 AM
Anonymous said...: I have been busy sleeping and WOW, to many things to respond. later maybe.
The individual voters in Michigan and Florida have no say in the nomination as it now stands, correct?
Who is responsible?
Thier elected officials and the DNC.
Thier recourse:
they can vote out officials (which they may do)
As for the DNC, they can't vote them out, so the only recourse is to change Party. (which some will do)

What amazes me is the willingness of some to forsake the basic hollowed principle of"EVERY vote counts"; April 26, 2008 11:01 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: richard. I used my first set of numbers based on polling data I found(which I stated before!), I ''factored in your theories'' by using your statistic on states either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama would win that I did not have polls in. Finally, I created ''at-large'' states based on states you did not have listed.

All I really wanted to know is if I read your post considering you said you would check that AND a THANK YOU would have been nice after I wished you well on your house.

If you want, I can e-mail you all my combinations for Senator Clinton in further breakdowns.; April 26, 2008 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: I think a proper penalty for MI and FLA would be for the DNC to take the SUPER Delegate votes away from legislators and state party officials who actuall had a say in moving the primary date.
Let the voters say stand by giving Clinton hers, and Obama his and the uncommitted in MI; April 26, 2008 11:10 AM
Dave in NC said...: Yam,

Here's a shock for your pool: President Barack Obama!

And forgive me for not sharing the weather here in Charlotte: It's an Obama-y day, clear in the vallies but very cloudy and raining venom in the Hill-aries.

Seriously, if you're going to Denver, we will have to look each other up.; April 26, 2008 11:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Mike,
I don't need to support or denoumce. I am not seeking votes.; April 26, 2008 11:16 AM
GatorsChampions4Ever said...: jim. That is the best idea I have heard so far.

billyjay66 and mike in maryland. Thank you for the information.; April 26, 2008 11:18 AM
RobH said...: Yamaka says:

"It deserves to be destroyed from the bottom up."
"Please join the ground swell to begin the end of the Democratic Party, as we know it, starting Aug at Denver."
"Convention MUST not go on - it must be STOPPED from Day One."

Yamaka also says:

"I am a FOB - Friend of Bill."

Any questions?; April 26, 2008 11:25 AM
Dave in NC said...: Jim,

What amazes me is the willingness of some to forsake the basic hollowed (sic)principle of"follow the rules"

FL and MI will be seated so it's a non-issue.

The race will be over by then and even now Obama is ahead with or without FL & MI; April 26, 2008 11:28 AM
vwis said...: Jim,
I think that penalty should have been that original penalty. It is good to give the states some representation and will be addressed. The unfairness would be that by not allowing campaigning in those states Obamas # were moved in every other state. HRC had the name recognition. People only switch once they hear him. He is a gifted orator and he is better organizer.
HRC shot her self in the foot by not listening to her staffers about Penn. Penn was out for himself not her. He was her strategist and poller the two should always be separate.
Chris M has stated that getting information out of her staff was difficult because of the infighting.
Mark Penn accepting money from Columbia is the least of her worries. So did Bill get 800,000 for speaking to Columbia. NAFTA is the noose are her campaign. Her campaign is accepting money from the Goldservice (see earlier blogs). It is a Columbian group that getting their influence out in the world via International Universities. Columbia's major export is coffee and illegal drugs. Follow the money there lies the truth.; April 26, 2008 11:32 AM
RobH said...: Ed,

"if and when the clones of Karl Rove are unleashed....?"

Thay have been already, haven't they?; April 26, 2008 11:36 AM
Anonymous said...: Dave, What rule did the individual
voter not follow in MI and FLa?; April 26, 2008 11:38 AM
vwis said...: Dave in NC,
I agree. Dean has stated publicly there is a plan. He won't release until on or after June 3 or after the race is over.
As far as BHO not doing well with blue collar workers I ask, what about the Culinary Workers in Nevada. He needs to revisit them and other groups to dispel that myth. Its also good for the GE to show homage.; April 26, 2008 11:40 AM
RobH said...: Ed,

PS, I like your inclusion of links in your posts. I like it even more when links with names other than 'Smile' still turn up the AP shot of Obama smiling. I'm caught every time by it, and I basically pull a muscle laughing each time.

Thx.; April 26, 2008 11:43 AM
vwis said...: Jim,
The rule in MI was announced over the radio that they were to object to the Cuban style ballot by voting uncommitted. An election is to hear the voice of the people. All people.; April 26, 2008 11:44 AM
Dave in NC said...: Jim,

The individual voters did not break any rules... and their votes counted very much.

Clinton has received great mileage from her wins in those 2 states and everybody recognizes the significance.

That being said, the issue of seating the resultant delegates is a totally separate issue.

The point is that the voters have not been disenfranchised simply by not seating the delegates.

Can you say RED HERRING?; April 26, 2008 11:45 AM
vwis said...: Jim,
If democracy fails it will be the fault of the media. They know that and understand that responsibility. The media is encouraging this campaign to go on for ratings. They gain viewers during elections. What will they report on between now and the convention if their is a winner?; April 26, 2008 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...: Dave,
"The individual voters did not break any rules... and their votes counted very much."
How preposterous.
How will their votes count?

vwis,
If democracy fails it will be the fault of the media.
Blame the media

The rules say the process ends in Denver and if the Supers give it to Clinton, that will be within the rules.; April 26, 2008 12:05 PM
jpsedona said...: dwit,

With respect to MN, WI and IA, we'll just have to agree to disagree. In Presidential elections, those states have been trending is Republican. That's not to say that any of them will go Rep in '08, but they are potential states that Dems might have to work to defend.

MN isn't the same state that elected Humphrey, Mondale and Wellstone. And there's a reason that Pawlenty is mentioned on GOP VP lists. His addition could help McCain contest the state. Additionally, MN has shown that they don't mind supporting a maverick.

WI is still a Dem leaner but the 'trend' is from a solid Dem state to a lesning Dem state. The demographics in the state have been changing. They may well vote Dem this year, but again, it could be a state that the Dem ticket needs to spend time (and $$) to defend.; April 26, 2008 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Assualts on Democracy.
2004 hanging Chads and the Supreme Court
2008 Obama and rules are a tool to be used to subvert the will of the people.; April 26, 2008 12:09 PM
Dave in NC said...: Jim,

Their votes DID count and I explained how.

You just weren't listening.

Everything is preposterous when you are not getting your way.; April 26, 2008 12:11 PM
vwis said...: Jim,
The rules are in place to prevent states from voting twice. All the earlier states would like to vote twice. Much of their votes are wasted on unviable candidates they all would like to ring in once its down to the last two. That's why states like IA and TX have both primaries and caucuses. The problem is that some states like TX lost sight of this and have a caucus the next day. The rules of the DNC would of allowed them to caucus after their primaries. Their leaders didn't feel the constituents would be able to figure out how to caucus. Get new leadership or move to China. You'll then understand why the rules are in place.; April 26, 2008 12:14 PM
jpsedona said...: Jim,

"I think a proper penalty for MI and FLA would be for the DNC to take the SUPER Delegate votes away from legislators and state party officials who actuall had a say in moving the primary date.
Let the voters say stand by giving Clinton hers, and Obama his and the uncommitted in MI"

Stripping the votes from SD's in those two states would seem an option if they count delegates at 100%. Of course the petition to the DNC about MI is to award 1/2 vote per pledged but keep the SD'a at 100%. So, I suspect there's a reason why the propsal didn't promote 50% for SD's (i.e. SD's more heavily support one candidate than the other?)

It's time for the NFL DRAFT. Be back later!; April 26, 2008 12:15 PM
Dave in NC said...: Jim,

The will of the people is not being subverted. Obama is and will continue to be ahead even counting FL & MI.

RED HERRING

Everything and everyone is preposterous when you are not getting your way; April 26, 2008 12:15 PM
vwis said...: Jim,
Don't let this scorched earth tactics by the Clintons get to you. They need you in '12; April 26, 2008 12:25 PM
vwis said...: dave in NC,
What do you think of the media and HRC wanting another debate in NC? BHO knows HRC is cash strapped and by not agreeing keeps her off the airwaves.
I think he should agree with conditions after that last frontal attack in PA. He should sit at a desk like the one in the oval office with an American flag on the right. HRC should sit to his left. His chair should to raise 3 inches. He should wear a blue pin-stripped suit, white shirt and red tie. He should have papers in front of him and look busy. She should have choice of wearing a Hawaiian shirt or an orange jumpsuit. She could carry a carpetbag. What do you think?; April 26, 2008 12:38 PM
Anonymous said...: Dave
"The will of the people is not being subverted. Obama is and will continue to be ahead even counting FL & MI."
If the above statement were true, I could accept it, if you leave out " even counting FL & MI."
I could not

"Everything and everyone is preposterous when you are not getting your way "
Could be, I kinda like calling a spade a spade."

I do find I irritate ignorant folks more.; April 26, 2008 12:43 PM
vwis said...: Jean,
No response to my bf quip? Is it yeah or Nay. Vote here where every vote counts even in MI and FL.; April 26, 2008 12:46 PM
vwis said...: Dave,
Now you're the one throwing the kitchen sink. You can do better and have in the past.; April 26, 2008 12:50 PM
Dave in NC said...: vwis,

God, your memories of '92 and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason are uncanny.

But doesn't she always carry a carpetbag?

Even the saddlebags on her broom are carpetbags. :)

Just reminds me that Bill made president twice without ever getting the majority of the vote.

talk about subverting the will of the people...; April 26, 2008 12:54 PM
Dave in NC said...: Jim,

My assertions are correct.

You do not irritate me, I appreciate the opportunity to debate.

Based on this blog, the ignorant people seem to relate to you quite well.; April 26, 2008 1:01 PM
vwis said...: Dwit,
It's hard for us to admit we are backing the wrong horse. I hope you haven't invested to much time or money in this race. You are what the DNC looks forward to seeing with the commencement of each new race.
You are the backbone of America. BHO is not your worse threat. Your worse threat is what is within. We each have great capacity. That is what BHO is trying to inspire in you and each of us. Its a good message.
Soon HRC and Bill will be singing the same tune. Don't let their tactics jade you. We have enough disappointment in our lives, don't make theirs yours.; April 26, 2008 1:06 PM
Dave in NC said...: vwis,

Well said.; April 26, 2008 1:08 PM
RobH said...: Emit,

Interesting name, very clever.

Jim, you said:

"Assualts on Democracy.
2004 hanging Chads and the Supreme Court.
2008 Obama and rules are a tool to be used to subvert the will of the people."

Ohhhkay, well, first of all, Hanging Chads was 2000, not 2004. 2004 was Cleveland and Diebold, remember?

Second, equating Obama and the idea of using rules as a tool is
comedic. Every objective individual, and most unobjective ones, have already concluded it's HRC manipulating rules and measures at every turn, to stave off termination.

But, third, and here's the hoot:

"I do find I irritate ignorant folks more."

Ohh, that's so clever, Jim. Ya mean, if anyone takes issue with your stance, they are, by definition, ignorant? I get it. Kinda like if you question the war, you're automatically unpatriotic.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, and it's the duty of the populace in a democracy.

You're another guy with the only version of right, and anyone who disagrees, is "ignorant." Perfectly Republican, may man.; April 26, 2008 1:15 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: vwis: lest you think she is ducking your wit, I think aunt jean's asleep; catch her schedule -
to work at 4:00 PM, to bed at 5:00 AM; April 26, 2008 1:18 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: I thought dwit backed Obama. I am so dense.; April 26, 2008 1:20 PM
Yamaka said...: dave in nc:

Yes, I am going to Denver whether or not I am elected a Delegate at our State Convention on 6-7 June in Austin.

I follow a simple form of Americanism:

Hard thinking, Hard working and being Fearless (i.e risk taking).

Bill Clinton won twice with 370 and 379 Electoral Votes, an awe-inspiring achievement in recent Democratic Party History!

Sen BHO's Black voters are totally neutralized by the Latino supporters of HRC.

His young, affluent, hyper-educated White men are outnumbered by the older regular American men. Plus, HRC has the solid support of most women.

Then, how do you envision a President Obama?

I am truly perplexed. IMHO the country is in the middle, not at the FAR LEFT politically.

Therefore, even by a cruel twist of fate, Sen Obama gets the Nomination, he WIIL NOT dance in the Inaugural Ball!

Ciny and John will be the beneficiary of the madness of the Democratic Party Nomination!

Smile and Cheer for the First Woman POTUS. :-) :-); April 26, 2008 1:20 PM
RobH said...: Jim,

But you do remain funny, though.

"I kinda like calling a spade a spade." Pure class.; April 26, 2008 1:21 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: RobH said... In an environment, where his opponent is constantly 'spinning' new metrics by which her candidacy can be still considered credible, creative methods to counter her fantasies always have value.

Are you being just a bit dismissive? It appears (to me) that you label consideration of the popular vote as “spinning new metrics” and you label having garnered 49% of the vote-to-date as “fantasies” of a credible candidacy.

BTW, you’re pretty harsh on me, but no judgments re NC Dave? Why is that, do you think?; April 26, 2008 1:22 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: JP, NC Dave, Ed, et al: The SD votes are not cast until convention; IMO, they do not really count until then, so any talk about how many either candidate needs to get NOW in order to “win” is not exactly “real.”

So this will go to the convention. At that time, many factors will play in those SD decisions, GE being a primary one, I’m sure. And those in office will be -- and are now -- including their own re-election considerations (sorry, folks, it is politics, you know) in their decisions.

Bob in Vancouver . . . you may well be right, but we must have those votes so we will know. No shut down!; April 26, 2008 1:25 PM
MSMWatch2008 said...: Leah said... When people protest, march, and go to jail for JUST CAUSES such as the woman's right to vote, the right to vote for blacks, the ending of wars, etc. I see no problem with civil disobedience. BUT to protest and cause unrest only because you don't agree with the DNC rules then that is insane and wrong. I hope that anyone that goes to Denver and causes a disturbance will end up in jail and I hope that they also arrest Rush for inciting to riot.
~~~
Having been there and done that, I’d like to point out that one of the JUST CAUSES in 1968, ending an unjust war, was at odds with the RULES of the DNC, which at that time did not allow our candidate (Eugene McCarthy) access to delegates, and did not allow our issue (the war) onto the party platform. The demonstrations (and music festival :) led to police brutality, and then to the riots. This is not to say that I support any of the suggestions to riot, but I do think protests will be in order if there is a belief that EITHER of these candidates has been unfairly denied the nomination.; April 26, 2008 1:27 PM
ed iglehart said...: Jim,

"I do find I irritate ignorant folks more."

that's because the take you seriously.

xx
ed; April 26, 2008 1:28 PM
vwis said...: Dave,
Its funny how there are no new ideas and the influence of the media on our memories. Do Designing Women reruns air anymore? I can't remember the last time I saw one. I have a policy that I never watch or read anything twice. Too much to read and watch, too little time.
Reality TV rules now. How quickly reality TV became unreality. My favorite reality show was from Spike TV Joe Smoe. The name escapes me right now am I right.; April 26, 2008 1:32 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Hi vwis.

Convenient of Hillary to say she will debate Obama in North Carolina "any time, any place" when Obama agreed to the original CBS debate requested date and time, but Hillary balked on it for this weekend.

Good looking game of 3 on 3 yesterday in Indiana.; April 26, 2008 1:37 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Do I get a prize for having post 1000.

;o); April 26, 2008 1:38 PM
ed iglehart said...: Yamaka,

"Sen BHO's Black voters are totally neutralized by the Latino supporters of HRC."

Not so, especially after she's out of the 'race'

"His young, affluent, hyper-educated White men are outnumbered by the older regular American men. Plus, HRC has the solid support of most women."

I get three out of four on that description, but if you think "most" women fail to see through Her Entitledness, you're misguided.

MSM,

"you label consideration of the popular vote as “spinning new metrics” "

Isn't that exactly what it is? The race is for DELEGATES, and we know who the clear winner is likely to be, WITH OR WITHOUT FL and MI.

Enjoy your phantasies
ed; April 26, 2008 1:40 PM
RobH said...: MSM,

Let's laugh together, and laugh at ourselves, or at least at me. Harsh on you but not on Dave? I don't know, maybe 'cause he's for my candidate, and you're not? And maybe deep down inside, somehow I'm really actually opposed to openmindedness and civil discourse? I don't know.

BTW, when was I harsh on you, I may have to go back several pages, and I don't feel like it. When we first met, I remember I took strong exception to something you said, but I thought we'd been good since then.

Re the pop vote, no, I don't think I was being dismissive. I think trying to change the rules mid-game, after you've signed up for them voluntartily, is "spinning" to keep you alive. If the roles were reversed, can you imagine the idignation the HRC campaign would display?

I agree the pop vote holds some interest, but as an indicator, not as a decider. And believe me if Obama implodes somehow, and she crushes him in upcoming contests, pop vote will matter to the SD's regardless of the rules. Imagine if he wins the pledged delegates, she wins the pop vote, and the SD's salign w/ him. Will we here that she's somehow being robbed?
When the rules say.....
That she signed up for.....

But I'm entitled to my "opinion" that her case is built on "fantasy."
Any realistic pathway to June 3rd percludes her success in any measure. The MSM is keeping this "closer than it is" for reasons we already know (IMHO). I hope you can acknowlege that. I don't think she should quit, though. We should run all the primaries, but I hope when all metrics are tallied, she'll be man enough to exit with dignity. And I hope she'll give a wildly enthusiastic endorsement as part of here concession, if it comes to that, so that we can heal these wounds. As I hope he would.; April 26, 2008 1:40 PM
Dave in NC said...: Yam,

Bill's win was awe-inspiring alright. Like AW GOD!

Some of the American Idol contestants got more votes than he did.

But I find it interesting that you switch from the popular vote to the EV when it suits your argument.

I was baiting for your very response.

See how illogical argument sounds?

I don't perceive Obama as far left and neither I nor any of his other supporter are persuaded by generic labeling. As a democrat I would think that you would be sensitive to that.

Further, as we both know, "us Southerners don't usually cotton to no Yankee" :) However, I make exception for this man as do many others that would normally not fit the mold of he core supporters. Who thought that affluent white men would be in his core group just 4 months ago?

So I would be careful about using stereotypes and conventional wisdom when judging who will support him in the fall and what states he might carry.

This ain't '00 or '04.; April 26, 2008 1:40 PM
RobH said...: Emit,

Ur times been wasted....; April 26, 2008 1:41 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 1552 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

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Open Thread

1552 comments:

Tags