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.

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.

And please be excellent to one another. We do not accept name calling or any attacks on our commenters. Any objectionable comments will be deleted. Try to be civil.

Thanks!

Previous Open Thread here

New Open Thread here
Comments now locked in this one.

1207 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1207 Newer› Newest»

jpsedona said...: Let's review how the last week in SD's has gone. Since last Tuesday, Obama has a net of +24 to Hillary's +1

Hillary [NET: +1; New +4, Losses -3]

Heath Shuler (NC)
Chris Carney (PA)
Ciro Rodriguez (TX)
Arthur Powell (MA)

Lost Jennifer McClellan (VA)
Lost Donald Payne (NJ)
Lost Kevin Rodriguez (VI)

Obama [NET: +24; New +24, Losses 0 not including +1 from FL]:

Jerry Meek (NC)
DNC Inola Henry (CA)
Brad Miller (NC)
Rick Larsen (WA)
Peter DeFazio (OR)
John Gage (MD)
Edward Espinoza (CA)
Vernon Watkins (CA)
Wilbur Lee Jeffcoat (SC)
Laurie Weahkee (NM)
Mazie Hirono (HI)
Joe Johnson (VA)
Kristi Cumming(UT)
Carol Burke (VI)
Dave Regan (OH)
Harry Mitchell (AZ)
Crystal Strait (CA)
Tom Allen (ME)
Dolly Strazar (HI)
Daniel Akaka (HI)
Keith Roark (ID)

Jennifer McClellan (VA) switch from Clinton
Donald Payne (NJ) switch from Clinton
Kevin Rodriguez (VI) switch from Clinton

Dan Gelber (FL)# for Obama; May 12, 2008 2:25 PM
ed iglehart said...: Jesse Jackson's words of wisdom and reconciliation
,

""...The irony of this thing is, the reason why this is a sensitive time for her is that the loser in Denver will determine the winner in November," Jackson said, a reference to the Democratic convention and how Obama will need Clinton to rally her voters for him...."; May 12, 2008 2:26 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: What a wonderful day!

Delegates needed to secure the NOMINATION:

OBAMA 155
Clinton 327.5

Btw: It is a beautiful day here in Houston - I do not have a pool - but I have a vegetable garden that is calling me to come and give it a drink, see ya'll later ;); May 12, 2008 2:43 PM
ed iglehart said...: The promise of McCain

I'd even vote for Hillary against him!; May 12, 2008 2:43 PM
UUbuntu said...: Yamaka: "For sure, I don't go to the sites you mention, never! "

Oh for sure -- never ;-). Not those sites! You would never go to those sites! Never.

That's quite the amazing coincidence then, don't you think? The passages you cite -- verbatim -- just happen to be the same as are on those sites, and you don't even own the book!

You're a very funny guy. Cheers!

;-); May 12, 2008 2:43 PM
Yamaka said...: "how Obama will need Clinton to rally her voters for him...."

Ed:

I like Jesse, he is a Genuine Civil Rights Leader - the true Son of Black American Soil, unlike BHO Jr.

If you talk to most of the BHO's Children, they will say, "Oh, we don't need HRC and her supporters, we can win 370 EVs with 16 million Primary voters!" lol. Pathetic!

How stupid are they?

You be the judge.

:-); May 12, 2008 2:44 PM
dsimon said...: Yamaka: 1. She has the Math

1890 + 121 + 200 = 2211. The required Hurdle to jump is just 2208.5

I still don't see the support for the claim that Clinton would get 71% of the remaining superdelegates (which includes MI and FL superdelegates, not to mention the assumption that those delegations are seated without penalty). If there were so many Clinton supporters waiting to commit, why didn't they do so after PA when she could have used the "momentum" for the big contests in NC and IN?

2. She has broader and deeper constituency

This is another variation of the specious extrapolation of primary results to the general election. It's simply not true. Many if not most people who voted for Clinton in the primaries will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general. So Obama will have the support of many white blue-collar Democrats and independents in November.

Moreover, if Clinton's constituency were so much broader and deeper, wouldn't it show up in head-to-head polls against McCain? But those polls show Obama doing just as well against McCain as Clinton does. So even if Obama doesn't have as much support with certain groups as Clinton does, he must have more support elsewhere to balance it out.

Just because I support a candidate doesn't mean I'm not critical of the arguments my candidate makes. When one looks at national polls against McCain, this "constituency" claim simply doesn't hold up.; May 12, 2008 2:47 PM
ed iglehart said...: Leah,

"Delegates needed to secure the NOMINATION:
OBAMA 155
Clinton 327.5"

The one area in which she's leading?
;-)
ed; May 12, 2008 2:49 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: That reminds me, what other sport do you try to get a lower score to win (i.e. golf)?

Now see where you got my mind Ed. LOL; May 12, 2008 3:07 PM
Squirrel said...: Obama to go to Florida and Michigan on Wednesday.

Speculation is that Clinton has been forced into accepting Florida and Michigan will get 50% penalty (most probably forced on her by her own supporters in the DNC).

Clinton officially will be out of the race, no hope and no way forward.

If this is so, then as soon as the news breaks it will mean all systems go against McShame of the McSame clan.; May 12, 2008 3:09 PM
UUbuntu said...: To Emit: Darts -- In 301 (or 501), the first one to 0 wins!; May 12, 2008 3:12 PM
RobH said...: Ed and Leah, couple quick things on VP's.

1) I watched the Sebelius clip. I kinda like her voice.

2) Webb's position on the GI Bill is a real winner/adder if he's the VP candidate. Imagine vets, whether disillusioned or not by their experience in Iraq, discovering one of the parties actually carrying for their plight, and one dismissing it. A great position; May 12, 2008 3:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Obama supposedly does well in open primaries according to his loyal lemmings.

IMBO,
The supposed Racist State of WV is different.; May 12, 2008 3:16 PM
Martin said...: "That reminds me, what other sport do you try to get a lower score to win (i.e. golf)?"

Hearts. And Hillary is the Queen of Spades... no one wants to get stuck with her.; May 12, 2008 3:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Squirrel said...
Obama to go to Florida and Michigan on Wednesday.

Speculation is that Clinton has been forced into accepting Florida and Michigan will get 50% penalty (most probably forced on her by her own supporters in the DNC)."

Speculation is about as productive as manual Ejaculation.
Enjoy!; May 12, 2008 3:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Hillary (Truman) Clinton and Barack (Dewey) Obama; May 12, 2008 3:28 PM
Squirrel said...: Jim,

You let me down, I thought you could and would be more creative than that!

Bill Clinton took a cheque for over $400 from an 11 year old boy, had depraved and low life can he be that he took from a kid when he is a multi-millionaire, he sucks bigtime!

Pay off your own debts Bonny and Clyde. Bill and Hillary Clinton should return that check immediately, or is paying Penn more important to them than being honorable? Well we actually all know the answer.; May 12, 2008 3:44 PM
Amot said...: Martin,
good shot! I like Hearts, have several records on the game :)

Jim,
speculations always have reason! She is the only one that has nothing to lose, DNC members are smart enough to work a deal good for them at first place!; May 12, 2008 3:45 PM
UUbuntu said...: Moving on to the more important race:

McCain misunderstands the Fifth Amendment

The interesting thing is that the McCain website altered the video to change the message when this was discovered.; May 12, 2008 3:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Amot,
The word fits all you Lemmings.
speculative >adjective 1 engaged in or based on conjecture rather than knowledge; May 12, 2008 3:57 PM
jpsedona said...: Jim,

With respect to speculation and associated comparisons, we defer to your experience in both matters.; May 12, 2008 3:57 PM
Anonymous said...: jp,
God, I speculate Obama will self destruct soon, or some astute data searcher will do it for him.; May 12, 2008 4:03 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: How sickening!
Hillary right now in her stump speech in WV bragging that a little boy sold his bike and video games to raise money for Hillary and he gave her a check for $422.
How sickening that is!

She should have told him to keep the check and go and buy a new bicycle!

Let her pay off her own debts - she is the one deciding to keep throwing her own money into a dead campaign - and then she still takes money from people that can't afford to give money while she and Bill still have MILLIONS in the bank!

Enough of this insanity - I'm going shopping!; May 12, 2008 4:08 PM
Anonymous said...: If your concerned about fairness as far as the Michigan vote is concerned why did Clinton refuse to accept the Michigan democratic parties last compromise.; May 12, 2008 4:18 PM
jpsedona said...: Jim,

With respect to self-destructing, Obama (and every other politician) are quite capable of doing that on any given day.; May 12, 2008 4:19 PM
DocJess said...: It's even worse, Leah.

First, it's $440, the amount he got for selling his bike AND EVERYTHING HE OWNED to give money to people who made OVER 100 MILLION DOLLARS in the past several years --

Here's the link....
http://www.dailymail.com/
News/election08/200805120073

And by the way -- that doesn't pay the interest on their debt for a few hours. (And remember, of the $20 million they owe, $10 million is for Mark Penn)

SHAMEFUL!!!!!; May 12, 2008 4:19 PM
Amot said...: Jessica,
exactly my words. Shame on Hillary!!! That would be a nice thing to happen in the start of a campaign, but in the current situation I think that makes her no good at all! And that boy's mother - shame on her too!
Add the elk joke of Bill and you have the perfect couple for the WH!
Yam, I hope Hillary will not campaign for Obama; if she and Bill go on like that they can really ruin his chances!; May 12, 2008 4:27 PM
RobH said...: We're watching history right now, folks.

Somebody on this thread said yesterday, they thought Hillary was staying in to “extend it to 2012.” I know that while they meant that as a joke (she’ll still be running “until” 2012), it’s a common assertion in some parts that she’s staying in to damage Obama so she can be the “I told you so” coronated one in 2012.

I don’t believe that can happen, for two reasons. In fact I think we’re all watching history unfold right now – this period from last week through the end of May. And that history is the effective end of the house of Clinton in national politics.

Here’s my two reasons:

1) The historic aversion by Democrats to failed candidates from prior efforts.
2) The specific unsavoriness of her/their behavior during the wind down to this campaign. (She’s not going out with grace or class.) Can you imagine the press she’ll get in 2011 as she gets ready to launch her campaign?

In addition to the existing baggage that she totes around anyway, you’ll get a ton of “do you remember how unseemly her behavior was as she was denied the nomination last time?” commentary. A revisitation of race and class devisiveness. A revisitation of pandering and condescension. “Do you remember when the money dried up at the end, and she took money from a kid who had to sell his possessions, while keeping her millions.”

That stuff will make her radioactive (IMO.) I think she’s trying so hard because she knows this is it.; May 12, 2008 4:50 PM
Anonymous said...: The wisdom of a small child makes all you me too, ditto heads look ignorant.
Obama would not take his money, but may well drop a few c notes if the kid would do his bidding.; May 12, 2008 4:53 PM
Squirrel said...: Jim,

I feel sorry for you. Up until your last comment I would give time to talk to you, but if you really do not see what is so sickening about a multi-millionaire taking money from a young kid, then as far as I am concerned you are an AH!; May 12, 2008 4:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Squirrel said...
Jim,

I feel sorry for you. Up until your last comment I would give time to talk to you,

No problem,Squirrel, I could care less if you talk to me or not. I don't post in order to please anyone, least not you.
As far as I know you haven't posted anything above the level of a mental midget anyway.
There are a few folks on this blog
who appear to be somewhat objective and you or I are not in that group.
Go lick some more nuts.; May 12, 2008 5:08 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Hi Jim,

Going to be objective here.

The saying is, "I couldn't care less".

So your really saying you could care less, but choose not to at this time.

;o); May 12, 2008 5:30 PM
Meg said...: Hey Emit!
"So your really saying you could care less, but choose not to at this time."

The correct grammar is "So you're really saying....."

Just a note of levity in these trying times.; May 12, 2008 5:50 PM
RobH said...: Jim,

Hi clever buddy.

You have the scent of desperation on you, my man. Your posts have devolved to mere name calling (mental midget, ditto heads, not so clever nut licking and 'manual ejaculation.) This is not acompelling argument for anything, in my opinion. Not your candidate, not your conviction, and not your positions. It's just small, you know what I mean?

I'll bet I speak for the vast majority here (except maybe two), who would say that when it comes to the objective group - it's definitely not you.; May 12, 2008 5:55 PM
Anonymous said...: emit,
"So your really saying you could care less, but choose not to at this time. "

Exactly. I reserve the right to care even less.; May 12, 2008 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...: RobH said...
Jim,

Hi clever buddy.

You have the scent of desperation on you, my man. Your posts have devolved to mere name calling (mental midget, ditto heads, not so clever nut licking and 'manual ejaculation.) This is not acompelling argument for anything, in my opinion. Not your candidate, not your conviction, and not your positions. It's just small, you know what I mean?

I'll bet I speak for the vast majority here (except maybe two), who would say that when it comes to the objective group - it's definitely not you.

RobH.(Spokesman for all but two)
Whether elected or self ordained, it is indeed a powerful position.
Yes it is just small of me
As for objective when responding, I am not.

It is not my nature to be objective and insulting simultaneously.; May 12, 2008 6:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Robh,
Did I just edit you?; May 12, 2008 6:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Strange; May 12, 2008 6:16 PM
countjellybean said...: jim said:
Speculation is about as productive as manual Ejaculation.

Well, that certainly evokes memories of the Clinton administration.; May 12, 2008 7:13 PM
ed iglehart said...: Interesting number crunching

Wage war with surprise moves.
知者不言。言者不知。

Assalaam 'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuhu
Peace, God's mercy and blessings be upon you; May 12, 2008 7:21 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Well I see that some of us have devolved into bickering and name calling once again. Truly a shame.

Maybe Oregon is just too nice a place - lol - Out here it is not very divisive in fact this is encouraging news according to the latest Rasmussen poll:

"Eighty-two percent (82%) (of Obama supporters) say that if Clinton is the nominee, they will vote for her over John McCain in the fall. An identical number, 82%, (of Clinton supporters) say they will vote for Obama over McCain."

Considering we all know those numbers are low, because emotions run high during any primary, it sure looks like no matter who gets the Dem nomination Oregon Dems will be united.

As far as my opinion on who will get the nomination I have to say I agree with one point that Yam makes...

120 pledged delegates for Clinton in the remaining events is not unrealistic at all.

I have to disagree with the two other parts of Yam's Hillary wins equation.

First, 200 super delegates breaking for Clinton out of the ~245 left is not realistic.

Second, the DNC has two problems to deal with in solving the MI and FL problem:

1- On May 20th Obama will have the majority of the pledged delegates under the rules that the DNC established and all candidates agreed to. Obama will also (probably) have the lead in the super delegate count. For an over all lead in total delegates (though note the required 2024.5 under the agreed upon rules).

2- The DNC will want to seat MI and FL to be inclusive of all of our party (I do not personally agree with their desire to change the rules this late in the game, but the fact is they probably will).

BUT

a- The DNC will not want to have to go through states setting their primaries whenever the state wants to again (or skirting some other DNC rule)in future elections so they will have to impose some penalty and the penalty will have to be significant enough to deter states from doing just that.

AND

b- The DNC will balance the outcome of the severity of the penalty with making certain that their changing of the rules this late in the game does NOT alter the election that was run according to the established and agreed upon rules.

However, in my opinion, there is only one scenario (that I can think of) to get Yam's math formula to work. Yam has already stated more than a few times here that the remaining super delegates are for Clinton because Obama has "tapped out" all of his. If Clinton delievered all of those delegates between now and the 31st of May, thereby taking the undisputed delegate lead, the DNC could seat MI and FL, not affect the results of the election that was fought under the established agreed upon rules.

So Yam - call Clinton and tell her to roll them out now.; May 12, 2008 7:41 PM
Richard said...: Oregon Dem: Although it would clearly be reversing Chairman Dean's hard line on Florida and Michigan penalties, I don't think it would be changing the rules to seat the delegates at 50%. That is, after all, the minimum penalty called for in the rules. I think that is the likeliest outcome of the May 31st meeting, and should be enough to placate voters in those two states while preventing other states from jumping on the bandwagon.

Squirrel et al.: I don't know why you're still bothering to respond to Jim. He's the worst racist of the bunch and has used incredibly offensive racial slurs against Sen. Obama. He's not worth the time of day.; May 12, 2008 8:04 PM
Bull Schmitt said...: No kidding Oregon Dem -

It's not going to be good for (the obvious nominee) Sen. Clinton's chances in the G.E. when she announces all 235 of those Superdelegates 'in her back pocket' on June 4th. I mean, Obama supporters will look at that like the party insiders moving all at once in a conspiracy to rob him of the nomination, right?

A much better plan would be to release them in groups of... oh, 5 to 10 a day, which will allow Obama supporters time to come to grips with reality, the reality that the Superdelegate cavalry isn't coming after all.

Hmm - come to think of it, seems to me that plan is vaguely familiar... Does it ring a bell with anyone else??; May 12, 2008 8:19 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Jim said...
. . . all you Lemmings.

Jim,

Still stuck in your childhood ala 1958, and watching Walt Disney movies, suspending, or not even aware of, reality?

http://tinyurl.com/4aha5q

Mike; May 12, 2008 8:26 PM
ed iglehart said...: One for Yamaka,
Born Muslim:
"As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother's Christian background is irrelevant. ....."

I love "as it is universally understood" Everybody knows...

"argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

Yamaka's playbook

知者不言。言者不知。; May 12, 2008 8:37 PM
jpsedona said...: Bull, very clever post on rolling out delegates... I like it.; May 12, 2008 9:09 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Bull:

Clinton would want to roll out 12 or so a day because there are only 18 days until the 5/31 meeting. As she would need the majority by then (under my "Clinton wins" scenario) to let the RBC meeting feel comfortable going with Yam's proposal (seat MI and FL in full) because if she were not up then the decision may be less than favorable to Yam's seat them all concept.

Again I stress - if Yam is right and 200 of the super delegates are hers there is absolutely no reason she should hold onto them.

Oh and yes if Obama rolls a a few counter punches to this strategy by announcing a few super delegates as well - Clinton should just out doo him and move the schedule up quicker.

What I cannot figure out is why she has not started doing this already.... It would certainly put an end to this race and we could start getting ready for the real fight against McCain.; May 12, 2008 9:29 PM
RG said...: Anyone have an idea why West Virginia, with only 28 delegates, gets 11 superdelegates, while Kentucky with 51 delegates, has only 9 supers?

Is it because they're voting one week earlier? I knew that the DNC rewarded late states with more supers, but it seems like an outsized reward for only 1 week.

Anyone know the answer?; May 12, 2008 9:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Mike in Maryland said...
Jim said...
. . . all you Lemmings.

Jim,

Still stuck in your childhood ala 1958, and watching Walt Disney movies, suspending, or not even aware of, reality?

You got it Mike, well almost.
In 1958 I was on my way to Nam. with a few scenic stops in between. Didn't make it till '61

Not much Disney over there, but lots of Lemmings blindly following a silver tongued leader.

Reality is sometimes not attractive.
Gotta go to LaLa land after I drink my cool-aid.
More tomorrow; May 12, 2008 9:40 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Russell:

I can try to explain it.

Certain folks are super delegates for different reasons.

Some are automatic: Governors, US Senators and US Reps.

Others are there because they are DNC members: State Dem Chair, etc.

So WV has a D as Gov, 2 D US Senators, and 2 D US Reps for 5 there.

WV also has 5 DNC members.

Kentucky has:

a D Gov and 2 D US Reps. and the same 5 DNC members.

So the difference is the two other statewide elected US Senators...

(The above does not go into how add-ons get apportioned).

Hope that helps; May 12, 2008 9:45 PM
Oregon Dem said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 12, 2008 9:46 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Russell G. said...
I knew that the DNC rewarded late states with more supers . . . .

Russell,

The additional delegates awarded for holding a later primary are pledged delegates, not supers.

The Green Papers has the full information on how the delegate numbers were determined. URL of that page is:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/D-Alloc.phtml

Mike; May 12, 2008 10:17 PM
Yamaka said...: Good Evening Democrats.

Another beautiful day in Houston.

I am looking forward to view the galaxy floating still in my clean blue pool!

Here is another Conversation with
Gov Howard Dean - Enjoy:
__________________________________
-Hello Gov Dean, Good Evening Sir.

-Hi Yamaka, I am still reading your recent e-mails to me; you keep pounding your keypad! What's up Doc?

- Well Gov. What do you see happening in WV, KY and other 4 others States coming?

-I am very very worried Doc. Because, these 6 States could give Hillary a lead in Popular Votes, although she may not take a lead in pledged delegates. This is a worst thing I need at this time in the Campaign. There are 279.5 SDs still left as per your Option 6 (last left box of DCW); I believe most of BHO's people have already declared. Maybe, a few still left. Most are for HRC, IMHO. This could topple the Apple Cart of BHO.

If she gets at least 121 PDs out of 217 outstanding Ds and about 200 SDs and the Math will be

1890 + 121 + 200 = 2211, a few more than the REAL TRUE Hurdle of 2208.5 as per the Option 6.

When the SDs see that Popular Vote lead is inching towards HRC, then they WILL vote for her Nomination. I know PD is important, but Popular Vote is equally important in the Primary. This is a very very tricky situation. The winner will be very happy, and the loser will be terribly unhappy. Our Party is seriously divided.

At one time I thought the Fall election is ours already in the bag. Now I am not sure at all. I don't sleep very well these days, constantly worried about the Party so divided. I need really help from Bill Clinton, Carter, Gore and other National Leaders.

We made very stupid things from Day One. We should have convened the Rules and Credential Committee Meetings very early in Feb to resolve what happened in MI and FL, even before the Super Tuesday. Now, Hillary's people are mighty angry at me and the Party, which is being hijacked by the Black Caucus and the FAR Left Liberals. You see, we need both Blacks AND the White folks, who are the 60% of the total electorate. By alienating the majority of the working Whites, how in the world we are going to win the GE. We could very well lose the Congress and the WH, because the Party is very dangerously divided.

Oh, Yamaka, I fee like running away to some desert land and get lost there for ever. Pray for me.

--Gov Don't worry; Maybe the Party will survive with some miracle. Bye. Good Night.; May 12, 2008 10:26 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Amot to begin with this is the Democrat primary race not hte republican race they do things totally different. All I said was that it is still possible for her to win. I think that she will have the popular at the end of the race and be very close to the delegate count with Obama I'm not saying that he won't still have more than her. All I'm saying is that with the popular vote and being close to the delegate count I do believe that the SD's could take into consideration the whole picture meaning look at the states that she has won. Is that clearer. Please don't try and say that it can't happen because you know that it can you just don't want to believe that it can which I understand.Jean; May 12, 2008 10:30 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Obama broke the rules when he had adds airing in Florida. Sorry but that makes the contract null and void. Jean; May 12, 2008 10:41 PM
Kujo said...: Yamika,

Hope your having fun with your few remaining weeks you have left. But since that is all we have until the GC lets go with it.

Popular vote. HRC no chance. Lets face it. Though Obama is not taking a chance and is playing his cards properly here in not trying to have turnout in W. Virgina too big. If you look at the remaining contests lets cancel out Kentucky and Oregon. W. Virgina = S. Dakota + Montana that leaves PR. There is no way she will gain 700,000+ popular vote in PR.

Now you say she only needs to gain 100,000 popular vote. Anyone with a High School education knows you can not count FL/MI.

If a SD is going to reverse the election, they need to do it on a solid base. She needs to convincingly show she has won the Popular vote. She may keep her current supporters with this logic, she will not gain any other SD's.

Counting Mi and FL. The rules committee will do everything the can to Count FL and Mi without changing the results of the election. The only way they can do that is if they have enough SD over to Obama side before the vote. Lets say 410. Then they will only count FL and MI for 1/2 and give Obama the undecided of Michigan. They will not give them full vote count because they still need punishing. 1/2 makes it so that they can claim that the republicans did the same thing so don't hold it against us.

If Obama does not have 400+ SD by then, you will not see FL and MI counted.

I believe he will. You are now seeing a steady stream of SD's each day moving his direction. This is no accident. If he did not know he had a huge bundle of SD's about to come over, he would be really campaining in W. Virgina. Right now he has talked to them, gave them his game plan. They understand what will happen in W. Virgina, no supprise so they won't get worried.

There was no reason for today 4 SD's to come out to Obama. 1 yesterday, 5 the day before (or what ever the count). Nothing has changed, Why come to a realization today? Because it is part of the plan.; May 12, 2008 10:46 PM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 12, 2008 10:46 PM
Aunt Jean said...: I'm sorry Obama supporters no he shouldn't have returned the check to the little boy.[but how do you know that the check wasn't returned to the boys mother] That would have devastated him. Think of the pride that he must have felt. Then for Bill or Hillary to say sorry son you keep your money would have been wrong!!I think his mother and fathers chest would be hugh. Jean

May 12, 2008 10:46 PM; May 12, 2008 10:49 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Kujo you need to read my post about the votes in Florida. Jean; May 12, 2008 10:51 PM
Kujo said...: no Jean. You think if you add up all the vote at CNN that HRC is winning.; May 12, 2008 10:59 PM
Hippolytus said...: Where was Hillary's outrage over Florida and Michigan when they were stripped of their delegates? She's never met an argument of convenience she didn't like.; May 12, 2008 11:01 PM
Aunt Jean said...: shut up squirrely. We are the ones that are going to be laughing if obama steals the race and McCain makes him a new one LOL LOL LOL Jean; May 12, 2008 11:08 PM
Kujo said...: What contract. Jean

There was no rules that said that they could not campain in Florida or Michigan.

They said Florida and Michigan do not count. If you campain there then your wasting your money.

Iowa people then came out and said your only saying that now but later you will count them. Thats when Edwards and Obama pulled there name off of the ballot in Michigan (couldn't in Flordia) and all the candidates (at the time there were more then 3) said they would not campain there. This was something done to ease the Iowa voters.

If your trying to figure out who broke the promis, it was HRC now that she is trying to count FL and MI. That was the promis all of them made to the Iowa people.

There was never a statement to the DNC that any of the candidates would not campain there, nor were there a need. DNC said Flordia and Michagan do not count, if you campain there your wasting your money.

Sorry Jean try some other logic.; May 12, 2008 11:09 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Hippolytus Hillary wanted to wait and see what happened before making a fuss over Florida and Michigan because she had a lot of things she had to be doing besides fussing over Florida and Michigan.She was to busy beating off the media from BASHING her and talking up their GOLDEN BOY Obama. She has been saying for quite awhile that they needed to be seated. Jean; May 12, 2008 11:13 PM
Hippolytus said...: Thanks for your intelligent response, Jean.; May 12, 2008 11:13 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Kujo you Obama supporters really need to get together and come togather on a story. Jean; May 12, 2008 11:14 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Hippolytus you are welcome I thought that you would appreciate it. LOL Jean; May 12, 2008 11:16 PM
Hippolytus said...: Oh, now I see. She wanted to wait and see what happened before taking a stand on a supposed matter of principle. Reminds me of the way Bill used to stick his finger in the air, to see which way the political winds were blowing.; May 12, 2008 11:19 PM
Richard said...: Kujo, I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding FL & MI. Provided that Obama is the clear winner by May 31, the most likely outcome will be seating both with 50% penalty (the minimum required by the rules) and giving the uncommitted delegates to Obama. It is possible that they will decide instead to follow the Michigan committee's proposed split of 69-59.

In any event, that means a net for Clinton of at most 46 delegates, and those only if it will not affect the outcome or throw it in doubt.; May 12, 2008 11:20 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Kujo they both agreed NOT repeat NOT to campaign in Florida and Michigan. Jean; May 12, 2008 11:20 PM
Independent Voter said...: Jean, with all due respect, regarding the "ads" that ran in Florida were approved by the DNC before they ran. He asked the DNC if it was within the rules for him to purchase that nationwide air time, the DNC's response was that yes he could. So that argument doesn't hold up. He has competed within the guidelines of the DNC rules.

To address your question about whether or not she could overtake him in the other categories. In order for her to catch up in the delegate count....which is the only metric the DNC determines the nominee, she will have to win every remaining contest by 85% to just catch up (including super d's.). Impossible? No. Nearly impossible? Absolutely.

I see you must be doing a little better today. Don't let people rile you up.; May 12, 2008 11:20 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Richard why should Obama get any delegates for Michigan. He choose to take his name off the ballot not only that so what you are saying is Obama is the only one of the 3 that choose to take their name off the ballot that Obama is the only one that would have gotten any votes. I don't think so!!!! At the very most they should do is split them up 3 ways.Jean; May 12, 2008 11:26 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Also leave Florida like it is because everyone was on there. Jean; May 12, 2008 11:27 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave it was approved by the South Carolina DNC only not everone because he didn't ask them. Jean; May 12, 2008 11:29 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Jim said...
You got it Mike, well almost.

Jim,

http://tinyurl.com/4aha5q

Do you still believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy? If you believe lemmings are suicidal, then it's probably a forgone conclusion that you also believe in a lot of other fantasies, fairy tales, and other 'realities' that are not based on a realistic view of the world.

The only 'lemmings' I see (if 'lemming' is defined as popular mythology says they act) are a lot of supporters of Senator Clinton.

Mike

P.S., Don't be afraid to copy and paste the link into your browser address bar. The link is to a page at Urban Legends and Folklore that explains the how, where and why of the lemming myth.; May 12, 2008 11:30 PM
suzihussein22 said...: quid pro quo-HRC has drawn new Democratic registered voters. Obama has also.

ed iglehart-anarchy- I could see it happen. There's economic unrest with rising consumer prices at the pump and at the store. There's definitely political unrest. There are cases of police brutality.

I don't believe HRC should drop out yet. For the most part, it continues to be a positive when the primary is bringing in more people to the voting process. I f this country is to be of the people, more people need to get involved.

independent voter-Yeah, one time my horoscope said it was a good time to travel, but I had the chicken pox.lol :)

bogibuddy-I won't jump on a partial quote. But I'll have to say that my family was farmers. My parents were the first generation to get a college degree. My family now includes professors and accountants. If that's encoded in my genes, then I'll be proud to say it.

Ariane- Hear, Hear. With some supporters saying stupid and some saying uneducated: I may be dumb, but I ain't stupid!

Speaking of being dumb, when I first saw AA somewhere, I wondered what the 12 step program had to do with the primaries.; May 12, 2008 11:31 PM
Kujo said...: Aunt Jean.

The DNC said Florida and Michigan does not count. Repeat Florida and Michigan does not count. Repeat Florida and Michigan does not count.

What part of that do you not understand.

The DNC never asked Obama or Clinton if they agree to this. They never asked them if they will not campain. They never asked them anything.

They said you can not move up your primary to before Feb 5 or your vote will not count.; May 12, 2008 11:32 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Hippolytus Nooo that's not what I said what I said was that she was to busy beating off [defending herself] against the media bashing and Obama pulling the race card [of course he had the media helping him with that too]I did omit that part. Jean; May 12, 2008 11:34 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Kujo I think your mind is stuck but mine not Florida and Michagan should count. Jean; May 12, 2008 11:36 PM
Independent Voter said...: Jean, you know that I'm not trying to be a jerk, but we can go back as far as October 2007 where Senator Clinton explicitly stated that Michigan was not going to count. You of all people who has been hold Obama to his every word should be holding Senator Clinton at her word.

By the way, the media had Clinton all but crowned up until the Iowa Caucus. So to say that they were promoting Obama the entire time is not accurate. The media had us all believe - that was also true for most of the entire DNC.

I remember up until the beginning of January, Donna Brazile and Howard Dean coming out and stating that Clinton was going to be our nominee and that Rudy was going to be the likely GOP nominee. And at that time I would have been happy with any of the three candidates (Rudy, Clinton, Obama) - but I have always been pulling for Obama. Now there are only two candidates that nowadays that I could vote for, Obama or Clinton, now that John McCain is the nominee. Hell I would have even settled for Mitt Romney for all that matters.

I have said before that I would vote for John McCain, but I simply just cannot do it. He is willing to appoint SC Justices that would overturn Roe v Wade, he would seek a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex unions, he would keep us in Iraq - indefinitely (regardless of whether it was combat or not), he is talking up war with Iran (as is Sen. Clinton), etc. I cannot in good conscience vote for the man.

Would I be disappointed if the DNC gave the nomination away to Clinton, absolutely. I would probably be absolutely pissed off, but to see McCain in there knowing that I had ANYTHING to do with it, WOW! Absolutely NOT! I would be abandoning EVERYTHING that I feel needs to be done in this country.; May 12, 2008 11:37 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: Jean, it's getting late. I'm about to call it a night, maybe you might, too. Just a thought.; May 12, 2008 11:37 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Kujo they both signed a paper sorry to bust your bubble but Obama put the ads out so he made it null and void. LOL Jean; May 12, 2008 11:38 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Vicki and let the Obama supporters lie or at the very least stretch the truth I don't think so. Jean; May 12, 2008 11:40 PM
suzihussein22 said...: Aunt Jean-Shut up? We're typing, not talking. Just words? Give us liberty and give us free speech. Shame on me for rising to that one.; May 12, 2008 11:43 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave where are you getting that Clinton is talking up war? Also except that very short period of time they have been pushing Obama down our throats. Jean; May 12, 2008 11:43 PM
Aunt Jean said...: softspoken22 if you told me to shut up then in that case I do believe that you need to do that. Jean; May 12, 2008 11:45 PM
Hippolytus said...: Thank you, Independent voter. Well said.; May 12, 2008 11:47 PM
suzihussein22 said...: That's what I get for assuming. :) Good night. God bless all of you.; May 12, 2008 11:50 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Aunt Jean:

Why no comment on how I believe Clinton can win - Yam has said over and over that 200 of the super delegates are in her camp. You have said you may agree.

If she rolls them out right now she will take the delegate lead and the race is over - what is she waiting for - maybe Tuesday's wim in WV?

Could the timing be any better for her?

I am 100% behind whoever wins this race. I could never vote for McCain; May 12, 2008 11:51 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave I was fine with it untill the ads came out then like I said it made it null and void. Jean; May 12, 2008 11:52 PM
Kujo said...: Aunt Jean,

I don't care if they signed each others underwear. It has nothing to do with Clinton or Obama.

This is the rules of the DNC. This was between the DNC and Michigan, the DNC and Florida.

You make it sound like Florida and Michigan moved up the primary. Obama and Clinton both said this was wrong and then they agree'd not to campain there.

That is now what happened.

Again for the mentally slow.

DNC made rules, said if any state (beside Iowa, S. Carolina and New Hampshire) move there primary before Feb 5, then their delegates would not count. At this time no state had moved up the primary. Then came along Michigan and Florida. The DNC said hey, if you do this your vote won't count. The DNC begged them not to do this. Michigan and Florida still did it. In Michigan a man sued the DNC and said you can not do this. He lost. He appealed. He lost.

Then then canidates were asked will you honor this by not campaining in these states, they said yes.

Now they did not have to say yes. But really it did not matter.; May 12, 2008 11:53 PM
Kujo said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 12, 2008 11:53 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike in Maryland a lemmings is a small rodent it has a short tail and looks like a mouse.Jean; May 12, 2008 11:54 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike I had them in Tenn. Jean; May 12, 2008 11:55 PM
Hippolytus said...: Thank you, Kujo, for that excellent synopsis (that means summary, Aunt Jean).; May 12, 2008 11:57 PM
Aunt Jean said...: Kujo do you know that there were 4 other states that moved their primary so those shouldn't count either. Dean got pissed off about it and said no more states are to do this that is how it came about.Dean thinks to much of himself.I just thought that I would let you know because you are so mentally slow. Jean; May 13, 2008 12:00 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: night, Jean, and god bless. bear in mind, though, you are unlikely to be changing anyone's mind. you are only venting; from my perspective, you are talking to yourself.; May 13, 2008 12:05 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Hippolytus just because you had to look up synopsis to make sure that it was what you thought it was doesn't mean that I didn't know what the word meant because I do. I'm sorry you have that many brain cells gone.Jean; May 13, 2008 12:05 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Vicki I'm not venting you must be mistaken it seems that the Obama people are scared of something are at least some of them are . Jean; May 13, 2008 12:08 AM
Kujo said...: Yes I do understand that Jean. And now you are finally understanding it. You are blaming the DNC run'd by Dean.

But Super Tuesday was not invented by Dean. In fact it goes back to 1984.

I will agree that this was a mistake by the DNC. But the fact is now it is too late to go back and change.

But Dean does not control the DNC. They have other people who vote too.

Also these are the same rules the Republicans have, except they decided to have a different punishment. Do you blame Dean for this too?; May 13, 2008 12:09 AM
Oregon Dem said...: Aunt Jean:

Vicki had a good point there.

Take a deep breath and chill a bit we do not want to have such an ardent Democrat having a heart attack.; May 13, 2008 12:10 AM
Hippolytus said...: Three reasons for Obama to pick Richardson as VP
3) He'll help with the Latino vote.
2) He'll help carry New Mexico, a swing state.
1) Just to rub the Clinton's nose in it!
Good night, Aunt Jean!; May 13, 2008 12:11 AM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Man I wish May 31st was here and gone so the whole Florida, Michigan could go away. ;o)

Kujo and Jean, your both wrong, but that suits your argument, so here's to freedom of speech.

Both Clinton and Obama (as well as all of the Democratic candidates) signed the agreement on MI and FL not counting, as well as agreeing not to "campaign" in the state.

Obama asked the DNC if a National Ad would violate that agreement and they ruled it did not. Any of the candidates could have done that. Only Clinton ventured physically into the state for a fund raiser prior to the election. Is a fund raiser campaigning? Did she ask permission from the DNC? I don't know and don't care.

On the name on the ballot thing. There was a gentleman's agreement to remove the names from the MI ballots, but we know Clinton is no gentleman (LOL). In Florida they would have done the same thing, but it was against the FL laws to remove the names so they had to leave them there.

Whatever happens will not be totally fair to the voters, the candidates, or the democratic process. We can only hope they find a solution that will keep voters engaged, because the country has been so screwed up by the current administration and the Congress that gave him this much power without impeaching him and Chaney.

Carry On! ;o); May 13, 2008 12:12 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Emit Obama only asked the SC Dnc if it would violate the agreement. He didn't ask everyone sorry but you are wrong. No Hillary did not campaign in Florida that was a fund raiser.Obama's people went there also. Jean; May 13, 2008 12:17 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Emit what wouldn't be fair is the voter votes not counting and people [obama supporters] saying that there was people that didn't vote because they knew that their vote wouldn't count is laughable was there nothing else on the ballot to vote on I don't think so.Not only that I believe that they thought their votes would count. Jean; May 13, 2008 12:21 AM
Oregon Dem said...: Emit:

Well said.

And if I remember correctly the DNC did say before Clinton did fund raising events in Florida that fund raising was not campaigning under the rules.

So in my mind neither Clinton or Obama "broke" the rules in Florida.

The DNC, through the RBC, may break the rules on May 31st (allowing full seating of the Florida delegates) or they may change the penalty for Florida (by allowing the delegates half a vote each) or they may stick with the rules as established.

I would hate to start any process, game, or anything else without knowing what the rules were so I favor sticking with the ones that were set at the outset.

If the DNC changes the rules now it is now different than Bush changing the reasons we went to war in Iraq for the umpteenth time.; May 13, 2008 12:23 AM
Aunt Jean said...: oregon demo if you are talking about me don't worry just had a complete workup by my heart doctor even had a dobbler of my heart and stress test came out great! Jean; May 13, 2008 12:24 AM
Aunt Jean said...: oregan demo I think a fund raiser behind closed doors and sitting in your living room for most of Florida to see the ad is quite different. Jean; May 13, 2008 12:26 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean said...
. . . a lemmings is a small rodent it has a short tail and looks like a mouse.

Aunt Jean,

Yes, I am fully aware of that. I am also fully aware that when someone states that a person or group is acting like a lemming, what they are saying is that that person or group would 'follow the leader' over a cliff.

In fact, Jim started the discussion about lemmings a couple of weeks ago, when he stated that the supporters of Senator Obama were all lemmings, willing to sacrifice themselves by throwing themselves over a cliff.

I've tried a couple of times to show him that it is a modern folklore that lemmings commit willing suicide by going over a cliff, and scientists have shown it is false.

On the Internet, when someone is called a 'lemming', it means they are unthinking and incapable of independent thought or action and/or act in a suicidal manner. Or that the person cannot face reality, or wouldn't know reality if it hit them in the face.

I see (figuratively, not literally) a lot of lemmings every day. Most of them are the Bush kool-ade drinkers. Quite a few of the rest are those who really believe that Senator Clinton has a realistic probability of winning the nomination.

Reality is that until the nomination is clinched, there is always a possibility, but the probability is very small.

For instance, is it possible to toss a coin and it lands on heads 100 times in a row?

Possible - Yes
Probable - No

Is it possible for Senator Clinton to win the nomination, as things stand now? Yes

Is it probable for Senator Clinton to win the nomination, as things stand now? No

If you still think it is probable she will win the nomination, then you aren't looking at reality, and seeing the facts of the situation. And specious arguments (who won the popular vote? Who won the most 'big states'? Who won the most 'blue state'? etc.) are not reality, as those criteria are NOT in the rules for winning the nomination.

Mike; May 13, 2008 12:30 AM
Independent Voter said...: Hey Jean, [Here is the link of Senator Clinton stating that Michigan wouldn't count]

My mistake, I sincerely apologize, you are correct that he got permission from the SC chairwoman, which she granted (they were the only one's who would be affected by the ad running in Florida because SC would be the only remaining primary after Florida until Feb. 5th).....so perhaps Florida should be seated, but there still needs to be some form of punishment for Florida breaking the rules - as many have proposed 1/2 vote per delegate.

If they allow Florida to be seated at full delegation, what is going to prevent any other state from pushing their primaries up....next thing you know the first primary is going to be in 2010 for the 2012 election.; May 13, 2008 12:31 AM
Independent Voter said...: Damn it my link didn't work. Here it is again.

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=u01y4; May 13, 2008 12:31 AM
Oregon Dem said...: Aunt Jean:

At the time (waaay back in January) I was an ardent supporter of John Edwards so I must admit that I did not pay too much attention to the goings on in either the Clinton or Obama camps.

In fairness to all, I will admit that fact.

In fairness to if no one else other than me - do you have documentation of your claim that Obama only asked the SC democratic party officials and not the DNC if the tv ad was OK or not?

If so I would like to see it.

Thanks; May 13, 2008 12:34 AM
Independent Voter said...: Oregon Dem,

She is correct.

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/01/22/State/Obama_s_CNN_ad_draws_.shtml; May 13, 2008 12:40 AM
Aunt Jean said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 13, 2008 12:40 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Mike in Maryland I know that she has a hard road to sow to win the race I just said that it was possible. I was using the states as one of her arguing points. Jean; May 13, 2008 12:43 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Thanks Dave; May 13, 2008 12:44 AM
Oregon Dem said...: So somebody teach me how to put a link in a post....

Kinda an old guy here...; May 13, 2008 12:44 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Hippolytus there are alot of lantinos that don't like Richardson. Have a good night. Jean; May 13, 2008 12:47 AM
Yamaka said...: Hello Democrats, here is my two cents worth of prediction for the coming 6 Contests:

1. Tomorrow it's going to be a blow-out for HRC - BHO's lead of popular vote PV 113.4K- will be totally erased.

2. In KY, OR: HRC will pull ahead in the PV and PR will give her as much as 150 K lead in PV.

3. On June 3, MT and SD will be very close, and she will maintain the PV lead to nearly 150K.

Now the Question to the remaining undeclared SDs (I expect at least 250 will be left at that time).

1. Knowing that the voters of FL and MI did NOT do anything wrong (only the Party Officials goofed big time) do you really want to disenfranchise the 2.5 million innocent voters?

2. I expect the answer to be a resounding NO..No. Then seat ALL their delegates. If you can, just punish some of SDs who violated the Rule by stripping their votes as SDs. But, remember all these SDs are already "grandfathered" - you cannot strip them of their votes!

3. At the end of the day, BHO has a lead in pledged delegates and HRC has a lead in TOTAL popular votes. Since the PD lead is not sufficient to jump the Hurdle 2208.5, and HRC has the lead in PV, about 200 of the remaining SDs can en mass move to HRC and Nominate her, because she has more of mass appeal, as evidenced by her popular vote lead.

This is fair and legitimate.

Our pain of losing 2000 GE will be finally healed: our candidate won the popular vote but lost to Dubya by a single EV.

4. The question will be why NOT discard the PV lead and Nominate BHO? This will be a serious mistake and injustice, as per our collective painful feeling of the result of 2000 GE.

Wait and See how this plays out near end of our Epic Battle For the Nomination.

Cheer, Smile and Vote for Hillary, the First Woman POTUS.
:-); May 13, 2008 12:48 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Oregon Dem you want to know something I really liked Edwards it was hard for me to choose between Hillary and him. The reason I picked Hillary is I believed she could win.Plus I'm sure somewhere there was the fact that she was a woman but I don't know.Jean; May 13, 2008 12:51 AM
Independent Voter said...: You're welcome Jean.

Oregon Dem, I tried linking with text but the link didn't work (it was my first time trying) :(

So I'm not sure if I got it right or not.

ed iglehart left the following instructions earlier:

[your text]

put the URL (web address) where indicated, and your text where indicated.

I'll try it again

[This is the article about Obama asking the SC Chairwoman]

I am just testing it to make sure I'm doing it correctly.; May 13, 2008 12:53 AM
Independent Voter said...: Oregon dem,

It didn't allow me to post it without the instructions without turning it into a hotlink. I'm not sure why it screwed up.

If you go back to the post by ed iglehart with the date and time stamp of May 11, 2008 at 5:59 he has the instructions posted.

One thing he didn't mention is that where he has "[link address]" he didn't mention that you have to take out the [] marks.; May 13, 2008 12:57 AM
Hippolytus said...: Yamaka,
Interesting predictions. We'll see what happens in the coming weeks. Do you (or anyone else) know how many registered Democratic voters there are in Puerto Rico? Although I'm an Obama supporter, I do see the possibility of a heavy turnout for Hillary in PR as a final obstacle for Obama, especially if you are right about the popular vote difference in West Virginia and Kentucky.; May 13, 2008 1:00 AM
Oregon Dem said...: Aunt Jean:

I reviewed 15 policy questions that face America today. Questions like:

Which of the following statements do you most agree with with respect to issues such as Health Care, Immigration, Iraq, the Economy, Climate Change, etc.

I mentioned it before - you can go to NPR and take it yourself. Softspoken took it and Fred Thompsen was her top match.

I really cannot remember the exact scores for everyone But I do know that McCain got 1 match, Ron Paul got ~7 matches, Clinton got 11 matches and Obama and I agreed on 13 out of 15.

The point, if I may ask, is what policy issue do you so strongly disagree with Obama over?

Please note, I am not talking race, gender, accent, personality or that ilk.

I ask this because you have said you would rather vote for McCain than Obama if Clinton does not get the nomination. I would never contemplate such a thing. There is now ay I am going to vote for McCain when he only matches ONE of my policy beliefs - of course I would vote for Clinton - I get 11 out of my 15 with her. Why would I give up 10 principles I believe in and want to see America adopt?

Now I suppose if one policy response that McCain and Clinton have in common that Obama does not is the most important and is the deciding factor to you then voting for McCain, for you, is appropriate - is that the case and if so what is that issue?; May 13, 2008 1:00 AM
Aunt Jean said...: oregon dem if you want to see the link just click on the link from Independent voter.the 12:53 post Jean; May 13, 2008 1:01 AM
Bull Schmitt said...: Mike in Maryland -

At this stage of the game, Sen. Clinton needs the coin to land on its side 100 times in a row. ;); May 13, 2008 1:01 AM
Independent Voter said...: Aunt Jean, I too really like John Edwards, I actually voted for him in the primary in 2004. However, I also know that Democrats usually don't do well when they make a second run at being election. (Please notice I didn't say all, I did say usually. And the reason I said usually is because Bill Clinton was successful in his second after failing to get the nomination in 88).; May 13, 2008 1:02 AM
Yamaka said...: "And specious arguments (who won the popular vote? Who won the most 'big states'? Who won the most 'blue state'? etc.) are not reality, as those criteria are NOT in the rules for winning the nomination."

Wrong...wrong....wrong again.

These arguments are perfectly valid for a batch of SDs (about 200 as per my calculation) to move en mass to Nominate a candidate who has achieved the aforementioned criteria.

What's wrong in it?

Remember, these criteria ARE the essentials to win the GE, which is the ultimate aim of this Nomination Process, anyway.

Granted, the TOTAL Delegate Count only should matter in the final Nomination process, as per the Rule.

Your logic is quite laughable, RodentmickyinMD!

:-(; May 13, 2008 1:04 AM
Aunt Jean said...: oregon dem it's not wahat he stands for [ meaning what he wants to do] I just don't trust him. When I look at him I get this feeling deep in my gut that tells me don't trust him he will do great harm.My gut feeling has never been wrong and I'm not trying to be funny, a smart mouth, or anything else. I would tell you why I trust my feelings but most people don't understand. It's just the truth. Jean; May 13, 2008 1:07 AM
Independent Voter said...: Oregon Dem,

I took that test at one point (many months back) and I'll tell you what, the one that I matched highest with is none other than Dennis Kucinich (14). LOL! But the next person was Obama (13) followed by John Edwards (11).; May 13, 2008 1:09 AM
Independent Voter said...: Yam, are you really trying to tell us that NY and CA are NOT going to go Dem in November?

That is the MOST laughable "argument" (and I'm using the term VERY loosely) I have EVER heard!; May 13, 2008 1:11 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Video regarding MI and FL –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg

Everyone please watch that video and then let's discuss it.

p.s. To Kujo - there was a pledge that Obama, Edwards, and Clinton signed regarding not campaigning in Florida and Michigan - I just can't find a copy of it at the moment.

OBAMA / Sebelius '08; May 13, 2008 1:12 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave Edwards being a handsome man doesn't hurt either LOL LOL. I think he would have made a good predident I also voted for him in 2004.Have I told you that I love dimples Edwards has some really nice ones.LOL Jean; May 13, 2008 1:13 AM
Independent Voter said...: OOPS, my last post to you Jean, I really need to proofread my posts before I post them. I'm just really tired of proofreading.....I had to proof that paper and then reproof and reproof...etc. You know how it goes. LOL...

It should have read..."However, I also know that Democrats usually don't do well when they make a second run at being elected."; May 13, 2008 1:14 AM
Independent Voter said...: LOL Jean, I know what you mean...he is around the right age for me too...LOL But I am happily coupled (going on 18 years).; May 13, 2008 1:16 AM
Yousri said...: Oregon Dem,

Help for posting a link:
You need the following line.

<1 href="Your url here with no space and the double quote is required in both places">Your Description Here< / 1>

You need to replaced the number (1) with the letter (a) and take the space out before and after "/".

I have type it this way, otherwise the system will hide it and make it a link.

HTH; May 13, 2008 1:17 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean said...
I was using the states as one of her arguing points.

Aunt Jean,

When you state "using the states' I have to presume you are using the 'big state' 'swing state' and/or 'blue state' argument. If so:

Where in the rules is there a provision that whoever wins the most states wins the nomination?

Where in the rules is there a provision that whoever wins the most big states wins the nomination?

Where in the rules is there a provision that whoever wins the most "swing states" wins the nomination?

I have read and studied the rules. The ONLY way to win the nomination is to get a majority of delegate votes at the convention.

If you mean 'using the states' as one of her arguing points' to sway the superdelegates, then why do all sources now say that Senator Obama has more superdelgates than Senator Clinton? If that argument was going to work, it would have stopped the steady stream of superdelegates to Senator Obama.

Even if there is some shred of validity in the 'states' argument, the superdelegates are not buying into it, as evidenced by the fact that the majority of superdelgates who have endorsed a candidate have endorsed Senator Obama.

In February, Senator Obama had a net gain of 94 superdelegate endorsements, Senator Clinton had a net gain of 51.

In March, Senator Obama had a net gain of 23 superdelegate endorsements, Senator Clinton had a net gain of 6.

In April, Senator Obama had a net gain of 28 superdelegate endorsements, Senator Clinton had a net gain of 15.

And so far in May, Senator Obama had a net gain of 37 superdelegate endorsements, Senator Clinton had a net gain of 9.5.

If the 'states' argument was going to work with the superdelegates, you would not be seeing more of them endorsing Senator Obama than Senator Clinton month after month after month. That is the reality as I see it.

If I have presumed incorrectly by what you mean by 'using the states', it is an indication that you did not clearly state what you meant by that phrase. If you meant some other meaning, then what is it, and be very clear with the definition of what is meant by 'using the states'.

Mike; May 13, 2008 1:18 AM
Hippolytus said...: Clinton campaign song: "Yesterday."; May 13, 2008 1:27 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave and he married just my luck LOL LOL That is a long time to be with someone. I was married for 27 years when I got my divorced.I was unhappy for quite awhile before I got my divorce. I still care for my ex just don't love him like a wife should so I finally came to the realization that I wasn't being fair to either one of us. He was the type of person if we argued he would buy me diamonds furs or anything I really wanted. All I really wanted was a I'm sorry never got it.Material things don't mean that much to me. Yes I have the diamonds ,furs, and whatever don't wear them most are in the bank in a safty box. All I wear is a ring that someone [a special child] gave me a long time ago and I have good earrings on. Then I have a necklace with a cross that is about all I wear. Jean; May 13, 2008 1:28 AM
Oregon Dem said...: I have got to head to bed as in 7 hours I have to drive ~ 125 miles to a meeting that I have to go to for work (don't you hate when work interferes with fun)

thanks for the chat

Whatever you see in Obama Aunt Jean is something I do not. Just like I do not see any evil in Clinton either.

Since 1972 (my first time voting) I have never voted for anyone other than the eventual Dem nominee except one year where I voted for a democrat - just not our party's nominee - I wrote in Senator Barbara Jordon of Texas rather than vote for Governor Jimmy Carter or President Gerald Ford. It was a wasted vote since there was not even a write in campaign going for her, but I liked her a bunch.

Yam: As I said about five hours ago, if Clinton has those 200 super delegates she best role them out right now.

Well an all day meeting hopefully can check in on you all tomorrow night.

Oh and Aunt Jean - if you want to tell me what it is about Obama - I will tell you what it was about Carter that made me cast my vote for Jordon....; May 13, 2008 1:29 AM
Kujo said...: Yakama,

Here is where you logic goes wrong.

When you say the DNC would never vote to take away the votes of the people from Florida and Michigan you are wrong. They already did.

What I really have to wonder is ignorent some people are.

How could anyone say that Michigan and Florida should count now after the vote is over. You actually think this is fair to go back and change the rules to fit your candidates needs and the rest of the country will sit there and say "Oh thats ok".

I checked all the blogs in all the web sites and not once did you mention this before Florida and Michigan voted.

I am glad that the SD's that are now flocking over to Obama not as ignorant then you.; May 13, 2008 1:31 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave How old is Edwards. The youngest guy I dated for quite awhile was 15 years younger than me. Boy was he handsome long story. He was a really nice guy. I will never trust a female again because of him. It learnt me a very hard lesson. Jean; May 13, 2008 1:34 AM
Oregon Dem said...: Aunt Jean said:

"All I wear is a ring that someone [a special child] gave me a long time ago and I have good earrings on. Then I have a necklace with a cross that is about all I wear. Jean"

....and I am going to bed with that thought and my wife is out of town on a business trip...!

:-)

Just kidding Aunt Jean... had to toss a little humor into the debate

-though you are probably younger than I am ;-)

night all; May 13, 2008 1:36 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Kujo to begin with the voting isn't over. Jean; May 13, 2008 1:38 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This is why the SuperDelegates are not going to let the popular vote be the deciding factor:

1) Many of the SDs are politicians or are in the political system and they know that this is a DELEGATE race (not a popular vote race).

2) The majority of people 'in the know' know that a candidate will plan their strategy in order to get the most delegates out of a state. This means that they will concentrate on Congressional Districts that will garner them the most Pledged Delegates. The candidate will campaign in those districts harder than in places that don't have a lot of delegates up for grabs.

Now if the race was for trying to get the most popular vote (which it is not) then the candidates would follow a different strategy.

This is the main reason that the popular vote doesn't mean anything!

* There are states that Clinton won more in popular votes but Obama received more delegates --- this is a good example of why Senator Obama is WINNING this nomination process - he has a better strategy that is paying off for him :); May 13, 2008 1:41 AM
Aunt Jean said...: oregon dem I didn't realize that I said now my face is red. LOL LOL Jean; May 13, 2008 1:42 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah let me ask you one question. Can the SD's vote anyway they want to? Jean; May 13, 2008 1:43 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yes Aunt Jean they can.

But you really should go back and re-read what I said so that you will see why they will not over-turn the person with the most pledged-delegates.; May 13, 2008 1:46 AM
Aunt Jean said...: oregon dem I'm 54. Jean; May 13, 2008 1:46 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Leah thats all I wanted to know need I say more!!!! Jean Good night; May 13, 2008 1:47 AM
Aunt Jean said...: Dave you have a wonderful evening or should I say morning talk to you later. Jean; May 13, 2008 1:48 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Aunt Jean,

Let me ask you this.

Suppose Texas had broken the rules. Then let's say that the Democratic Party announced publicly TWO MONTHS BEFORE the primary that "Texas broke the rules and now we THE DNC will not recognize the results of the Texas primary". So, the day of the primary comes and you DO NOT go to vote because you have been told that the votes will not count. Then a few months after the primary was held they announced 'oh - we have decided now that we will recognize the primary results' --- Tell me Jean how you would feel. Would you feel like your voice had been heard? Would you feel like you had been treated fairly?

.; May 13, 2008 1:51 AM
Independent Voter said...: Jean, LOL, He'll be 55 on June 10th.....Great, another Gemini. LOL

I've never dated anyone younger than me. My partner is 12 years older (except for 1 day a year....he's 13 years older....LOL); May 13, 2008 1:51 AM
Independent Voter said...: Take care Jean, see you tomorrow.

Have a great night.; May 13, 2008 1:54 AM
Kujo said...: Never said the voting was over. Never said HRC should quit the race.

I liked HRC very much and feel the Dems have 2 very good candidates to choose from.

I just find it very unfair for someone to change the rules after the fact. If this was done it would be a crime. I feel strongly about this.

If you tell me is it fair for the voters in Michigan and Flordia not to have the vote count, I would agree. But this is a discussion that would have to of taken place before January, not now. They had all the opportunity to do something about it and they did not.

The problem is 1/2 the people out there are ill informed and to have people like you to try to paint the picture as if Clinton and Obama both agreed on not campaining in Florida and Michigan and then Obama went out and did this and now he is the vilian. It is all make believe and to try to sway the illinformed with this garbage is a disgrace and an imbarresment.; May 13, 2008 1:56 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: ANOTHER SD for OBAMA!

DC Democratic Party Chair Anita Bonds announced that she will support Barack Obama; May 13, 2008 1:59 AM
Independent Voter said...: Great find, leah.; May 13, 2008 2:27 AM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Just remember tomorrow when Hillary wins bragging rights for West Virginia that Senator Obama has had some wins with very wide margins also:

Idaho
Obama 79% - Clinton 17%

D.C.
Obama 75% - Clinton 24%

Hawaii
Obama 76% - Clinton 24%

Alaska
Obama 75% - Clinton 25%

Kansas
Obama 74% - Clinton 26%

Nebraska
Obama 68% - Clinton 32%

And there lots more of them!
I am sure the media will talk about HRC's win tomorrow but won't even mention all the contests that she lost be HUGE margins!; May 13, 2008 2:39 AM
Mike in Maryland said...: Aunt Jean said...
Dave How old is Edwards.

Aunt Jean,

Although Independent Voter has already answered your question, I have to say this about your query above:

When I participated on another web site, whenever someone asked a question where the answer could very quickly be found with just a bit of research, especially when the question was either not germane to the discussion or had been asked and answered time and time again, our response was:

"We are not your research monkeys!"

Go to Google.com

In the search box, enter the query - in this case "John Edwards".

When you see a result that indicates the site contains a biography, click it and read the information.

Another source for information is Wikipedia (wikipedia.org).

Enter the query in the search box - in this case "john Edwards".

In the future, please take advantage of the resources available to you.

And remember, "We are not your research monkeys!"

Mike; May 13, 2008 2:56 AM
Squirrel said...: Jack Johnson, a pledged delegate from Maryland, has announced he has changed from Clinton to Obama!

This is not an SD but a pledged delegate!

That is one pledged delegate down for Clinton and one up for Obama!!!!!!

Remember the Clinton camp said that 'pledged delegates' were fair game, well their policy seems to have come home to roost fair and square.

Clinton is now not only behind in every measurable aspect of the race, she is not only losing endorsements from SDs, but has started losing pledged delegates as well!

How many more pledged delegates will follow, that is the question now.; May 13, 2008 3:56 AM
ed iglehart said...: Softspoken,

"Ariane- Hear, Hear. With some supporters saying stupid and some saying uneducated: I may be dumb, but I ain't stupid!

Speaking of being dumb, when I first saw AA somewhere, I wondered what the 12 step program had to do with the primaries."

Me too! And on the matter of "dumb", Arabic speakers refer to those who don't speak Arabic as "Ajam", or "dumb" - just for interest ;-)

And, regarding anarchy - it ain't what most folk think

Joy!
xx
ed; May 13, 2008 6:03 AM
ed iglehart said...: Hotlinks:

A blank link looks like this:
<a href=""></a>

the URL (web address) goes between the double quotation marks, and your text (whatever you like) goes between the > and &<

So you get your request

It's easy when you know how
;-)
ed; May 13, 2008 6:28 AM
ed iglehart said...: It seems the GOP has finally "got it"! Their new slogan, The Change You Deserve, is copyrighted by an anti-depressant drug (coincidentally, one I took for a year without noticable benefit)

I can't stop grinning!

xx
ed; May 13, 2008 6:58 AM
Squirrel said...: Obama has picked up his first SD of the day, Rep. Joe Donnelly of Indiana has just endorsed.

How many more today?

Could Clinton's 'Good Day' be Obama's 'Even Better Day'?; May 13, 2008 7:21 AM
ed iglehart said...: Yamaka,

"here is my two cents worth of prediction for the coming 6 Contests..."

That may be the asking price, but have you any takers?; May 13, 2008 9:11 AM
UUbuntu said...: To all the Obama supporters here: Can we give Hillary Clinton a rest now. According to intrade, here chances of winning the Nomination are under 8% (Al Gore -- who isn't even running -- clocks in at 3%). She is no longer considered viable. Let's move on.

To the Clinton supporters -- I have no problem with your talking about Clinton's chances. After all, you support her candidacy (at least Aunt Jean and Jim support her), and even though I've moved on, I still appreciate your passionate support.

But to the rest of you -- Arrgh! why do you even engage in this trivial discussion? It's over . O V E R. She lost. Period. Honestly, I get the feeling that you WANT to talk about Clinton trivia instead of the more important and pressing issues of the day. Is there anything you can say about her campaign that you haven't already said? If so, say it and move on. Otherwise, let's talk about the John McSame campaign and the Repugnicans's platform and how (or why) Obama will win in November.

Let's talk about the changes in our government that we hope an Obama administration will bring.

Or if we must talk about Clinton, let's have a postmortem on her campaign. Let's talk about why her campaign failed her so badly when she had the nomination in the bag 4 months ago.

Obama-O8; May 13, 2008 9:17 AM
Squirrel said...: Tyler,

A very brief post mortem on Clinton's campaign.

She never went above 50% in the RCP polls, even when Obama was in the 20's%. The actual reason she lost was because most people either do not like her or do not trust her, or a combination of both.

At first the 'establishment' thought she was the sure-fire, well known 'name', that would take on and win against the Repub's. But as people looked at the other candidates they found they had choices, and they went there, and coallesed around the embodiment of reason and hope as exemplified by Senator Obama.

Obviously Clinton made mistakes along the way. She thought she was 'entitled' to the nomination, she thought the 'establishment' was stronger than the will of the people, she thought old style politics still ruled, she thought bullying and threatening was enough to force people to back her, she thought crocodile tears would win hearts (and minds), she thought other candidates were insignificant, she thought she could get away with lying, she thought she could re-write the rules to serve her purpose, she thought the American people were racists, she thought she had the best team (after all it was the most expensive), she thought her husband would be an asset, she thought she was a hero, she thought she had run the WH for two terms before, she thought the press were scared of her, she thought accusing people of sexism would tie peoples' toungues, and I guess to cap it all she thought thought the American people were stupid!

Now who was it that said those immortal words:

"You can fool some of the people all the time,
You can fool all of the people some of the time,
But you cannot fool all of the people all of the time!"; May 13, 2008 9:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Yamaka-
Regarding your predictions for today, and their impact... You start with a false premise. Obama's PV lead is not 113K, but 736K. And if, as an ardent Clinton supporter, you feel you must include the Florida numbers, then Obama's lead is 441K. I think you have also included MI. Duh? If you seriously believe that your popular vote argument holds water, then there is NO WAY you can include a state where Obama took his name off the ballot because he was trying to follow the rules which he and Hillary had both agreed to. Come on, don't let your ardent support for your candidate blind you to fairness!; May 13, 2008 10:04 AM
Kujo said...: Leah,

Nice Video, thanks.

I never said that that Clinton and Obama did not sign anything. My point was it did not matter. DNC had its rules and it was between the DNC and these states.; May 13, 2008 10:13 AM
ed iglehart said...: An excellent piece about not dismissing Appalachia

"I know that we cannot win West Virginia on Tuesday. We cannot win Kentucky next week. We cannot win Appalachia in November. But that does not mean we should give up on them or work less hard for them. It does not make the 50 state strategy less important -- it makes the 50 state strategy more important. It means we should work even harder. Call it bridging the ignorance gap, if you will."

"Progress is not something that you just order on the Internet and pickup at Sears in twenty minutes -- we have to work for it in every corner of America. It's important that we whittle Clinton down to 65% on Tuesday, and that means we have to work for it."

"First, let's talk about ignorance."

"I've seen a lot of frustration expressed lately about what many kossacks consider to be willfully ignorant people. Some of you believe that information is as readily available to everyone as it is to you. Some of you believe that the cost of accessing available information is the same for everyone as it is for you. I've even seen comments from people exclaiming, "But golly gee, everyone has access to the Intertoobs!" I guess some of you have never heard of the digital divide."

"Not everyone has access to the Internet. There is a huge gap between the have and have-nots when it comes to Internet access, and the divide is down economic lines. I hate to point out the obvious, but Appalachia ain't exactly well-to-do...."

The whole piece is well worth the time it takes to read it.

Salaam, etc.
ed; May 13, 2008 10:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Tyler,
Sorry to hear you are supporting Obama now.
As far as the name calling battle,
it is normal in politics for the underdog to go negative.
Not so normal for the frontrunner to do so. This, of course doesn't apply to followers.

I, for one am happy for the thing to play out as per the rules.
Under the rules, the vote will be tallied at the convention and the candidate with the majority will get the nomination.
If MI and Florida are seated, it will be by the actions of the rules or credentials committee.
If the remaining uncommitted SD"s decide to vote for the candidate with the Total Popular vote lead, that also be within the rules.
TBC; May 13, 2008 10:25 AM
UUbuntu said...: Thank you Squirrel -- That is a good post.

My Clinton campaign postmortem -- may it be premature :-)

I tend to think that, while Sen. Clinton started as a divisive figure (very much so in the country, but far less so in the Democratic Party), I felt that with a competent campaign strategy and less-than-perfect opposition, she could have transcended her divisive image to become the party standard-bearer. She certainly spent the last 3 or 4 years doing so. In New York, for example, she's become a very professional and popular senator (as of 6 months ago). For example, her 2000 Senate campaign (between Clinton and Giuliani) was very close, with a very divided electorate (and close election) until Giuliani self-destructed. And even against token Republican opposition, she only managed a 55% win. But she won re-election by more than a 2-1 majority.

She *could* have brought this message ("I can transcend division in our party and in our country") to the Democratic Party electorate, and taken the nomination. She didn't. Maybe she couldn't.

I don't think it was Hillary Clinton, per se, her legislative record, or her husband's presidency that was her campaign's undoing. I think her downfall was due to (1) a remarkably disciplined and professional campaign by Sen. Obama, (2) inability to acknowledge the strength of her opposition or the weaknesses of her own candidacy, and (3) an inability to organize on the ground any form of GOTV drive in caucus states. And while (1) could be reasonably unexpected, (2) and (3) are marks of incompetence in her campaign.

Essentially, her campaign was unprepared for a "real" election. She had assumed that America would be like New York in 2000, and that the "real" fight would be in the general election (and against Giuliani, no less) and that the Democratic nominating process would be easy, especially since her strongest states (New York, California, Florida) would be on Super Tuesday -- very early in the nominating process -- and that she would have much more money than her competitors.

When her primary opposition unified -- especially through campaign contributions -- around Barack Obama clear, simple message of "hope and change", she had no counter message, and had to revert to the "triangulation strategy" of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, which could only work in a general election, and as the months wore on, began to look more and more like a scorched earth strategy.

Her problem was that her campaign had only one strategy for winning -- a non-ground-organization strategy -- and when that strategy failed, her campaign didn't know how to adjust her message.

For me at least, it was a disappointing outcome. I believe (and I still believe) that she will make an excellent president. But her campaign let her down.

To Jim -- I have no problem with your continued support of Clinton and with your patience on following the rules in the hopes that she can secure the nomination. While I may have given up hope on the Clinton campaign, I admire and respect those of you who have not.

For the record, I believe that Barack Obama could be the next JFK or even the next Abraham Lincoln (the author of your quote, Squirrel). Obama's that inspirational, and right now -- after 28 years of increasingly conservative Republican (and Republican-light) policies from the executive branch that include unnecessary wars, state-sponsored torture and citizen surveillance, our country needs a new kind of leadership -- competent and inspirational. I only hope that an Obama administration is as well run as the Obama campaign has been.; May 13, 2008 10:44 AM
UUbuntu said...: Ed -- Your link pointed back to the demconwatch open thread page. Can you post the link again? Thanks.; May 13, 2008 10:49 AM
Bull Schmitt said...: Well, the inevitable nomination of Sen. Clinton moves forward with a landslide victory tonight..

But I have "serious concerns" about a campaign that says it is relying on an avalanche of 200+ Superdelegates to overturn Sen. Obama's lead of (currently) 175 total delegates. With only 240 Supers left, It will take something like 210-30 to win this.

And yet it looks like it's *Obama with a 4-0 lead in Supers declaring today. Shouldn't Sen. Clinton start rolling a few of her own out, just to counter (what I'm sure must be) those last few Supers that Obama's people are pushing forward??

And don't even get me started about pledged delegates switching! (Whose bright idea was that, anyway? Can we fire Mark Penn again?)

I mean, it almost looks like the support from the last group of people that can possibly save this nomination for Clinton are holding back.

Oh well, I'm *sure she'll have at least 10 Supers come out for her tomorrow, after this landslide win... yeah, that's the ticket!; May 13, 2008 10:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Now for Clinton's chances. Very difficult path to the Nomination as I see it, but not impossible.
If she succeeds, She could win the GE handily with or without Obama

Obama's Chances.
Odds on to get the Nomination and good chance to win GE with Clintons
help.; May 13, 2008 10:59 AM
ed iglehart said...: More of great interest on Appalachian racism

All is not as it seems...

xx
ed; May 13, 2008 11:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Ed, Is it racism or racial preference?
At my County convention in Texas, 400 people and 100% of AA's were for Obama along with some Wasps.
Was race important? Will it continue to be?; May 13, 2008 11:14 AM
ed iglehart said...: Tyler,

My link pointed to the question, As does this to your request.

I think what you want is this:

Blank link:
<a href=""></a>

URL/web address goes between quotes, and your descriptive text goes between > and <

If you were referring to a different link, please give me more detail.

xx
ed; May 13, 2008 11:14 AM
ed iglehart said...: Probably this one on Appalachia

I don't know how that went astray.
;-(
ed; May 13, 2008 11:17 AM
ed iglehart said...: Jim,

Follow the link. It speaks for itself

xx
ed; May 13, 2008 11:20 AM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Calm down, I don't really mean to poke fun at anyone's body shape or anything like that, but just had to share this with those that can take it.

Last night my wife and I were eating and watching the news and they were talking about Clinton's "broad base" in WV. I told my wife that as the path to nomination for Clinton was narrowing it would be harder for her broad base to get her to the White House. The funny part was my wife's drink coming out her nose. Guess she had a visual. ;o); May 13, 2008 11:20 AM
Richard said...: It seems that a certain racist can't read. I did not say that Michigan or Florida should be seated with a 50% penalty and at least 55 Michigan delegates for Obama. I said that that is how they are most likely to be seated if the contest is clearly over by May 31. In my personal opinion, neither state's delegates should be seated at all due to flagrant rules violations.; May 13, 2008 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Richard,
Is "certain racist " like the proverbial "They"

If MI and Fla are not seated, it will be a ticket to oblivion for the nominee.; May 13, 2008 11:49 AM
Anonymous said...: When was the last President elected without winning West Virginia?; May 13, 2008 11:52 AM
ed iglehart said...: Jim,

1988 Michael Dukakis Democrat George H.W. Bush won; May 13, 2008 12:03 PM
ed iglehart said...: West Virginia's voting record; May 13, 2008 12:07 PM
Independent Voter said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 13, 2008 12:07 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

How's the weather in the state of denial today (isn't that the state nickname for TX)?

Hillary is looking at a BIG win in WV. She should pick up a chunk of pledged delegates and large portion of the popular vote.

But it's looking pretty bleak on the SD front... even if the full delegations from MI & FL are seated. There are approximately 275 SD's if you include SD's from FL & MI with full voting privileges.

The add-on's don't look to break her way... even with FL & MI, she is likely to fall farther behind. Here's my breakdown of remaining 48 add-on's to be selected (not including uncommitted add-ons already announced):

5/17 Obama +2 (CO & KS) Clinton +1 (NV) [Obama +1]
5/18 Obama +2 (CA) Clinton +3 (CA) [Even]
5/23 Obama +1 (AK) Clinton 0 [Obama +1]
5/24 Obama +3 (GA 2, WY) Clinton 0 [Obama +4]
5/25 Obama +1 (HI) Clinton 0 [Obama +5]
5/31 Obama +1 (MS) Clinton 0 [Obama +6]
6/1 Obama +1 (ME) Clinton 0 [Obama +7]
6/7 Obama +5 (MN 2, PA 1, TX 1, VT 1) Clinton +5 (KY 1, PA 2, TX 2) [Obama +7]
6/8 Obama +1 (MT) Clinton 0 [Obama +8]
6/13 Obama +2 (WI) Clinton 0 [Obama +10]
6/14 Obama +5 (ID, IA, MI 1, VA 2) Clinton +2 (MI, WV) [Obama +12]
6/15 Obama +2 (WA) Clinton 0 [Obama +14]
6/19 Obama 0 Clinton +1 (RI) [Obama +13]
6/21 Obama +5 (NC 2, OR, SD, NB) Clinton +2 (IN, PR) [Obama +16]

On 4/5, FL selected 3 add-ons; Gelber committed to Obama. Giving the other 2 add-ons to Clinton, then Obama looks to actually pick-up +15 margin over Hillary in remaining 48 add-ons including FL.

That would leave about uncommitted 227 SD's & selected add-ons that are uncommitted. If you subtract out the 15 add-ons from my projections, that leaves 212 SD's. Subtract out 8 Pelosi Club members, you're down to 204.

Using your numbers, Hillary needs 200 SD's to close the gap. Using my add-on projections and Pelosi club members yet to announce, that would mean Hillary needs about 200 of 204 SD's.

Thoughts?; May 13, 2008 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Ed,
Let me rephrase that.
When was the last Democrat elected President without winning West Virginia?; May 13, 2008 12:17 PM
ed iglehart said...: ;-); May 13, 2008 12:25 PM
Yamaka said...: Dear Democrats, Good Morning.

Another cloudy day in Houston!

Some scattered thoughts funneled from my frontal cortical neurons:

1. Some of you keep posting that "We MUST punish FL and MI".

I assume you want to punish about 2.5 million voters of MI and FL!

I ask you "Why?", and you say "They voted before the Super Tuesday, violating the Day Rule of the Party".

Please go through the mechanics of holding a Primary in any State. State Parties and the Govt work together and prepare for the Primary Date. Occasionally, if the State is governed by a rival Party GOP, as in the case of FL, the Party Rule cannot be logically implemented. No mechanism available to implement it.

GOP-controlled FL called for Jan 29 for the polling, and the People just followed the States dictates. For this, how in God's name you dare to punish the voters?

Do you know who is the real villain? The Party Officials (may be a dozen of them) who agreed to the Party Rule in the first place. You may punish them by stripping their SD voting. That's fair.

In MI, the situation is little different: the Governor and the Assembly is in the hands of Democrats although the Senate is with the GOP. There, the Democrats COULD have moved the Primary to Super Tuesday. But they did not. So, you punish the Governor and the Party Officials by stripping their SD voting. Thats' fair, and NOT the voters.

This idea has been amply communicated by Gov Dean recently.
All votes MUST be counted, and according to the choice of the voters the ALL delegates MUST be seated. No vengeful instincts of punishing the innocent voters, please.

Regarding the "Uncommitted" votes in MI: Since BHO removed his name as a campaign strategy to win in IA , NH, NE, SC there is nothing he can cry about it now. But to be fair, I suggest divide all the "Uncommitted" votes by the number of candidates who were competing in Jan, except HRC who already earned 55% of the votes. This type of equal apportioning is fair in the given circumstances.

Therefore, I conclude that the Real Hurdle for the Nomination is 2208.5 (as per Option 6 of DCW, left last Box).

The Math for HRC to win is right here:

1889 + 122 + 200 = 2211, a few more than the Hurdle 2208.5.

I remain confident that she will win a lead in the Popular vote from the future 6 Contests, and secure at least 122 PDs. At THAT time (between June 3 and June 30th) a batch of SDs -about 200- will move en mass to her side and give her the Nomination. This is doable, could very well happen, as she earned most of the popular vote which is very very important at THIS juncture. Remember, the pledged delegate is not sufficient to go over the Hurdle.

I know the Lemmings and the Children of the Piper will not like this. But the fact is truth WILL prevail, IMHO - not BigMoneyBags, for sure.

If the 2.5 million voters are in deed disenfranchised for no fault of theirs by the Czarist DNC, we WILL fight you in the mountains, in the valleys, in the big cities and in the small towns of America - we WILL NEVER surrender (as Churchill said long time ago!).

The War Just Begins.

Good Day.

Cheer, Smile and Vote for Hillary the First Woman POTUS.

:-); May 13, 2008 12:41 PM
Mike Ruth said...: Popular vote does not count!!!
There is no objective measurement of popular vote.

In my state we had a caucus process for Democratic nomination. Many Democrats sat out the subsequent "beauty contest" primary (which was held mainly for the Republican process that used primaries for half their delegates).

"Popular vote" criteria is a direct assault on all the caucus states.

Anyone who is claiming popular vote as a measure of nomination is violating the rule of the Democratic Party.

Delegates count. Popular vote doesn't count.

Quit talking about popular votes!; May 13, 2008 1:03 PM
Independent Voter said...: To my fellow Obama supporters. It looks like some of the stereotypes of those in WV were unjustified.

Now I'm not expecting Obama to win in WV, nor am I delusional to the idea that he is going to lose (by a huge margin) but it looks like many of those living in WV are really welcoming people.

Watch this short video; May 13, 2008 1:22 PM
Yamaka said...: A quick clarification:

I am NOT saying that at the Convention Floor the Popular vote will be discussed. NO. There only the TOTAL delegates matter. Nothing else.

I am suggesting that for about 200 of the 275.5 undeclared SDs (as pf this minute) the Popular Vote lead will be and could be the most attracting criterion to vote for HRC - I hope she will have the lead in PV by the end of June 3, when ALL votes polled are taken into A/C. When these SDs move towards her, then she WILL lead in the TOTAL Delegate counts, which is the only criterion for the Nomination.

That's it. Think hard and ponder.

:-); May 13, 2008 1:28 PM
ed iglehart said...: The Charleston West Virginia speech in full on video.

Enjoy it!
xx
ed; May 13, 2008 1:34 PM
Independent Voter said...: Yamaka,

You need to get your numbers right, there are only about 240 supers left.; May 13, 2008 2:08 PM
Yamaka said...: Inde:

Please see left last BOx (Option 6) in DCW:

As of this minute, the remaining SDs are 275.5

HRC has a total of 1889.

This is the most relevant important data box that I care.

I don't look at all other Partial Numbers put up by Joe P. Goebbals of the DNC!

1889 + 122 + 200 = 2211 a few more than the real Hurdle 2208.5!!!!

Cheer, Smile and Vote for the First Woman POTUS.; May 13, 2008 2:15 PM
Anonymous said...: SD's can switch anytime they wish, as can pledged delegates elected at the state level.
So, the only place there preference counts is at the convention. I personally watched the floor fight in 1960.
It was very entertaining.

Looking forward to August; May 13, 2008 2:24 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: The most important numbers to keep on eye on right now:

Number of delegates need to secure the nomination:

Obama 150
Clinton 328.5

Obama will be giving his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention on the day of Dr. King's 'Dream' speech's 45th anniversary!

OBAMA / Sebelius '08

.; May 13, 2008 2:25 PM
Mike Ruth said...: Yamaka,
Why wait to until convention floor to disclaim popular vote as a metric for nomination. If this ridiculous non-metric gets any play at the convention, then McCain will have won by then.

Popular Vote doesn't count *now* either. No two people in the USA can agree on the popular vote comparison between Clinton and Obama (what about caucus states? Michigan? Florida? people who vote "undecided"? beauty contests? non-binding primaries? 700,000 here, 200,000 there, blah blah blah). It's all just a mindless distraction from the Democratic Party rules.

So, why not quit talking about popular vote metrics NOW? It doesn't mean anything and is potentially highly divisive.

On the plus side, I suspect that the SD's are generally too smart and experienced to let half-baked notions of "popular vote" sway them, in either direction. And since they are Democratic party leaders, they have to understand that if they let specious non-metrics like Popular Vote sway their SD vote, then they are undermining the core principle of the Party, which is to adhere to the nomination rules.

So, quit talking about Popular Vote! It's a canard.; May 13, 2008 2:29 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1001 – 1200 of 1207 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

1207 comments:

Tags