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

4317 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1201 – 1400 of 4317 Newer› Newest»

Peter said...: I agree with you Tyler, I don`t think Edwards is intersted, but on the other hand he could change his mind.

I don`t think Clinton has enough leverage to "bully" her way into a VP position. She probably will get some kind of "reward" for her efforts, probably a high position in the party etc, but I don`t think she will be in Obamas administration.
Even though she is polling better in some states against McCain than Obam does, she still has shrinking support among democrats. But an increasing number of her remaining supporters are "hard-core", which means many of them are the people who say they would vote for McCain over Obama, I think most of them will vote for Obama, but for that to happen Clinton would need to exit in the coming month, I think she will, but she has some leverage and there will be som kind of backroom negotiation between the campaigns.

And intersting point is that several polls taken from states allready voted where Clinton won, shows Obama ahead in a democratic "match". This includes states like California, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. All states show a similar effect, Obama has gained the advantage against Clinton 1-2 months after the voting occured. That clearly means Clinton is losing support within the party and among democrats. I think she has some leverage, but her position is not that great, I don`t think VP is likely.

Another thing is that, even though all delegates in MI/FL are seated, Obama still controls the majority of the pledged "uncomitted"-delegates in MI. So there is actually no possible solution where Obama would get zero delegates from MI. In another words, MI/FL don`t have the possibilty to change anything at all and that means Clinton only has some limited leverage.; May 23, 2008 9:35 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: morning, all! sipping my coffee, waiting to see what the day brings today!

Re: Obama-Clinton ticket -- I don't think she brings anything positive to the table, and for every loyal fan she brings in, she would lose at least one Obamican (my dear mama would never vote for Obama-Clinton, for example, but she like Obama quite a bit, and is a Republican).

Obama-Gore would be a dream ticket IMHO anyway, but those who run and fail (well, in this case, moot point) are seldom called to run again.

Obama-Sebelius would be a strong ticket, would appease Clinton's supporters (in theory), and add midwest red-state strength.

Anyone offering a combo of years of experience, including on foreign issues, would strengthen the ticket.

Edwards has already said "no", at least as I understand it. He wouldn't really strengthen the ticket either, since he and Obama are in the same ballpark politically, and he doesn't offer that many more years of experience. Also (and I wonder about this) - I heard months ago that his wife's cancer had returned. He may have other personal ish on his plate right now, as anyone would. Cancer is a beeeyatch, and I think all of us, irregardless of political belief, can agree on that.

anyway, I need to do my morning stretches.; May 23, 2008 9:46 AM
Ariane said...: Yamaka writes "Huffington Post, MSNBC, ABC and CNN are very Left Leaning Liberal news outlets! Don't go there for information!"

Gee, Yamaka where do YOU get information? Judging from your rightwing talking points, it's from Rupert Murdoch's GOP propaganda machine Faux News. where reporters are told daily by the execs what to say.

Anyone who would characterize ABC as "very left leaning liberal" reveals him/herself as firmly on the right. Not moderate.

[Sorry folks couldn't resist]; May 23, 2008 9:49 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: btw, when all this is resolved and we all go off to either celebrate or lick our wounds, I'll miss this place. If there is another blog or board where people hang (that they are willing to name in this public location), let me know.

you can restrict board participants on some boards, I know that. I hang on boards a fair bit, for an ole lady.; May 23, 2008 9:50 AM
Yamaka said...: Dear Democrats, Good Morning.

Another hot humid day is in Houston.

__________________________________

RodentinMD:

You believe everything the "pollsters" say - you do. Remember Kerry, Dukakis and Mondale were all told as winners several months before the election! You know, Rodent, these polls are all massaged to suit some clients' bidding. All bogus, like most of your silly arguments.

What is true is what the electorates said in PA, OH, WV and KY very recently when Hillary won overwhelmingly in spite of being outspent 3:1 and the lies of the liberal MSM.

Your Black Messiah is just a Minority Candidate supported by a shallow and narrower Crowd: most Blacks, some college kid, some "ill-educated affluent" Whites -all 45% of the voting electorate.

On the other hand Hillary is supported by a wider and deeper Constituency: most Latinos, women, working and older White Americans -all 55% of the voting electorate.

As of today, Hillary got most of the votes polled with 17,646,147, about 57.2K more than the Minority Candidate. How do you attain your Representative Democracy w/o honoring the peoples' votes, Rodent?

In your Rodent brain you bent upon pushing the bogus idea of punishing the voters in MI and FL. This cannot happen, as they did not break any Rule - only the Politicians/Officials did, as per Gov Dean. What a nerve for you to push such an undemocratic nonsense!

Down Down with the Minority Candidate - the Manchurian Candidate - the Trojan Horse sent by some lunatic Sponsors to break the Democratic Party!:-(
_________________________________

Folks:

After the RBC Meeting the Real Hurdle will be closer to 2209.

Most definitely not the Bogus 2025.

Reset your mind and recalculate the delegate counts.

Hillary's Math: (Left Last Box of DCW)

1973 + 240 = 2213

She can easily get 240 out of 326 outstanding Ds + SDs plus there are 20 Ed's Ds.

Go Hillary Go. The Majority Candidate will win over the Minority!

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

:-); May 23, 2008 10:03 AM
Peter said...: Sebelius is probably one of the top choices, she has a solid track reckord.
But there are two things I am worried about.
1. I think AA and a woman on the ticket is perfect as long as the candidates are good. I do think Sebelius is a good candidate, but is america ready for such a ticket? I`m not sure, it could scare off some voter, the question is: what is the net effect by having a woman as VP next to Obama? If the net effect i positive, than go ahead!! The probably are watching polls careful on this subject.

2. Which states would Sebelius carry? I don`t think Obama could take Kansas. He was over 20 ponts behind last I checked. I`m not sure if Sebelius is going to help in states like Nevada, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Virgina etc (likely battleground-states).; May 23, 2008 10:08 AM
Ariane said...: vicki,
Some people were discussing where we might go if this were not here.

and Richard said he would establish a threaded forum. democraticelections.org

Then someone from DCW said on this thread that they do plan to continue this after the convention, I think he said even post Nov.

I had also mentioned The Field blog at ruralvotes.com; May 23, 2008 10:12 AM
ed iglehart said...: Jim Webb To the Rescue!

Spencer Ackerman, writing for the Washington Independent highlights two key portions of today's confirmation hearings for Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno, fueled by tenacious questioning from Democratic Senator Jim Webb, who continues to be a firm source of well-informed, yet softly stated pushback to the administration's foreign policy follies.

And this:

What's important is that Webb showed why he's on the shortlist for the Democratic vice-presidential nod. Not only does he have a firm grasp on both military realities and on the broader strategic questions of the Middle East, but he's willing to go toe-to-toe with anyone, even the most respected general in the country.

Video here

Go Jimbo!

;-)
ed; May 23, 2008 10:13 AM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Peter

Sebelius will help with Ohio. Her father was a well respected Governor there and still has pull.

Sebelius will also draw in that part of Clinton vote (over 50) women that will see Sebelius next in line for the White House.

And as far as political strength. Selebius was one of the original 8 in 2007 that was being talked about as women with potential to be the first female President.

VP would be a great step for her, and her record in Kansas brings a lot to the ticket.; May 23, 2008 10:15 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: I don't know a heckuva lot about Sebelius, but she does sound like she would be a strong contender for the first woman POTUS.

Sadly, I agree - a combo of an AA and woman on one ticket might be "too much change" from the standard white male with white male, for some in this country. But I can dream!

My own governer (Gregoire) would also be a stong candidate, but her election in 2004 looked too much like Florida in 2000 - she's got baggage. But she is a solid governer and knows what she's doing.

There are many strong women around us who could run for POTUS, or be on the VP part of a ticket.; May 23, 2008 10:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Ariane, to answer your question, Yamaka just makes a lot of this stuff up.

Case in point, Yamaka wrote:
Four Candidates left their Names, and four others voluntarily removed their Names in MI and FL as a strategy to woo the voters of the early States. I would contend that BHO won IA because of that Strategy.

Yamaka is entitled to his/her beliefs. Without exit polls or other tangible evidence that the voters of Iowa based ther choice on Obama's his actions in Michigan, it's just idle speculation. (Or, in Yamaka's case, idol speculation.)

.....

The Clinton/Yamaka definition of a fair and legitimate election is 328,000 votes for her, zero for Obama. From a state that cast 2.48 million votes for Kerry in 2004.

By all means, Millary Clinton should keep on making this claim, as it will just send more and more people to the Obama side. Or it will give people who are thinking about moving a pretext to do so.

328,000 to zero.

Hillary Clinton is basing her claim to the presidency using about 13 percent of the Michigan Democratic electorate.

13 percent.; May 23, 2008 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: The RBC is not operating in a vaccum. They do not want a bloodletting challennge on the convention floor in Denver to whatever decision it makes. Above all it doesn't want its decision to be overturned on the convention floor.

Who has the most delegates at Denver? Obama. My understanding is that in the event of a credentiqals floor fight to seat delegates, each state gets one vote. Who has won the majority of states? Obama (those caucus wins will come in handy). The RBC is aware of these facts and any decision it makes has to be acceptable to Obama or it will be overturned on the convention floor.

Hillary is playing poker with no cards and everyone, particularly the RBC, knows it.

So why is Hillary continuing with this. She has been called many things but even her sharpest critics acknowledge that she is a very intelligent person. She has no illusions that she can take the nomination from Obama at this point. She knows the math. But Hillary has her own agenda here. At age 60 she can't wait until 2016 to run for president again; she'd have to wait that long if BHO is the incumbent. Her best hope is that Obama loses this year, she can say "I told you so, you should have picked me" and appear the champion of the working class Dems and her women supporters. Campaigning in the remaining states builds her organization in those states for 2012. Her volunteer and donor lists continue to grow.

Hillary cares only about herself and that means Obama losing this year in the GE. So that's why she's keeping up the fight that she knows she has no chance of winning.; May 23, 2008 10:31 AM
Unknown said...: Has anyone done a count of how the superdelegates would break out if each truly voted along with their constituency? Ex: Richardson should back Hillary because his state went to her, etc. I think that would be fascinating to know, given the Pelosi argument.; May 23, 2008 10:47 AM
Peter said...: New GE-polling in New Hampshire. Obama was 10 points behind in April, he is now 5 points ahead.; May 23, 2008 10:56 AM
Ariane said...: Regarding Clinton as VP, see this story from yesterday.
The Nightmare Ticket is Dead

"The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process."

re Bill Clinton:
"...Through being so indiscreet about his obsession with getting near the levers of state power again that the first major media confirmation [note: in Time magazine article by Karen Tumulty] of the Clinton vice presidential aspirations involved a report that he’s the one who wants it most, he has definitively reinforced that the “nightmare ticket” is deservedly off the table, and created a monstrous distraction that impedes Senator Clinton from consolidating all she has built for herself this year in the short term.
So now, when the Clinton surrogates continue to advocate that Obama choose Senator Clinton as veep, everybody will know: It’s Bill, and not Hill, stoking the fire."

In my opinion which I am sure is one shared by many SDs and other Democrats, the possibility of a joint ticket went out the window when HRC negatively compared BHO to the Republican nominee. Saying that BHO did not meet the threshhold but McCain did made it politically impossible for the to run on the same ticket.
If she were to be VP her comments would be used in McCain commercials in the fall (and might anyway) that would make it look like the Democratic VP nominee was practically endorsing the Republican Presidential nominee over her own running mate. It also made it impossible the other way round (which is why her talk in that same week about Obama being her VP was disingenuous to the point of being bizarre) - - it sure looked like a bad reflection on her judgement to say someone was not qualified to be president but yet she would choose that person as VP, "a heartbeat away from the presidency".
If they were on a ticket together, she would be asked about this in interviews and even debates. I can't see how she could answer without digging herself into a deeper mess. If she tried to say he had passed the threshold sometime between March and August, people would laugh uproariously, there would be all sorts of comic speculation about which day had been the Threshold Day. and her credibility would be even more in question. If she tried to imply that her earlier comment was just political rhetoric during the primary season, it would beg the question of why anyone should believe anything she was saying in the General Election campaign?

Even if she had sincerely changed her mind about this, it would not be taken seriously, especially considering that over half the people already think she is dishonest.

I am surprised that Hillary and Bill do not see this glaring problem with having her on the ticket. Actually during this process I have really started to suspect that Bill's cognitive processes have been affected by his heart surgery which is frequently the case. His overwork and perhaps lack of sleep during the campaign may have made it worse. I don't think Bill in the past would ever have made some of the mistakes he has this year- - like bringing up the Bosnia sniper story again after it had started to die down, and lying outrageously about what she had said and when and how many times she had said it... then adding insult to injury by making the commment about her being tired at 11 PM because she is 60 yrs old... which sure didn't fit in with campaign ads about being sharp minded at 3 AM. Some people have speculated that he has been intentionally sabotaging her but I don't really think so -- at least not intentionally.; May 23, 2008 10:57 AM
RobH said...: Jessica,

I haven't bothered to do that math, and I think it would be pointless to even engage teh question for the following critical reasons, in ascending order of impact:

1) For SD's who are elected Representatives, who is their 'constituency'? Their District, or their state?

2) For SD's who are unelected (i.e. not a Governor, Senator, or Representative, just a DNC member), who is their constituency? Their state of birth, state of residency, or nation?

3) SD's were put in place to exercise thier independent judgement. If they are only to act as followers of their voting blocks, then they actually defeat their purpose. They are stripped of their ability to judge, and just become an overhead percentage tacked on to a base value.; May 23, 2008 11:05 AM
Richard said...: Vicki, I have purchased a domain and created a forum at democraticelections.com for just the reasons you describe. I want a place to continue this discussion post-convention, and I am growing frustrated with the racism and vitriol on this thread. My board can be moderated if absolutely necessary, and we can create a DCW group and special threads just for us if we want. Softlyspoken22 and I are currently just starting a very pleasant discussion there. Anyone on any side of the debate is welcome to check it out and join.; May 23, 2008 11:05 AM
RobH said...: Ariane,

Great post. That article states the arguments against, as well as any I have seen.; May 23, 2008 11:10 AM
RobH said...: Additional VP musings:

The Matthews panel I was talking about last night (before they independently turned it to Sebelius, Nunn, Rendell, etc) had all pretty much dismisseed Edwards on this argument:

He brings no foreign policy experience (same for Sebelius BTW, but diff from Webb), and no executive experience (diff from Sebelius, and maybe even from Webb if you count Sec'y of Navy as executive. I'm not sure you can. I also worry about Webb being yet another Senator on the ticket.); May 23, 2008 11:15 AM
Yamaka said...: Jessica:

Indeed, it will be an interesting story to read if all the SDs followed their States popular votes: Kerry and Kennedy should vote for Hillary, and as must Richardson!

But, "the Rule" - which Pelosi wants us to break - says the SDs can vote their conscience.
irrespective of the popular votes.

My opinion is Pelosi must keep her small mouth shut if she wants to continue to be the Speaker. She has personal animosity against HRC!

_____________________________

count:

I agree what I said about BHO's IA win is a speculation.

To the larger point, how could BHO ask ALL the "Uncommitted" votes to himself, when there were 4 Candidates removed their names?

Remember, he voluntarily removed it, while four others left their names. This speaks of his Inexperience and his poor strategy.

He did NOT want MI Votes in Jan. Then why now?

Curiously, he left his name in FL., and ran campaign ads there violating the Agreement, for which he must be sanctioned a 50% penalty, since you and RodentinMD are in a punitive instinct to punish the innocent voters in MI and FL!

____________________________

Woody:

Please remember that Hillary has lot more experience in National Politics and Governance than BHO.

BHO is the least vetted, least experienced and the riskiest candidate over a half century in Democratic politics.

This is her strategy:

Many of her Constituency, women, working and older Americans did not go to Caucuses, where BHO won mostly. You should know that unlike Primaries (the format of the GE), Caucuses are long and time consuming unsuitable for her supporters. So much so, she is lagging in the pledged delegates.

But she is leading in the Popular Votes by nearly 57K of ALL votes polled. This lead will increase after PR, and will remain high after MT and SD.

This is the key for her success. The leading in the Popular Votes, as much as maybe 150K.

This will turn the tide: The undeclared SDs know that she has the broader and deeper support in America than BHO. Then, logically they should move to Nominate her, if winning the GE is the prime focus and purpose of the Primary Process.

Her Math is simple and quite feasible:

1973 + 240 = 2213, a few more than 2209 the Real Hurdle.

Go Hillary Go all the way to the Convention and secure the Nomination.
______________________________

Jay:

Manchurian Candidate is a metaphor, can be used when a Sponsor is involved. I use it to depict BHO as a Puppet in the Armpits of Puppet Masters! Perfectly used.

You cannot understand metaphor! It's too much for your fishy brain!! Just follow RodentinMD and other Liars. They will comfort your indolent brain!!

I am a Leader and not a Follower! lol

:-(; May 23, 2008 11:25 AM
Gator said...: Hi all,
I am independent from FL, just looking for the trends. I am not a DEan or DNC fan; May 23, 2008 11:31 AM
Peter said...: Survey USA has Obama ahead in Ohio with 9%. 48-39, this is encouraging. The poll test the candidates with different VP-candidates and as in Virginia, Obama is polling extremly well with Edwards.

Obama-Edwards wins with double digits against ALL options in the poll. Obama Edwards polled really well in Virginia as well, it will be interesting to see similar polls in other battleground states.; May 23, 2008 11:38 AM
Yamaka said...: Folks:

This is what my insiders say about what could possibly happen at RBC, according to an e-mail updates from DC:

1. Gov Dean convinced the RBC that only the politicians and officials must be punished for MI and FL Rule Implementation Fiasco.

Voters CANNOT be punished.

Accordingly, ALL of the SDs from MI and FL will be assessed 50% penalty.

All pledged delegates will be seated AS IS.

2. In MI, "the Uncommitted" will be divided by 4; in other words 55/4 PDs will be awarded to BHO.

3. Since BHO violated the Agreement in FL by running campaign ads there, he will be assessed a 50% penalty.

Personally, I am not happy about this possible Ruling.

But, given the complexity of the situation, I can live with this.

This takes me to the Real Hurdle:

It will NOT be 2025, a I said many times.

It will NOT be 2209 either. But somewhere closer to 2200.

Can the BHO's Supporters live with this Compromise?
_______________________________

Dear BHO Supporters:

The good working Americans of OH PA WV and KY have already Changed the Game!

Stop wasting your time on VP etc.

BHO could very well lose the Nomination at the Convention.

Because, SDs can NEVER nominate the Minority Candidate.

They will ONLY do when Hillary loses the Popular Vote Majority.

This will not happen. PR will boost her current 57.28K towards 200 K.

After MT and SD, it will settle around 150K for her.

Her Numbers are good, and her Math is sound, therefore the Nomination is quite possible for her.

Then, the question I have is:

Can she have Maestro Bill as VP?

What a turn of events!

Cheer, Smile and Vote for Hillary the First Woman POTUS.; May 23, 2008 11:53 AM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

Some random comments on your posts:

"how could BHO ask ALL the "Uncommitted" votes to himself"

If Hillary's name was on the ballot in MI, why did she contest for the uncommitted at the district conventions? The reason: the rules in MI permit this; same way it permitted Obama to go after all the uncommitted.

you said: "Please remember that Hillary has lot more experience in National Politics and Governance than BHO".

Hillary has zero governace experience. She ahs never held a position where she was the decision maker. She now has less 'governance' experience than David Patterson, the new Gov of NY. Giving advice to a hubby president is not governance experience.

"1973 + 240 = 2213"

Your math is not looking a bit frayed and will look worse by Monday with SD add-ons being selected this weekend. The pool of SD's keeps shrinking on her. When will she flip an Obama supporter to her side?

Care to break down the details to let us in on how the remaining pledged, add-on's, other SD's and Edwards delegates will breakout for her? Surely you're not pulling numbers out of thin air, right?; May 23, 2008 11:55 AM
Bull Schmitt said...: Yamabamadingdong said:

Hillary's Math: (Left Last Box of DCW)

1973 + 240 = 2213

She can easily get 240 out of 326 outstanding Ds + SDs plus there are 20 Ed's Ds.

Ooooh, I'll hate myself in the morning, but I can't resist...

The remaining 87 pledged delegates from PR, SD and MT are fairly predictable... I've got it projected Clinton 47, Obama 40. (+/- 3)

This makes your "Karl Rove Math" into: 2020 + 193 = 2213

Of the 239 remaining Supers, 25 are add-on delegates from States Obama has won. Sen. Obama leads in such add-ons 16 Obama, 1 Clinton, 1 undecided. We'll give Sen. Clinton her own 14 remaining add-ons from states she has won, and so we have an even 200 Supers that are up for grabs.

This makes your "Karl Rove Math" into: 2034 + 175 = 2209 (there's really no room for error, trust me ;)

That's 175 of 200 remaining Supers. Plus there's 18 Edwards delegates. (Two more from NH pledged to Sen. Obama today, making it 14 Obama, 0 Clinton so far from that group.) Good luck with convincing the rest.

Of those 200 remaining Superdelegates, 5 are from "The Pelosi Club" and have already said they will support the winner of pledged delegates. That makes it 175 of 195 you need. Of those last 195 undeclared Supers, even including all 30 from Florida and Michigan, there are 89 from "The United States That Don't Matter™"

(And again, nothing here reflects any sort of penalty for MI and FL.)

- - - - - - - - - -

So tell me about the bunnies again?

:-); May 23, 2008 11:55 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: Richard - is it *.com, or *.org?

thought someone said you had a *.org site, but I'll happily sign on.

happy to discuss topics w/o vitriol. some folks here are a tad too invested.; May 23, 2008 11:58 AM
Vicki in Seattle said...: fyi, *.com is "domain name for sale" - so I will go sign onto *.org.; May 23, 2008 12:00 PM
jpsedona said...: Tyler, et al

I know that many Obama supporter would like to have Al Gore as a running mate. IMO, I think there's zero chance of this happening. Why would he want to do that? He's making tons of money, staked out a post-VP cause that he can promote more effectively away from Washington, and if anything, he doesn't want (or need) to be anyone's #2 at this point.

As far as Edwards is concerned, I think he'd rather not be the VP choice. However, if he's given Chaney-like powers on health insurance & poverty, he just might accept. In listening to Mr.s Edwards the other night, she didn't indicate that there was no way; she indicated it was up to John.; May 23, 2008 12:01 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: "My opinion is Pelosi must keep her small mouth shut if she wants to continue to be the Speaker."

We may have just hit a new low on the YAM meter. LOL

To speak, means to open one's mouth. Pelosi being the Speaker, should be leading and offering direction to her party.; May 23, 2008 12:04 PM
Ariane said...: Jessica,
I was curious about your question about what the numbers would be if SDs voted their constituency. I did not bother to try to do this by Congressional district for the SDs who are U.S. Reps though I bet someone has done so. But I added it up by state (which would be accurate for Senators & Governors and I would think for State DNC people) and found....
Obama - 393
Clinton 377
I counted the Texas SDs for Clinton because she won the primary part.
There are 2 SDs listed as "Unassigned" that I did not add.

If we do the same with the projected winners for the upcoming contests, in which Clinton will likely win PR (which has 8 SDs) and Obama South Dakota (8 SDs) and Montana (9 SDs), we get:
Obama 410
Clinton 385; May 23, 2008 12:06 PM
Anonymous said...: If the report is true that HRC asked Obama for the VP slot and BHO (wisely IMHO) said no, it adds to my previously stated reasons why Hillary is continuing her campagn that she knows she can't win. Hillary wins either way: she either (1) creates a groundswell at the convention that forces Obama to select her as VP or (2) the contested convention helps ensure Obama loses the GE clearing the path for Hillary to run in 2012. There is no real downside for Hillary since if BHO wins in November, she'll be too old (by Demnocratic Party standards, though not Republican) to run in 2016 unless she is the annointed successor as the sitting VP.

It clearly makes sense now for BHO to name his VP soon after clinching the nomination (no later than end of June) to prevent this speculation and the "spontaneous" chanting by HRC delegates in Denver.; May 23, 2008 12:07 PM
Peter said...: Just a quick comment about "uncomitted" votes in MI. It is clear that the MI-votes don`t really reflect the will of the people in MI, the turnout was as low as in Oregon and there is almost 3 times as many people in Michigan. So, it should be clear that a lot of people didn`t vote because they new the primary wasn`t valid. Of those who voted, 46% said they would support Clinton if all names where on the ballot, 35% said Obama, 12% Edwards and 1% Richardson. Both Richardson and Edwards have endorsed Obama. So, uncomitted is people who supported Obama, Edwards and Richardson, all thos candidates now supporters Obama. That means all uncomitted supported candidates that now supports Obama. Giving all uncomitted delegates to Obama is just fair and reasonable, actually giving the majority of delegates to Clinton in MI, is unfair, since Exit-polls shows Obama/Edwards would have gotten more votes than her.

To illustrate how little this primary meant, Kucinich got 4%. Do you actually think 4% in MI supports Kucinich??

NONE of the uncomitted supported Clinton, if they had, they would have voted for her. There are TWO candidates left, off course uncomitted should go to Obama.

Kucinich; May 23, 2008 12:07 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Not sure if Leah is on, but I'll steal her thunder. ;o)

Obama has picked up 2 today so far, with one that is a switch Clinton.

59 and counting; May 23, 2008 12:08 PM
JayW said...: Yam gets so cranky when he is proved ignorant time and time again... did anyone else notice that?

I like when Yam says "My Insiders"... what a joke. Like anyone would trust him with "sensitive" information.

I did like the new nickname for him though... Yamadamadingdong... very fitting.

Only about another 10 days until it is official and Hillary isnt running anymore. I wonder what he will spew about then... any guesses?; May 23, 2008 12:12 PM
Joe Mich said...: Yamanaka is delirious -- you need a reality check and have no credibility; May 23, 2008 12:14 PM
Peter said...: Re Emit

He also got two former Edwards delegates from NH, sp the number is 57. But you got to remember that MI/FL will be seated, the way and number of votes are unclear. But I think Obama max needs around 100 delegates, i would most likely get 40+- rom PR, SD and MT. He would probably get 6-7 from Georgia, Alaska, Hawaii and Wisconsin this weekend (electing new chair/vice chair in HA and add-ons). SO, he doesn`t need more than 50-60 supers as a "worst case" scenario. There are several superdelegates who support Obama but would wait until the primary is over and MI/FL is seated, this includes Brazile, Clyburn, Biden and probably Howard Dean. So this will go for Obama no matter what happens. Him polling well in battleground states like OH, VA and NH even with a obvious "frustration"-effect among Clinton-voters tells us that he is highly electabel. So there are more or less no solid argument Clinton could tell super to convince them to support her.; May 23, 2008 12:18 PM
Yamaka said...: jp:

bull s has given some thoughts to my Math and he concludes,

"This makes your "Karl Rove Math" into: 2034 + 175 = 2209 (there's really no room for error, trust me ;)

That's 175 of 200 remaining Supers"

My only reiteration is this:

The Game has Changed.

Hillary's Popular Vote Lead will remain as high as 150 K on June 4th.

More than 175 of the remaining 200 SDs WILL and MUST move towards the Majority Candidate.

Again, as you know the entire SDs can MOVE potentially towards the Majority Candidate when Hillary maintains her PV lead.

To conclude, we live in a very interesting time!

BHO can go and pool, swim and eat caviar and drink red wine! And have a VP too. Good for him for now, for the bottom is going to fall with the thud and thunder in Hyde Park very soon! lol

:-); May 23, 2008 12:19 PM
Peter said...: RE Joe Mich

Yamaka is a crazy racist and I think he stand somewhere very far out on the right....

Just ignore him/her posts. I don`t think it is wise to anser him/her because he/her just gets more motivated to spread his/her hate and Bs.; May 23, 2008 12:23 PM
JayW said...: Yam...

Great insight.... the SD's "will" and "must" vote for HRC?

Someone should tell them that then.

New headline just put on CNN...
"Obama adds two superdelegates, one's a former Clinton backer"

HMMMM; May 23, 2008 12:29 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

Your post related to info from your "insiders" is absolute B***S***. The only person I know with less credability would be Hillary herself.

First, Gov. Dean has not spoken to each of the RBC members on the topic. He may have spoken to some, but I guarantee that he has not spoken to all.

Second, the DNC will not be splitting up the votes from MI by 4. This is a complete fabrication. If the RBC allows MI to be instated as-is, they will allow MI to apply their state rules. This means that the remaining uncommitted will be chosen by the MI Dem Central Committee. The RBC will not overturn the results of the district convention if the delegation is seated "as-is".

Third, you said: "Since BHO violated the Agreement in FL by running campaign ads there, he will be assessed a 50% penalty". This is not going to happen. Not in your 100th lifetime...; May 23, 2008 12:31 PM
Yamaka said...: peter:

"he is highly electabel."

Sorry, we say BHO is NOT Electable!

Because he is a Minority Candidate, and gets less Popular Votes.

BHO is an Elitist, although he went to Columbia and Harvard on Affirmative Action as wss Michelle to Princeton and Harvard!

Unlike my kids who go to Stanford U and Cornell U, where they were admitted because they were the Valedictorians of their Graduating Class! There is world of difference!! lol

Remember, SDs will never Nominate the Minority Candidate, never ever!

:-(; May 23, 2008 12:32 PM
Joe Mich said...: I agree, YAM is not worth responding to -- I just have a problem with seeing such utter "nonsense"; May 23, 2008 12:36 PM
Yamaka said...: jp:

I thought you never get angry!

What I said is what the "insider" informed me!

You can just ignore it! As simple as that.

Keep your cool and comfortable posture all times!

Getting angry is not good for good health, believe me!
______________________________

BHO's Virulent Propaganda Machines:

The fact you read ALL my thoughtful analysis means I am winning!

Get angry!!! It's working.

That's my aim after all!

You all, the subsidiary of Goebell's & Co, have a nasty day! lol :-(; May 23, 2008 12:41 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

The only thing breaking toward Hillary at this point is wind.

I'll repeat, care to prognosticate on the breakout of the remaining pledged, add-on's, other SD's and Edwards delegates that will end up in her column?

I agree that a vast majority "MUST" move to her column if she is to win. But you've given little support that they "WILL". We'd like to track how reliable you are in predicting the finish... lay it out for us...; May 23, 2008 12:41 PM
Ariane said...: JayW "Only about another 10 days until it is official and Hillary isnt running anymore.

Well I wouldn't count on her dropping out for sure THAT soon. Remember, she does not HAVE to drop out just because there are no more primary contests left. Though if she keeps acting up like she has been lately, comparing the US to Zimbabwe and acting like the great voters' rights champion fighting a penalty that she herself agreed to last year, she will be leaking top supporters who like Gov. Patterson will increasingly see it as "desperate".

" I wonder what he will spew about then... any guesses?

Yep - - Riot and revolution and the destruction of the Democratic Party. Just like Rush Limbaugh, Yam hopes for riots in Denver.; May 23, 2008 12:46 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

Your "insider information" is not just bogus but complete lies. Some of us know it now. Everyone will know it after the results from the RBC are announced.; May 23, 2008 12:52 PM
Joe Mich said...: This thread should be based on facts, not nonsense and dribble. The facts are very clear -- Obama had a 100 delegate lead before Ohio and Texas -- now despite all of her so-called "momentum" she's behind by more than 185 delegates... and even in her best case dreams if she got Michigan and Florida seated she'd still need about 2/3rds of what left...; May 23, 2008 12:56 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Good morning Emit and everyone :)

Looks like Obama has +4 for the day so far:

1 - new SD
1 - SD switch from Clinton to Obama
2- SD switches from Edwards to Obama

(Clinton -1)

What a lovely day this will be ;); May 23, 2008 12:56 PM
Yamaka said...: "Yam hopes for riots in Denver."

Ariane:

I will subscribe for non-violent rioting in Denver/DC or where ever when the basic democratic principle is violated:

Count ALL votes and Seat their delegates, because "punishing" innocent voters of MI and FL is a sacrilege in my view of the world.

Remember, votes are holier than Pope.

Right to Vote and other Political Expression are God's Mandate to Americans, nay to the Whole Humanity.

Riots are one way of expressing our political belief.

Many Conventions were destroyed before! Denver will not be the last!

For, We Are Fearless Warriors of Freedom and Democracy.

Cheer and Smile for Hillary!; May 23, 2008 12:57 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Obama will be at the podium in a couple minutes in Miami.

Live streaming video link on www.CNN.com (on the right side of the page).; May 23, 2008 12:59 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yamaka said: "Remember, votes are holier than Pope."
______________________

Yakama -

Please stop spewing your BS.
The votes of a state that broke the rules and the votes of an invalid election where people were told before the election would NOT count therefore TONS of people stayed home and did not vote - are NOT more holier than the Pope. Stop your offensive speech that belittles the Pope.

H
Obama '08
P
E; May 23, 2008 1:03 PM
Peter said...: Leah, you can add 1 super to that list (from Oregon).; May 23, 2008 1:04 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Peter-

Yep! Yippee!

Added DNC Jenny Greenleaf (OR) for Obama
____

Total delegates needed to secure the nomination:

Obama 56
Clinton 246; May 23, 2008 1:06 PM
Richard said...: Vicki - I apologize. The address is http://www.democraticelections.org/. Right now the main page just redirects to the forums. I saw that you found the site, though.; May 23, 2008 1:16 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Hillary's Silly Sexism Claim

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

.; May 23, 2008 1:19 PM
Yamaka said...: "Everyone will know it after the results from the RBC are announced."

jp and other Anti-Women Crowd

Let's wait.

Only thing certain to me is the Hurdle WILL not be 2025.

It will be closer to my 2209 (or closer to 2200).

That's all I believe now.

Indeed, we live in interesting time!

_______________________________

BHO's Propaganda Machine:

Can BHO give a "stirring speech" w/o a teleprompter?

My view is he just reads from the teleprompter, w/o which his speech will be just stammers and stutters which would make even my Grandma of 90s to go to sleep! lol.

Wait, he cannot even read right!

He reads grandfather as father! And, he has campaigned in 57 States! lol.

:-(; May 23, 2008 1:25 PM
Mug said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 23, 2008 1:26 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Welcome to all the new posters on the thread :)

Just so that ya'll know there are a handful of folks on this thread that post misinformation, hate speech, and delusional opinions. Nothing you can say will change their minds or slow down there mission to spew propaganda.

Once again welcome to our little family of diverse people from all over the world and I hope you enjoy your time with us ;)

H
Obama '08
P
E; May 23, 2008 1:33 PM
Mug said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 23, 2008 1:40 PM
Mug said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 23, 2008 1:42 PM
Mug said...: Yammering,

You're math regarding Clinton's numbers has merit but overlooks one crucial point. Hillary CANNOT win under CURRENT DNC RULES. Will the rules be changed to seat delegates from FLA and MI? Yes, probably so. What WILL NOT happen is that the rules will be changed in such a way to take away the nomination from Obama, who is the winner under the CURRENT RULES. If that were to happen (which it won't) then you could expect to see these kinds of headlines all across America;

"Black man plays by the rules and wins so the rules are changed. Now the black man loses."

Since blacks in America first began to vote, no democratic nominee has won the presidency without the black vote. They are 12 percent of the population but comprise 25 percent of the votes in every election. That gives them swing power of 50 percent. Four more years of recession under McCain will harm them less than any other demographic so they have least to lose by crossing party lines.

Now get this through your head. MI and FLA delegates will be seated but not in any way that will give Clinton the nomination. The Democratic primary race is OVER.; May 23, 2008 1:44 PM
apissedant said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 23, 2008 1:45 PM
apissedant said...: You know, I am a native Michigander, and I have been hearing this silly issue since December. Enough is enough, we cannot fix the Mi/Fl problem in this chat. It will be decided by the RBC, so stop debating it here. We all know where each other fall, and no one is converting anyone at this point. Everyone debating the break down is wasting their breath.

Leah,
Thank you very much for the warm reception. I have been reading the blogs and updates here for months, and I have been thoroughly impressed by you, and most of those contributing to this excellent website.; May 23, 2008 1:48 PM
Yamaka said...: "The Democratic primary race is OVER".

mug:

Now read these headlines:

"Hillary lost to the Minority Candidate because 2.5 million votes trashed by the Democratic Party"

"Democratic Party is a Party of Minorities, Not Majority"

"W/O MI and FL, Cindy and John McCain Sure to Take the WH"

"The Democratic Party is Party of Perennial Losers since 1980- Exception Clintons"

Do these headlines comfort your sensitivities, mug?

I will be very troubled, for sure!

SDs, Nominate the Majority Candidate not the Minority to win the GE.; May 23, 2008 1:48 PM
Meg said...: You know, I've been reading this blog for weeks now and I have been wondering about Yam and Aunt Jean (what happened to her?). I think I just realized that Yam is a highly entertaining guy! That's why you all keep responding to him. It's surprising how nasty and delusional some people can be, but if chatting with them is fun for you then GREAT!! There are far more harmful things you could be doing for fun. So come on Yam......entertain me!!; May 23, 2008 1:49 PM
apissedant said...: Yam said:
"Hillary lost to the Minority Candidate because 2.5 million votes trashed by the Democratic Party"

I am going to hate myself for responding, but I can't help it. I just figured it out, Yam is Jesus. He was able to take 1.2 million voters in Florida and Michigan, and expand them into 2.5 million. Give this man a loaf of bread and send him to Africa to fix this food shortage thing.; May 23, 2008 1:54 PM
Independent Voter said...: LOL - apissedant - TOO FUNNY!; May 23, 2008 1:55 PM
Unknown said...: "Yam gets so cranky when he is proved ignorant time and time again... did anyone else notice that?"

I think Yammer is a broken record. The same b.s. keeps getting posted again and again.

For a long time I did not understand the new Clinton math. But now thanks to yammer, I’ve gone back to see how it differs from the traditional math.

First the Clinton idea of protecting the will of MI and FL voters is that the DNC must seat the PDs as is. Under Clintonball rules (see Calvin and Hobbes), Obama gets none of the 55 MI PDs who voted uncommitted. And this is the unmentioned key to Clinton’s fight. Since the 55 are uncommitted, they are up for grabs. And since 55 PDs are then available, that makes the race appear a whole a lot closer. But you have to be smoking something illegal to believe that the DNC will first, deny Obama of any of the 55 MI uncommitted, AND make them available for Clinton to go after. That scenario is just so “out there” that the we are left to wonder how could the Clinton backers possibly believe this could happen.

More important, this shows why Maddow is wrong. Maddow must be looking at this ridiculous worst case for Obama where he gets none of the 55 but Clinton can go after them. And Maddow must believe that any deviation from this “Clinton plan” would enable Clinton to complain all the way to the convention.

Maddow is wrong. The worst case scenario can’t happen. Even if Clinton makes the case that Obama is entitled to none of the 55, she will not be able to get the DNC to rule that she IS entitled to them for the simple reason that they DID NOT VOTE FOR CLINTON.

So in reality the worst case, one that Clinton could not fight to the convention, is where the DNC removes the 55, and counts all the other MI and FL PDs as is. Then the real number is no longer 2209, but 2154. That is Clinton’s best case scenario, and one that all other scenarios must be measured against. And that is why the yammers of the world make no sense. To them 2209 is the only number that matters, but in that number, Obama must be denied the 55 uncommitted from MI.

But under this new “2154”scenario, it’s so obvious why Obama will this whole thing locked up by June 4th.

Let’s assume that:
1. In PR/SD/MT Clinton comes away with an additional 12 PD gain (49-37), and
2. That Clinton and Obama equally split Edwards remaining 18 PDs and
3. That Clinton takes 20 of the 30 SDs from MI and FL
In the 2154 scenario, with Obama having 1728.5 and 319.5 PD/SDs today, Obama would be down 50 and Clinton down 104. This translates into Clinton needing 68% of remaining supers. And here is where yammer and company are smoking too much of the wacky weed.

First, let’s remember that we already know there are 4 members of the Pelosi club that WILL endorse by June 4th. And we know that this week, Obama will likely pick up 4 add-ons plus 2 HI DNCers. Counting those, Obama is really down 40, and Clinton needs 73% of the remaining SDs to win. And as Obama picks up increments of 10 over the next two weeks, you can see how quickly this looks completely desperate for Clinton.
10 SDs – Clinton needs 79%, 20 SDs – Clinton needs 85%, 30 SDs – Clinton needs 93%

Now remember that in May alone, Obama’s net super delegate gain is over 60.

And remember that nearly 2/3 of the remaining supers are in Obama states. And remember that Obama, after the 5 Add-ons are selected this week, still has 20 Add-ons in states he won, still to be selected. And finally, remember that May showed a big defection of supers in Clinton states going to Obama, but not vice-versa.

Outside of some die hard Clinton koolaid drinkers like yammer, there aren’t many who forecast that Obama’s super delegate momentum is suddenly dead in its tracks and they are all now going to Clinton. And today we see an Oregon DNCer, two CA reps (one being a switch from Clinton), as well as two Edwards PD endorsements. Yammer will stammer, bbbbbut they’re GOING TO VOTE FOR CLINTON, not some minority (heh-heh) candidate.

Ah, another 10-15 days to shut this thing down. And let’s have faith that Obama has the smarts to prevent the end-run to a veep position for Clinton.; May 23, 2008 2:02 PM
Yamaka said...: Indi:

Why do you bring "lynching" here?

If RBC rules as I noted before, then it becomes part of the Rule.

Then follow the Rules, please.

"Lynching" will bring images of racist American past of log gone centuries.

We are in a brand new Century!

api:

Can you tell me the actual number of votes under consideration from both MI and FL, if it is not around 2.5 million?

BHO Propaganda Machine: You Don't have any shame: you prefer Minority over Majority!!; May 23, 2008 2:05 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

How about these headlines if Hillary wins:

"Security Added to Hillary's Secret Service Detail -- Concerns About Sniper Fire"

"Dems Shaft Obama - McCain Picks Rice for VP"

"Hillary Claims Popular Vote & Unpopular Vote"

"Hillary to Institute New Math Education Standards"

"DNC Inhales - Florida & Michigan Receive Two Times Original Delegates"

"Hillary Diverts Attention From Bill - Picks Spitzer for VP"

"Republicans Secure the GE with 90% of AA vote"

"Congressional Black Caucus Switches to Republicans"

"Hillary Secures Backing of Influential Guantanamo Detainees"

"Hillary Inaugurated in Pretty Blue Dress"

"Hillary Says She Was Just Kidding About Healthcare Plan"

"Hillary Confirms She's for NAFTA & Exporting of Jobs"; May 23, 2008 2:06 PM
Independent Voter said...: WOW! I'm watching Senator Obama addressing Cuban-Americans in Florida. He is actually getting a pretty warm welcome. I'm not sure if or how that will translate into votes in November, but regardless of how they vote, they seem to be accepting him quite well.; May 23, 2008 2:07 PM
Independent Voter said...: WOW - HE got a STANDING O!; May 23, 2008 2:08 PM
Independent Voter said...: ROFL - jp!; May 23, 2008 2:14 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Major (what's his name) the one on Fox or Cnn or(?) said this morning that the chances of Obama even considering Clinton for V.P. is 'very' slim, because of the Clinton Library donor list, their last year tax return, etc.
___

Then if you add in all the Clinton baggage from the past etc., and all the Independents and Obamacans that will run away from a Obama/Hill ticket - it just is NOT going to happen!

It is ludacris to think that Obama would even consider Hillary after her little tantrum that day when she was screaming "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" ...
Obama needs a V.P. NOT a scolding mother figure!

I have not seen Hillary extend 'respect' towards Obama as he has to her during this campaign season and it is a shame that the first viable woman running for the presidency has set such a bad example.

Obama / Kathleen Sebelius '08; May 23, 2008 2:14 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Independent voter-

Yesterday Obama received a warm welcome from the Jewish community, today the Cuban-Americans --- maybe there's still hope for the folks in West Virginia and Kentucky! (Nahhhh...); May 23, 2008 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: jpsedona,

Thanks for the comic relief in your recent list of headlines. I haven't laughed so hard in weeks.

Just a historical reminder: many of my fellow Eugene McCarthy supporters did not support Hubert Humphrey after his nomination in 1968. They stayed home. That's how we got Richard Nixon.

Will Clinton supporters make the same mistake?; May 23, 2008 2:21 PM
Vicki in Seattle said...: hey, a couple of Edwards pledged delegates changed to Obama, too!

I may be the last one to notice it. This darn 3D world keeps me busy sometimes!

;-); May 23, 2008 2:22 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: What wonderful humor there is today on this thread!

jp and apissedant and others have truly brightened up my day ;); May 23, 2008 2:25 PM
Yamaka said...: api:

FL and MI total votes will be closer to 2.3 million, closer to 2.5 M I said.

What's your number? Do you have one?
Do you care to give one, please?
___________________________________

jp:

Surely, your lines are very attractive!

But mine has more punch!!lol
________________________________

Folks:

The Oil hit $131.6 per bl

A good 34% of CNBC respondents find the Congress to be the Villain for not working on the Supply Side of the Equation.

Only 17% blame Dumb Dubya Bush!

Pelosi and Reed: Your jobs will be on the chopping block this Fall.

Shape up, or get shipped out to Retirement Homes!; May 23, 2008 2:25 PM
Unknown said...: Check out the SUSA polls for Obama in Ohio. Obama over McCain by 9 pts. Awesome. Kinda takes the wind out of Clinton's electability argument.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74; May 23, 2008 2:27 PM
Oregon Dem said...: Richard:

I went to the link you posted (for post convention commenting) and it still had the "For Sale" sign....; May 23, 2008 2:32 PM
apissedant said...: Yam,
Are you that silly? Are you saying that you would be honoring the nearly 600,000 people in Florida who voted for Barack Obama by OVERTURNING the rules and NOMINATING Hillary Clinton? Are you saying, that the nearly 240,000 Michiganders who basically voted, "anyone but Hillary," would be HONORED by OVERTURNING the current rules and NOMINATING the exact candidate that they voted AGAINST? Your logic seems like it has a few holes.
The only votes you would be honoring, is those that actually went to Hillary Clinton, you would be OVERTURNING all other votes, and going against their wishes.
Oh, and the number is just short of 2.3 million if you include Obama voters and "anybody but Clinton voters." Your math is wrong even if you use retardo logic.; May 23, 2008 2:34 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: The only time that I heard Hillary 'really' tell the truth was a few months ago when she was asked 'why did she think Obama would make a good V.P. when she thought he wasn't ready to be president' and she said 'He will be ready by the Denver Convention' ---- she was right! He will be ready to be the best PRESIDENT 'ever' by the time we get to the convention ;)

She has helped him immensely by demanding so many debates he has sharpened his debating skills, by throwing mud at him he has learned to stand stronger and fight back harder, by staying in the race longer she has helped to fully vet him and now the republicans have less ammunition.

I guess we all owe Hillary a big 'thank you' before she heads home ;)

.; May 23, 2008 2:36 PM
Independent Voter said...: WTF is going on with all the tornadoes this year? I just saw on msnbc that we had one up in Riverside, CA....I'm in San Diego (about 100 miles south) but we don't get tornadoes in CA yet alone one that can turn a tractor trailer over, we get earthquakes...LOL

Ok, well we do get tornadoes every now and then, but Denver now Riverside.......where's are they gonna hit next? Oregon? (NO I'M NOT WISHING ANY ON OREGON); May 23, 2008 2:40 PM
apissedant said...: Yam,
Once again, my number was 1.2 million, the number that ACTUALLY voted for Hillary. Your plan involves taking those that voted for, "anybody but Hillary," and giving their votes to Hillary. That cannot in any world be considered Democratic or enfranchising.
I don't know if anyone saw it, or remembers it, but it reminds me of a silly game that was created after the Gore/Bush Florida fiasco. It was a computer program where you voted for President, selecting either Gore or Bush. If you tried to choose Gore, the name would shrink, and run away from the mouse. Once you finally caught it and clicked it. The new screen popped up, "Thank you for voting for George W. Bush."
This is the proposed Clinton Michigan plan. Your voting options were, "Clinton," or, "anybody but Clinton." Now Clinton is trying to ensure that those casting votes for, "anybody but Clinton," will be faithfully counted as Clinton supporters. Oh how we honor their votes.; May 23, 2008 2:42 PM
jpsedona said...: Although I believe the possibility of FL & MI Option 5 is 0.1%, let's see how things might go if Option 5 were to go Yam's way... seat according to the FL & MI contests.

Then as fo yesterday (5/22 2pm)...

Obama needs: 166
Today's SD: 3
New Total: 163

Obama Add-ons this weekend: 5
New Total 158

Obama Remaining add-ons: 19 min
New Total 139

Obama District Uncommitted: 25 min
Obama Uncommitted Assigned by Central Committee: all 19 statewide uncmmitted
Obama MI uncommitted: 44 min of 55
New Total: 95

Remaining Primaries: 33 min
New Total: 62

Pelosi Club: 6
New Total 56

So his magic number in this case is about 56. under Option 5, I project that he'd receive:

Addtl. PD's in MI: 10
Solid Leaners: 20
Likely Leaners: 14
Addl. SD after 6/3: 23
Addtl. Clinton Switchers: 9

These additional delegates total 76 and puts him up 20.; May 23, 2008 2:51 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

It's been a while, but you finally said something I agree with:

"A good 34% of CNBC respondents find the Congress to be the Villain for not working on the Supply Side of the Equation."

Congress, both parties, are to blame for the current situation. Carter wasn't right about a lot of things but he was correct when he pointed to the need to replace foreign oil.; May 23, 2008 2:56 PM
Peter said...: Re Patrick

SUSA (Survey USA)

Have polled in several states last week. They have asked just Obama against McCain and Obama+vp against McCain+vp.

They`ve tested Edwards, Sebelious, Hagel and Rendell for Obama and Romney, Huckabee, Lieberman and Pawlenty.

They have had polls in New Mexico, Virginia, California, Pennsylvenia and Ohio.

Obama is ahead with 9 in OH, 7 in VA, 8 in CA, 8 in Pa and tied in NM.

If paired with vps the situation changes. Edwards-Obama increase Obamas lead IN EVERY state against EVERY candidate. McCains strongest vp in these polls are Huckabee. Obama-Edwards look like a superteam at this stage.

The thing is that Survey USA has constantly underestimated Obamas support in most states in the primary, I actually think they are doing it again so that means Obamas support could be even stronger than these polls show. I think SUSA is underestimating both Obamas support among african-american and the amount of AA who will vote in each state.

This SUSA-polls are promising and I think Obama will poll even better when Clinton is gone.

The VP-polls might not be a good measurement at this staget, since a lot can happen and some of the VP-candidates are not well known at the point. But Obama-Edwards look really strong, so i hope Edwards can change his mind of asked... I also think they looked really good together in MI.; May 23, 2008 2:57 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Peter-

Edwards would have been a better choice if he had been a Governor.

Rendell is a BAD choice because there is a video of him on YouTube when he was at a dinner to honor Farrackhan and in the video it shows Rendell praising Farrackhan. Too much there for the Repubs to use!

Sebelius - Good choice. Woman, Governor, right age group, family comes from Ohio.

Hagel (Republican) - Not a good choice because he would be a heartbeat from being President and then the Repubs would regain control of the White House.

Webb - Good choice.

Richardson - Nope, because people would say that Obama promised it to him back when he got his endorsement.

.; May 23, 2008 3:05 PM
Unknown said...: Check out this post:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1258

It states that Cardoza was one of 40 supers who have endorsed Clinton that will be voting against her at the convention. And they will be coming out 1-2 at a time until she gets the message to unite behind Obama.

If all 40 come out that will really change things. Clinton is currently 246 away from 2025. This would put her down 326, and Obama over by 30.

Clinton supporters have long argued that supers can change. We've been hearing a lot of that lately.

And it's a fact.

Yes the supers will save the day. They can prevent Clinton from taking this to the convention.; May 23, 2008 3:06 PM
Unknown said...: Forgot to mention, Cardoza was the CA rep that bailed from Clinton today.; May 23, 2008 3:09 PM
jpsedona said...: Has anyone noticed that Yam's ideas about the nominating process are an awful lot like the kids' swimming pool game called Marco Polo?

General Rules:

One player who's "it" swims around with their eyes closed trying to find the other players. [Could be Bill]

If a player is out of the water when "it" calls fish-out-of-water, they become it. [Obama in WV]

If a player is sitting on the edge dangling their legs in the pool when "it" yells "mermaid on the rocks", they become "it". {Hillary's hopes in FL]

If "It" calls Alligator Eyes, they can look under water to see where people are. [uncommitted superdelegates]

The fun continues until a grown-up says, that's enough, and sends everyone home. [Howard Dean's hope]; May 23, 2008 3:11 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Rabbi Ethan Tucker, Sen. Joe Lieberman's step son - is going to vote for OBAMA!; May 23, 2008 3:13 PM
jpsedona said...: Leah,

Although executive experience is good, the major issue with Sebelius (also Napolitano here in AZ) is theit lack of foreign policy experience. Given Obama's light resume in that area, picking a VP with no foreign policy experience would not match up well against the Repubs.; May 23, 2008 3:15 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: jpsedona-

Well I don't know.
Edwards has foreign policy experience?
LBJ had foreign policy experience?
Clinton and Gore when they first ran?

McCain has some but he gets confused alot so that doesn't help him much.

Senator Obama has a degree in International Relations so he isn't that naive. Also President Obama would have other people around him that would have foreign policy 'experience'.

If Clinton had been the nominee and had picked Obama as V.P. - Clinton doesn't have experience either.

Besides I don't think Obama is going to let his V.P. have the control that Bush let Chaney have.

I'm not so sure that the V.P. has to have foreign policy experience.

Listening to Obama on the stump lately he seems to know more and have alot more plans than regarding 'foreign policy' than McCain does.

Guess will we have to wait a little longer and hear the debates between Obama and McCain and find out some more stuff.; May 23, 2008 3:29 PM
Ariane said...: Yamaka!
Guess what! I agree with you about something! ;)
I realize independent voter was just pointing out the type of language that might be used, but I don't think we need lynching references brought into this. I did not like it from Clarence Thomas or from others. I think it diminishes the hideous history of thousands of REAL lynchings in the USA.
Lynching Statistics

Without Sanctuary

This is the same as I feel about casual comparisons to Nazis and the Holocaust.; May 23, 2008 3:33 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Oh and I forgot to mention that Richardson has ALOT of foreign policy experience and I betcha Obama will have him in his cabinet.

Hillary might be in there somewhere but he'd have to put her in his 'closet' and hide the key ;); May 23, 2008 3:33 PM
Ariane said...: jpsedona

"Republicans Secure the GE with 90% of AA vote"

Black folk ain't THAT crazy! ;); May 23, 2008 3:35 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: Um, I don't think Obama needs a VP with strong Foriegn Policy experience. Just announce that Bill Richardson or will be his Secrectary of State. JMO; May 23, 2008 3:36 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I just wanted to say that I am Italian-American and the largest lynching (the most people lynched at one time) in American history was the lynching of 11 Italians in New Orleans in March of 1891.

You never hear much about that!

I am not offended by the word 'lynched' if used properly.

.; May 23, 2008 3:41 PM
jpsedona said...: Leah,

LBJ was Senate Majority Leader; he was certainly well qualified from Senate experience.

Al Gore, as VP, certainly. In Congress, he was in the House Intelligence Committee and Senate Armed Services Committee. So, yes, he had experience.

Bill Clinton, no foreign policy experience when he first ran. Gore's experienced covered that deficit.

Edwards served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, so he had some background in foreign matters.; May 23, 2008 3:42 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Ariane-

That site with the stats is interesting. There are 20+ states that have lynched more WHITES than blacks.

You never hear much about that either!; May 23, 2008 3:46 PM
Gator said...: Have I possibly stumbled on a Obama worship site?
I registered as a Democrat last time so I could vote in the Florida
Democratic Primary, but I am not ready to crown anyone yet.; May 23, 2008 3:49 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: jpsedona-

Okay you win. You know alot more about history than I do ;p

But I am gonna stomp my foot and pout and hold my breath 'a little bit' till my face turns read until he picks Sebelius! (Just kiddin').; May 23, 2008 3:50 PM
Peter said...: I don`t think foreign policy experience is important with a VP-candidate. But national security experience could be important. Remember that Obama don`t have any military background and McCain is a "war hero". It could be a good idea to have someone like Jim Webb as a VP.

I think the most important factor regarding a Vp-candidate is that he/she can`t take away any "cred" from the "change-platform". If we could find someone who fits the change-platform, have national security cred, some experience etc, that would be perfect.
I think geographics and demographics are key issues as well. I would prefer a VP who could carry a swing-state and someone who could attract older voters or "white-blue-collar".

I am not sure if Edwards would be the perfect candidate, but 5 positive polls from 5 important states looks promising. But, it is early and a lot of candidates may poll bad because they are not that well known.

I really hope McCain choose Huckabee. Huckabee would be haunted by the gun-joke and McCain-Huckabee would have NO cred with the economy. I also think Romney would be easy to beat, I don`t think people like him. He spent an awful large amount of money without getting much votes in return.; May 23, 2008 3:52 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Gator -

Welcome to the thread.

All crowns have been sent back to England. Welcome to America ;)

There are many of us here that do support Senator Obama and a handful that are still supporting Hillary - and even some Republicans in disguise that enjoy stirring up the pot.; May 23, 2008 3:55 PM
Bull Schmitt said...: Patrick @ 3:06 -

To help out people that may have not got the message from "The Field", our intrepid reporter summed his story up for you all...

"Checkmate."; May 23, 2008 3:56 PM
Ariane said...: The Cardoza 40: The Exodus of Clinton Delegates Begins

"Cardoza is the first of a group of at least 40 Clinton delegates, many of them from California, that through talking among themselves came to a joint decision that all of them would vote for Obama at the convention. They have informed Senator Clinton that it’s time to unite around Obama, and that they will be coming out, one or two at a time, and announcing their switch between now and the convention if Senator Clinton doesn’t do the same.....
During a recent Cardoza fundraising event in California the effort was discussed openly in front of other Democrats. Cardoza’s announcement, today, sent the message that the effort is serious and for real."

I know Aunt Jean will have some choice names for these people and I don't blame her, I can understand Clinton supporters being angry - - look at all the fuss Obama supporters kicked up on another thread over one Guam SD going back on her word. Apparently the Cardoza 40 is said to also include some pledged delegates - - which I don't think is very ethical. (Although it is Senator Clinton who was saying "There's no such thing as a pledged delegate." so maybe they felt that that released them. But it still didn't release them from the voters who voted for Clinton, IMO.

But I think Senator Clinton is turning many of her supporters off by cynical demagoguery over FL and MI. It is like the gas tax x 1000. She is acting like she is the great civil rights champion who (now) cares so much for those who voted in FL and MI when if she truly felt that way based on principle, she could have protested the plan last year. If she thought it was SO wrong, SO un-American, she could have done as Kucinich did and refused to sign the pledge not to participate in those elections.; May 23, 2008 4:22 PM
GrantWoods said...: I know her supporters are going to claim everyone is overreacting...but you have to watch this comment to believe it.

Look for her rationalization for why she is staying in the race.

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080523/FRONTPAGECAROUSEL/80522033&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL; May 23, 2008 4:31 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; May 23, 2008 4:37 PM
khassani said...: Hey guys,

I've never posted on the open thread before, but I wanted to get in on the veepstakes chat. I think that chemistry is underrated. Clinton spent hours just chatting w/ Gore when he had his final interview. They looked great together on the campaign trail. Gore also revolutionized the Vice-Presidency. Before him, the office was a joke, but b/c of his relationship w/ Clinton, he had some power.

On the other hand, when you start over-thinking the strategy, you end up w/ people like Ferraro, Lieberman, and Quayle. I was a huge fan of Edwards in 2004, but even he was a terrible running mate to Kerry.

In this light, my choices are Sebelius, Richardson, and McCaskill. McCaskill, in particular, has already shown that she would be a perfect running mate. I only fear that having 2 first-term senators on the ticket may make people think twice about voting Dem.; May 23, 2008 4:39 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: OH MY GOD!
She needs to drop out of the race and go home NOW!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_el_pr/clinton; May 23, 2008 4:43 PM
GrantWoods said...: re Leah:

This is as close to the quote as I can recall:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."; May 23, 2008 4:43 PM
greywolf said...: Hi everyone.. I can see that most of you are Obama supporters. Thats a good place to be. I have heard and read today that the rules committee will not give any edge to Clinton when they make there decision. They are trying to seat MI and FL with out giving any ground to either candidate. They want the existing race to stand as is. Anyone else hear this?; May 23, 2008 4:44 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Grantwoods -

Thanks. It is already a top headline on Yahoo and Huffington Post - I am sure that CNN and Fox and MSNBC is scrambling to get the headline up too!!!

Unbelievable!
But I thought about that awhile back that she might be hoping that!; May 23, 2008 4:46 PM
Independent Voter said...: ariane,

You are correct, I WAS referring to the language that may be used, as the discussion had turned to what the headlines may read the day after the ruling of the RBC.

I was not using the term to diminish any history of those who suffered under those circumstances.

Oh and by the way YAM, according to the link that Ariane posted the last "official" lynching that took place was in the 1960's. You tried to claim hundreds of years ago, 1964 wasn't quite 100+ years ago.

And Leah, I understand where you are coming from, and I don't quite understand why it hasn't been discussed either. Although I have learned about Italians, but it isn't part of history classes.; May 23, 2008 4:47 PM
greywolf said...: You know with those new supers being named this weekend, that will add 7 to Obama, which takes the needed number down to 49 if my math is right. It will not take much to seal the deal before the May 31; May 23, 2008 4:48 PM
apissedant said...: Leah,

It is so rare, but I have to vehemently disagree with you.
Edwards is a good VP choice, I agree.
Sebelius, good choice, I agree.
Webb.... NO!!!! No no no. Yes, he has extensive experience, but he is not a good national candidate. Though I am from Michigan, I am a current Virginian, and his leadership has been less than stellar. I am also a military veteran, and though he has come off as a great advocate for veterans... again, his leadership has been less than stellar. More importantly, he isn't likable. Not even a little! He has played the political game well as a Senator, but this will not work as the VP candidate. Too much media attention would spoil his current stature. The D.C. gun controversy is a great example of his inability to handle public scrutiny. It blew over, because he's just a little Senator, in a time of much bigger controversies, but it would not blow over so easily on the national stage.
Hagel... GREAT choice. When is the last time people from two parties were POTUS and VP respectively? To my knowledge, not since 1800. This didn't work out well back then, but that's because they hated each other, and it wasn't voluntary. To do this voluntarily would be the exact CHANGE Obama keeps talking about. What's more, Hagel is intelligent, nonpartisan, and caring. He isn't a party man, he's an American man. Sure, I disagree with his beliefs on many things, but he is one of the few representatives that I honestly believe is trying to do the right thing, and achieve the same goals I want to achieve, just using a different method.
Other than this, I would say possibly Tim Kaine. He is a moderate Democrat with a record of reaching across the aisle. He is not the best public speaker, but he can handle the spotlight quite well. He comes from a slightly Republican state, and this might give the ticket a point or two, and make Virginia competitive.
Mark Warner would be great, but he has an almost guaranteed seat in Senate, and that is more important. I would honestly rather keep John Warner stay in the senate, and Mark Warner become the VP, but I don't get to make these choices. I also didn't want to unseat Chafee, because he was another example of a great Republican.
Republican doesn't mean evil, and I will vote for an R on the rare occasion I find a good one.; May 23, 2008 4:50 PM
greywolf said...: Wow, I just listened to Hillary and that comment about her husband/California. then stating that Kennedy was assinated the same month .. cnn is tearing that apart right now.; May 23, 2008 4:51 PM
apissedant said...: Leah,

I couldn't get that link to work. Can you check and post again?; May 23, 2008 4:55 PM
Bull Schmitt said...: Leah @ 4:43 -

Wow. You aren't kidding. On the upside, seems anytime she opens her mouth these days, Sen. Clinton buries her microscopic chance at VP (and the Clinton legacy) just a little bit deeper.

Again, just heard her "apologize if anyone was offended" - which is not admitting an error, or actually apologizing for the remark itself.

Apparently there is no such thing as "low as you can go" for the Clinton campaign. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for them, this raw grab for power is destroying their reputation now.; May 23, 2008 4:55 PM
greywolf said...: i am a new cross over from the Republican party. This is my first year voting democratic. Nothing wrong with the republicans, only with the current one in office and the one that wants the office.
BTW Edwards will not be on the the obama ticket. He has made that very clear several times. I think Obama will go with a seated Govenor or a long term seated house or senate person. Maybe Nancy would be a great selection but then again who knows.; May 23, 2008 4:55 PM
GrantWoods said...: To anyone who was curious as to whether I had made up my mind in the last few days:

Some of you presented very convincing feedback. Thank you for some clarification on some of the issues that I had.

Still, I must admit, my mind hadn't been made up until this afternoon, and it wasn't any of your arguments that had totally convinced me.

I was watching Senator Clinton on her interview with the Argus Leader in Souix Falls. I was impressed with some of her answers regarding Ethanol, Water, and American-Indian rights.

Then it happened. She convinced me in one simple statement. I have posted it already, and I refuse to repeat it.

I am now an Obama supporter.; May 23, 2008 4:56 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant -

I listed Webb under the 'good choice' category because many people on this board say so. I actually don't know much about him so I should have omitted him.

I still think that Hagel will not be chosen because like I said if anything happened to Obama then Hagel a REPUBLICAN would have the White House. There are too many Dems that ain't going to go for that.
_____________________

greywolf-

Welcome to the thread.
There have been many comments regarding MI and FL on this thread - you can go backwards and look at all of them :); May 23, 2008 5:01 PM
Ariane said...: Leah -

I did not know about the 11 Italian Americans lynched at one time. But I knew there were Italian Americans lynched on multiple occasions. And I think they were not even considered proper "whites" by some people of Northern European descent.

Lynching was used as vigilante justice against people of any race throughout the history of U.S. from the 17th to 20th century, and in the states with a lower Black population there wer more Whites than Blacks who were lynched. Though of course the South more than makes up for that, so we end up with nearly 3x more Black victims than White. I think probably a Black person was likely to be lynched for a lot more minor alleged infractions. Look at Emmett Till in 1955, a 13 yr old kid who whistled at a White woman on a dare (or said "Bye, baby" according to another witness). Of course to the White Supremacists that was equivalent to attempted rape.

"I am not offended by the word 'lynched' if used properly."

Nor am I, I just mean I don't really like some of the ways I've heard people use the word to compare other things to gruesome extrajudicial executions, often preceded by torture and frequently done as a public hate spectacle. Like I am sure the RBC will not be even verbally calling for the torture and murder of Senator Obama.; May 23, 2008 5:01 PM
Independent Voter said...: apissedant - I agree with your VP comments. Webb in my opinion is not a good choice, for the reasons you mentioned but also the novel he wrote several years ago. - Wouldn't play well with religious folks.

I too was sad to see Lincoln Chafee go, but he is no longer a Republican, he has switched to independent :)

I wouldn't mind Obama looking at Chafee but my fear is that not too many people don't know who he is.; May 23, 2008 5:01 PM
greywolf said...: CNN just tore into Hillary's comments re husband and kennedy. They will be discussing it even more. A super that was on said this will cause a lot of trouble for her as comments like that no matter the intent have no business being made especially since Obama just turned her down for the VP slot. She will be on CNN in a few to provide more explaination.; May 23, 2008 5:02 PM
RobH said...: A "super delegate day.
Two more like that and we're over the top.

56 to go as of now
5 add-ons this weekend
1 add-on next weekend
25 PR
9 MT
8 SDak.

Means 8 to go as of now.
Too bad we're heading in to a long weekend.; May 23, 2008 5:02 PM
Independent Voter said...: greywolf.....perhaps her way of making it back into the media spotlight since she has pretty much gone to the wayside?; May 23, 2008 5:03 PM
greywolf said...: I think it would be nice if Obama selects someone that is well known but not in politics at the moment. Maybe someone like Powell or some other retired military type. that would give him all the foreign affairs back ground needed.; May 23, 2008 5:05 PM
Yamaka said...: Gator:

Welcome.

This site DCW is mostly infested with the Propaganda Machine of Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

In fact, many of these people cannot accept me using his full legal name! They get agitated!!

For them, it is like revealing something very very secret! This goes back to their "Grand Strategy" of "I have been ALWAYS a Christian", no "I have NEVER been a Muslim" kind of outright Lies.

Anyway, write your views and let us talk.

:-)

___________________________________
apis:

Here is what I said

"Hillary lost to the Minority Candidate because 2.5 million votes trashed by the Democratic Party"_

Now at least you agree that there were 2.3 million votes polled in FL and MI.

I still don't know from where 1.2 million came from?

Hillary had 870 K, BHO got 576 K in FL. She got 328 K and the "Uncommitted" got 238 K in MI.

My argument all along has been Count ALL votes and Seat the delegates according to the wishes of the people who voted on Jan 29.

Where is the problem?

In MI, BHO did NOT want their votes, and he voluntarily removed his name, along with 3 others.

When Hillary's people (Rendall and Carville) tried to revote in MI and FL, BHO was terribly uncooperative. Now he wants ALL of the "Uncommitted" votes to himself!!!

Where is the logic?

Dividing it by 4 would be a fair action, IMO. That is 55/4 should go to BHO.

And, in FL BHO violated the Agreement by running campaign Ads for some blah..blah reasons. He MUST be punished by 50% for that transgression. That's only fair, IMO.

What say you?
_________________________________

Folks:

My feeling is the Hurdle will settle down from 2209 to 2154 after the RBC Meeting.

Definitely not 2025!

Hillary's Math is

1972 + 183 = 2155, the New Hurdle of 2154.

For her to get 183 is feasible if she keeps up with her Popular Vote lead after June 3. I expect her lead will settle at around +150K.

What does the BHO's Propaganda Machine think of this New Math?

Cheer, Smile and Vote for Hillary the First Woman POTUS.; May 23, 2008 5:07 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: apissedant-

If you are talking about the link to the Hillary remark about Bobby Kennedy it is on the front pages of

www.Yahoo.com

www.HuffingtonPost.com

www.FoxNews.com

.; May 23, 2008 5:09 PM
greywolf said...: Yam.. do you know anything about media advertisement markets? It is clear you know not much of anything that you talk about...
Media markets such as those down in FL also include SC,NC GA, AL and eastern MS. If you do a mass media you are locked in to that demographic region, you can not lock out any area. Now thats an education you need. Obama did not advertise in FL, he did a mass media blitz to cover NC, SC, GA, AL and MS but could not eliminate FL it was an impossibility.
Secondly you can play with the numbers all you want. If you want to have the real look at this site, those numbers are the most accurate and agree with all other published sources. Hillary lost as of 20 May 08, there is no equasion that will allow here to win at this point in time. Even if you give her Florida and Michigan as voted, the only win she has is the popular vote. But as it stands right now based upon DNC rules, she has NO lead in any category.; May 23, 2008 5:15 PM
dsimon said...: Yamaka: My argument all along has been Count ALL votes and Seat the delegates according to the wishes of the people who voted on Jan 29.

Where is the problem?

The problem is that if there is no sanction for not following the rules, there will be total chaos the next time around with states jumping ahead of each other to vote earlier and earlier. You've never responded to this issue.

The problem is that the Michigan results can't possibly represent the will of the Michigan electorate. Many eligible voters stayed home because they were told the vote wouldn't matter. Many of them voted in the Republican primary because they were told the vote wouldn't matter. Clinton herself said back in October that the vote wouldn't count for anything.

Those are some big problems. Just because some people voted doesn't mean the vote was valid or should be recognized as such. It's very hard to look at Michigan and say the election was fairly contested. There's a better argument for Florida, but there still has to be some penalty for going early as a warning for those who would do the same next time.; May 23, 2008 5:21 PM
greywolf said...: Yam,
one more point the DNC rules committee has already stated that they will not make any adjustments to FL and MI that give Hillary an edge. The rules that now stand are the rules that will apply except seating FL and MI. Which they will do, but the existing Numbers established before the vote race began will not change to benefit Hillary (this has been stated over and over again lately buy members of the Rules committee).
Lastly the DNC is only interested in seatin FL and MI, Obama has reached his hand out to Hillary numerous times to settle this situation, the problem is Hillary wants it the way she wants it, meaning seated as voted with the numbers adjusted upwards as to the total delegates including super delegates needed to win the nomination. In that event considering that situation she still is behind by 90 delegates over all. so your whole arguement is mute.; May 23, 2008 5:23 PM
Robert in MN said...: Why isn’t the media demolishing the “popular vote” metric as a causing a vast disenfranchisement of caucus states?

Hillary Clinton’s argument for MI and FL is that we must count the votes in all 50 states. However, her math would disenfranchise Minnesota and other caucus states by vastly undercounting them. (This writer is from MN). The only remaining metric for Hillary Clinton to argue that she should win the nomination via super delegates is to rewrite the rules to say that the nominee should be the winner of popular vote. The math to support that argument is dishonest and flawed. The flaws of the Michigan math have been fairly well covered. The issue that is not getting sufficient play is the miscounting of caucus states if one looks at popular vote. Caucus states count delegates not popular vote totals. It is mixing apples and oranges.

For example, Wisconsin is the 20th most populous state and Minnesota is 21st. However, Wisconsin’s primary had over 5 times the “votes” (1,100,805) as Minnesota’s caucus (211,103). Minnesota historically has the top voter turnout in the nation. If Minnesota had a primary, the popular vote would have been substantially higher. In fact the net to Obama would have been over 350,000 votes instead of 73,115. Obama won all of the caucus states except one. Clinton’s math from Mars is a fabrication to steal an election by counting only a fraction of the vote from 13 caucus states.

The Democratic Primary system uses proportional allocation of delegates to avoid a Bush v. Gore problem of popular vote losing to delegates. The only way to compare caucus and primary states is by delegates through the very carefully considered system everyone agreed to before the nominating process began. Nevertheless, Hillary argues just ignore the rules and dramatically undercount 13 caucus states by focusing on popular vote instead of delegates. Shouldn’t this also be an issue of character in that after 8 long years don’t we want a president that will play by the rules?; May 23, 2008 5:24 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

Yes, it's better than either 2025 or 2209.

If the "New Hurdle" is 2154... then Hillary doesn't have 1972 currently under that scenario. If I'm incorrect, please layout how you get 1972 please.; May 23, 2008 5:26 PM
Ariane said...: Welcome khassani!
I agree with you about chemistry and I think Obama is looking for someone who has similar ideas about government and America, not just someone with a particular resume or demo appeal.

Out of your choices i think Sebelius is the best bet. Executive experience, popular gov., Catholic, Ohio roots etc.

Objections: Not a great speaker, and some think it is too risky to put an African american and a woman on the same ticket since there is some of the population who is not comfortable with one, and some not comfortable with the other, and that group does not entirely overlap. It is a drag to have to make choices based on sexism and racism, but they may have a point.

Re Richardson, I don't think it is a good idea because Clinton supporters are already incensed and calling him "Judas" and implying he was bribed. The ones who may be on the fence about supporting Obama may absolutely believe Bill Clinton's insistence that Richardson promised him he would not endorse Obama. If he is chosen as VP, a lot of people will think his endorsement had a quid pro quo attached to it and that will be sort of like picking at the scab on their wound. (sorry for gross imagery)

I like McCaskill but agree another new Senator would not be reassuring to people wanting more experience.; May 23, 2008 5:28 PM
greywolf said...: actually they should change the primaries as follows.
Have a national party primary nomination voting day
all primaries to be held on the same day thus eliminating media spin.. and the only measurement should be popular vote. No winner take all... Popular vote and then let the numbers lay where the may; May 23, 2008 5:29 PM
Yamaka said...: wolf:

You may know media market, advertising etc. The bottom line is

"Did BHO's campaign ads reach FL?"

Yes, Ads reached FL.

When HRC's ads did NOT reach there, how could you allow BHO's?

A 50% sanction on him is fair, IMO.

____________________________

dsi:

Talking about punishment.

My solution is punish the villains.

Who are they?

ALL the SDs from MI and FL.

This is the essence of Gov Dean's view on this matter.

Voters did NOT violate any Rule, period.

They should NOT be punished, for they are innocent.

Votes are holier than Pope.

I may live with 2154 Hurdle, AND a sanction against BHO for running campaign ads in FL, in violation of the Agreement.

Forget about 2025. Gone long time ago!!; May 23, 2008 5:31 PM
Peter said...: RE Grantwoods

Yes, she is a strong candidate and I agree with her on most issues. And she speaks well on a lot of issues, but so do Obama. But I think Obama has an approach which probably would be better regarding our foreign relations etc.

The comment she made was strange and awful. There are so many bad things about that statement and the timing? Why? I just don`t understand it. She could have used a million of other arguments, why talk about Kennedy when we all know the situation with Ted Kennedy and threats against Obama. I think she has ruined ALL her leverage and she could have ruined her political career. Thats how bad what she said was.; May 23, 2008 5:36 PM
Robert in MN said...: How about Russ Feingold as a VP? It would allay the anti Isreali fears and he is clearly viewed as ethical. His voting is consistant and he is a smart guy.; May 23, 2008 5:36 PM
greywolf said...: Yam,

either way... your wishes will not be granted by the rules committee. They will seat FL and MI but not to any advantage of either candidate. They do not plan on raising the threshold numbers either. They plan to keep the threshold numbers where they lay.
So my adise to you is the same that many have said to Clinton already. Leave it be, it will not be in your best interest to keep pushing this, the more you push the worse it could hurt you. LOL; May 23, 2008 5:36 PM
greywolf said...: Yam,

You dont get it. You can not advertise any place along the gulf coast region NC, SC, GA, AL, and east MS without getting bleed over into Florida. It is impossible, because the availability of tv channels in northern Florida are the same as in those other states. The only area of Florida that his advertisements reached is the northern 80 miles of florida. There is nothing any one could have done to stop it, it is all about tv channels and cable carriers. The DNC already realized this as a problem and accepted the bleed over as unadvoidable.

as for the rest of you... how bout someone like Lou Dobbs or Anderson Cooper for VP? Just kidding...lol; May 23, 2008 5:43 PM
Yamaka said...: robertmn:

I have another problem with the Caucuses:

Many of the women, working and older Americans who are the bulk of Hillary's support DID not go to Caucuses because

1. they are long protracted and cumbersome.
2. the votes are not Confidential.

For example, in our TX HRC won the Primary part by 4%. Since many of her supporters did not go to Caucus in the evening, she lost delegates.

This is artificial, and is unfair to HRC whose constituency is quite different from that of BHO, who can afford to spend inordinate time at the Caucus.

How will you remedy it?

----------------------------

jp:

You may be right.

But if you remove the 55 "Uncommitted" delegates out of 2209, how will it affect HRC?

I have to include some penalty to BHO's transgression in FL !

I say 50% in PV. That's only fair, IMO.; May 23, 2008 5:44 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: greywolf -

Yamaka doesn't let anything be.

Yamaka is our Clinton Propaganda Machine here on this thread.

You are new here so beware - we have a handful of folks here that post misinformation, hate speech, and propaganda. No matter what you say they will continue their mission ;)

H
Obama '08
P
E

LONG LIVE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - OBAMA !!!; May 23, 2008 5:46 PM
jpsedona said...: Leah,

Since you're of Italian heritage & might find this interesting...

Prior to the revolutionary war, Samuel Adams (yes the brewer, relative of John Adams & member of the Continental Congress) was a rabble-rouser, aggitator and ardent anti-papist (anti-Catholic) prior to focusing on the British.

Of course John Adams wasn't much better when he said (paraphrasing): "Can free government exist with the Roman Catholic religion?"; May 23, 2008 5:46 PM
Ariane said...: grantwoods - Well that certainly was.... quite a comment from Senator Clinton.
So, welcome to the Obama team! Your help will be needed. I think we have a very good chance in Iowa but it is not a certainty. We need all the committed supporters that we can get to be talking to voters, registering voters, and getting out the vote. The Republicans beating us at GOTV is why we have Bush now.

So, whenever you're ready, sign up at the Obama website, check out your state org. and Iowa blog, etc.... If you feel like jumping in with both feet you could start by making some calls to South Dakota or Montana! (and making your first donation!)
You sound like someone who cares about the same things I do, and a very intelligent person too. You will definitely be an asset to Obama.; May 23, 2008 5:47 PM
Yamaka said...: "The only area of Florida that his advertisements reached is the northern 80 miles of florida."

wolf:

My point is HRC's ads did not come into FL.

Violation of the Agreement is a violation, whatever may be the underlying cause.

She did not violate, he DID, period.

He needs to be sanctioned 50% of the votes and delegates, IMO.

Michelle is the suitable VP for BHO if he gets the NOmination. It won't happen!!; May 23, 2008 5:48 PM
greywolf said...: Yam,

Hillary could have resolved the caucus problem by getting involved. She publically stated that she did not want to get involved in the caucus states because in her opinion they were of little value or importance, they were put aside in her words as being red states. It was her campaign strategy to by pass the caucus states and concentrate on the larger state primaries thus in her mind and the wisdom of her advisers she would have the primary race over come feb or mar at the latest. It was a tactical error that she and her campaign staff made. You need to really study her whole campaign strategy before you go off the way side with your arguements.; May 23, 2008 5:51 PM
Gator said...: Yamaka said...
wolf:

"Voters did NOT violate any Rule, period.

They should NOT be punished, for they are innocent."

Finally something I can comment on.

I agree, the DNC did not send me notice of any penalty.
I excercised my right to vote.; May 23, 2008 5:51 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: And I didn't think anything else Clinton could say or do would make me think any less of her.

I was wrong.

She needs to crawl back in her hole and never be seen or heard from again.

Sad!; May 23, 2008 5:51 PM
Yamaka said...: "I excercised my right to vote."

gator:

Thanks.

About 1.5 million voted in FL.

About 750 K voted in MI.

All Votes are precious.

Cheers.; May 23, 2008 5:56 PM
themann1086 said...: Not that Yammy will care, but the DNC Rules Committee already said that Obama's national ad buys which ran in Florida did not violate the rules. He asked them before finalizing the ad buy.; May 23, 2008 5:56 PM
greywolf said...: Your right about Yam. He is a mindless machine that plays games for Hillary. There is no reasoning with someone like that.
Just wish he would do his home work before he opens his mouth or puts his fingers in motion. All I can say more about it is Yam it is better to remain silent and appear to be stupid then to put your fingers in motion and remove all doubt. LOL well all it was a nice day but I have to get going soon..Have a nice one and take care.
BTW... we have one heck of a organization here in Oregon for Obama. We recorded the greatest increase of democratic voters in the history of this state this year. We keep signing up more every day too.; May 23, 2008 5:57 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Well now, I am wondering how fast ALL the SDs on the Clinton ship will be jumping overboard and rowing on over to the Obama train :)

I still can't believe Hillary said what she did!!!

I noticed they had 8 or 9 secret service guys around him at the end of the rally a few minutes ago. Normally there are only 3 or 4 that close to him.

Everyone must be on high alert this evening!

Hillary is SHAMEFUL and should resign her senate seat immediately and go back to Arkansas!

.; May 23, 2008 5:57 PM
Richard said...: Now we know why Hillary is staying in this race: she is hoping that Obama might be assassinated before the convention. I cannot stomach this woman anymore.; May 23, 2008 5:59 PM
Ariane said...: Patrick, sorry I did not see your post before I put the link to the Cardoza 40 story; May 23, 2008 5:59 PM
rkw said...: Just a couple of quick thoughts on the VP situation.

1) I thought HRC might be an interesting choice a few weeks ago. If she and BO had made a deal that avoided the Kentucky & WV blowouts, then there was some serious appeal. The last contests become a victory lap. You start to pivot to the general earlier. And you avoid what are now accepted narratives in the media of hardened positions of blue collar whites don't like BO.

2) HRC still has some appeal, but not as much. She does have some claim to attracting certain women and blue collar whites (esp. in the rust belt).

3) IMO, there are 3 things you look for in a VP. i) Someone that would make a good president. ii) Someone that won't cost you the election. iii) This one is the luxury - someone that can help you win a state or region or block of voters.

4) Generally senators are not good candidates. They have too many compromise votes on the record, appear to be Washington insiders, have relatively little campaign machinery and have little executive experience.

5) I would go the governor route. Get someone with a solid campaign machinery in a key state. HRC is the only exception that I would consider.

6) I say HRC, Rendell, Richardson, or Strickland.; May 23, 2008 6:00 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Richard-

God forbid but if that did happen - she won't be the nominee now. It would have to be Edwards or Gore or someone else.

OBAMA '08; May 23, 2008 6:01 PM
greywolf said...: Leah,

your right. her comments regardless of intent should have never been made. Especially since this is such an explosive nomination race. She should have thought before she opened her mouth. She could have made her point with out mentioning kennedy which had nothing to do with her husbands race. So stupid and sad for her. There will fe fall out over this.; May 23, 2008 6:03 PM
Mike Ruth said...: Clinton is getting very very weird. The suggestion of assasination of her fellow Democratic candidate as a rationale to stay in the race is spooky.

On the plus side, hinting at assination should, presumably, exclude her from the VP slot. Obama would need a food taster if she were next in line.; May 23, 2008 6:05 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

The chances of the uncommitted being removed from the delegate pool are zero. There's a better chance of Zero delegates from MI.

Feel free to assess a penalty against Obama if YOU want; the RBC is never going to do that. You've proved that YOUR definition of fair smacks of entitlement... a far left liberal thinking on your part...; May 23, 2008 6:06 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Yakama-

Turn on your TV.

The whole world now knows what she said - and what she meant.

It is over and time for her to go home.

.; May 23, 2008 6:07 PM
Yamaka said...: thmann:

Can you please post a citation to the validity of your claim?

I heard he got it from some State, not DNC and not from others who signed the Agreement

As per the Rule, all signed must give permission to amend that Agreement.

Otherwise, the Agreement is violated, period.; May 23, 2008 6:07 PM
jpsedona said...: Hillary's gaffe today is EXACTLY the type of game changing comment she was hoping that Obama would make.

I think the comment, although intended differntly than how it came out, has just finished her potential to be VP. How awkward would that ticket appear after those comments?

And after watching her applogy, she seemed genuinely rattled and sincere. The comment will not encourage a SD who was slightly leaning toward Hillary to be jumping on the bandwagon anytime soon.

Axlerod & company will play this as "gee, we're sure that's not what she really meant to say. But it's certainly a comment of concern from a normally direct and openly clearspoken candidate."; May 23, 2008 6:16 PM
Joe Mich said...: Yam is ansolutely "in another planet" and misguided by the corrupt and untrustworthy HRC. How could anyone be so blind to the facts is beyond me; May 23, 2008 6:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Gator said :
"I agree, the DNC did not send me notice of any penalty.
I excercised my right to vote."

Is that your position? That you seriously were not aware that your vote was not going to count.
Or just that the DNC did not send you a personal notice of the penalty.; May 23, 2008 6:19 PM
Bull Schmitt said...: I think this raises "Serious Concerns" about Sen. Clinton, and her campaign.

Olbermann will have a Special Comment on "Countdown" tonight.; May 23, 2008 6:22 PM
Richard said...: Yamaka - I didn't say it, she did.

JPSedona - on her 'apology': I don't think it was an apology at all! She didn't at all apologize to Obama or step away from the implication that she could be the 'beneficiary' of such an event. I listened very closely, and all she said was that she was sorry if she offended the Kennedy family.; May 23, 2008 6:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Perhaps Axlerod & company should play it as "I'm sure she didn't mean it that way.... as far as I know."

Just taking lessons from the lioness and the maestro.; May 23, 2008 6:24 PM
jpsedona said...: Robert in MN,

I think that Russ Feingold is genuinely good person and dedicated Senator. If I were in Obama's campaign, I would would be concerned that the ticket might appear too liberal by selecting him.

I think his selection might head off McCain's possile choice of Pawlenty.; May 23, 2008 6:25 PM
Emit R Detsaw said...: As the nomination process comes to a close, what are you going to do to help get your parties nominee elected?

Donate
Talk to friends & family
Make Campaign Calls
Participate in rally's
Blog on non-Democrat sites (rationally)
Wear campaign buttons
Put signs in your yard or vehicle
Other ways to show support?

Just wondering.; May 23, 2008 6:25 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Rules are rules.
Laws are laws.

The government doesn't send you a notice that if you kill someone you will go to prison.

The government doesn't send you a notice that if you kidnap someone that you will go to prison.

But the rules and laws are still valid.

It is not up to the government or in this case the DNC to send you a notice - it is up to you to know what the rules and laws are.

The DNC folks in Florida and Michigan knew what the National DNC rules were and they purposely violated them while shooting the DNC the finger. Now there must be a penalty.

All of this doesn't matter.

The SDs will be heading on over to Obama now that Clinton has shown her true colors once again.; May 23, 2008 6:26 PM
Mike in Maryland said...: Peter said...
. . . The thing is that Survey USA has constantly underestimated Obamas support in most states in the primary, I actually think they are doing it again so that means Obamas support could be even stronger than these polls show. I think SUSA is underestimating both Obamas support among african-american and the amount of AA who will vote in each state.

Peter,

I think where SUSA (and all other polling firms) are underestimating is the under-30 demographic. The polling firms are prohibited from calling cell phones.

Which age group is the largest users of cell phones, the least likely to have landline phones?

The under-30 demographic.

Which age group gives the strongest support for Obama after African-Americans?

The under-30 demographic.

You can argue that AAs have the lowest 'ownership' of phones (although statistically insignificant), but when they have a phone, it's usually a landline phone. Also, polling firms have had decades to figure out how to factor the AA demographic into their equations, and thus are getting fairly accurate in polling AAs, even if they are underrepresented in phone 'ownership'.

Thus, IMO, the reason Obama is consistently underrepresented in polls is because of the under-30 demographic using cells phones, thus not being polled as much.

Add in the historical lack of enthusiasm to vote from the under-30 demographic, but this year they are more apt to vote in higher numbers previously, and the polling firms don't know how to factor that into their equations.

Mike; May 23, 2008 6:31 PM
jpsedona said...: Richard,

Given how Hillary handled sniper fire comments, this was Hillary-like apology. I do believe that she regrets saying it. Not because she doesn't believe what she said, but because it's going to create a real concern with her colleagues that have been holding back endorsing Obama until after 6/3.; May 23, 2008 6:35 PM
jpsedona said...: Yam,

Pull out your crystal ball and tell us how will Hillary's comments today play with SD's?

Will SD's climbing on Obama's bandwagon be viewed as a vast left wing conspiracy?

Yes or No, were her comments a serious error?; May 23, 2008 6:39 PM
greywolf said...: Just thought you all should know that those political types on the news believe that this latest fopa by Hillary may be her undoing. many are stating that if there was ever a time to be thinking about bring this race to an end the thought amount the uncommitted supers are there now.; May 23, 2008 6:40 PM
Ariane said...: "...Ayers and Dorhn have been noted in some fleeting news coverage in the past. But the visit by Obama to their home — part of a campaign courtship — reflects more extensive interaction than has been previously reported."

Oooh. "More extensive interaction." Wow. A fundraiser. Obama visited the home of friends of mine for a campaign fundraiser too. He did not even know them before that, they just knew someone on his campaign and said they were willing to have a fundraiser. But I guess that means "extensive interaction".... and I suppose by this logic if my friend had ever got in trouble for anything in his life, it would now somehow be Obama's fault.; May 23, 2008 6:41 PM
Yamaka said...: "I think the comment, although intended differntly than how it came out, has just finished her potential to be VP."

jp:

I fully agree with you about Hillary's comment, the context of it and the true intention.
_________________________________

Folks:

My own feeling is the BHO's Gang is eager to spin anything and everything to split the already broken Party further more!

My wife and I heard the comment:

She said, "it is just a simple innocuous comment, stressing June and campaign, not of any assassination per se".

She is a non-partisan person, not interested any campaign politics.

I believe her.

The Goebells' Propaganda Machine can go to any extent to throw mud on Hillary , IMO.

She will have the support of most of the women, working and older Americans, as always.; May 23, 2008 6:41 PM
greywolf said...: Look I am a staunch Obama supporter, I do not believe she was equating it directly to Obama, but her comments did plant a seed in the minds of some. Regardless of her intent, it was taken as it was. A slap in the face for the kennedy family as a bitter reminder of the past, and the insuation that something like this could happen to Obama. It was a terrible thing to be said, and it will hurt her campaign in a very bad way. It is all over the news and will be talked about for days and days. She took McCain off the headlines.; May 23, 2008 6:45 PM
Richard said...: jpsedona - Oh, I believe she is sorry. But she is sorry for all the wrong reasons. She is like the 5-year-old child who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar: sorry she doesn't have a cookie, and sorry he is going to get a spanking, but not at all sorry he was trying to sneak cookies between meals.; May 23, 2008 6:45 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: I agree.

To regret saying something does not mean you are sorry for 'what' was said or that you did not mean what you said. And I have still not heard the words 'I AM SORRY' for the RFK remark or for the sniper fire remarks.

Only 'regrets' - because the media picked up on it and she 'had to' say something to resolve the dust-up.; May 23, 2008 6:45 PM
greywolf said...: Just for your information. the reason this is receiving so much attention is that comment made by Huckabee last week befor the NRA.. someone aming a gun at obama and him ducking for cover. Both comments added together make for a very bad situation regardless of the intent of the comments.; May 23, 2008 6:48 PM
khassani said...: Ariane,

As w/ most people following this election closely, I think that Richardson will likely be VP or Sec. of State. The Clinton people were claiming that the deal was for one of those two spots, despite it being the obvious, smart decision. Though, I suppose one of them would become public before the election versus the other that wouldn't be known until after. I don't think there's anyone more qualified to be Sec. of State, but the reason I think he should be seriously considered for VP is that it would be very good for the future of the party to be the first to have a latino on the ticket. If it weren't for that, I would just give him Sec. of State (there are rumors of womanizing that could prove detrimental if he's on the ticket).

I know there is a risk of having a black man and a woman/latino on the same ticket, and I'm sure that HRC would have only considered white men in order to play it safe, but I think the primary has shown us that white men might not that be that upset over it. HRC has drawn many woman voters, and Obama has drawn many black voters. Even though both groups are reliably Democratic, turnout among both groups has been below the national average in at least the last few elections. In a change election, not having a white male on the ticket might not be a negative.; May 23, 2008 6:49 PM
Ariane said...: You know I was shocked when i heard ABOUT Clinton's comment about assassination but when I watched the video.... I have to say, I think I might give her the benefit of the doubt. It did seem to me like she was just trying to emphasize that the primaries have in the past gone into mid-June. It seemed like maybe she just said that example because a lot of people remember the month that Bobby died, and in the tape it is the word "June" she emphasizes.

Maybe my fellow Obama supporters think I am being Naive. obviously I don't know what subconciously was in her mind but I don't think this was necessarily really sinister.

Still it was a very unfortunate comment because her opponent is someone who is facing regular death threats and had to have Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate. He is risking his life to run and I know some people who actually were afraid to vote for him because they were afraid if he did too well he would be killed. It is a great fear of many people. And her thoughtless comment is the sort of thing that some nutcase might seize on. and it is really bad coming after Huckabee making that stupid, stupid, awful joke about someone aiming a gun at Obama.; May 23, 2008 6:49 PM
Joe Mich said...: I just can't stand Hillary -- she never apologizes for any of her outragious statements -- she always offers regret that anyone is offended, but never ever indicates any sorrow or regret for her trangressions. What a pathetic figure she is! It's like saying it's your fault if you were offended...; May 23, 2008 6:53 PM
Mike Ruth said...: Interesting to note that Sen. Clinton apologized (sort of, in her self-absorbed way) to the Kennedy family. But unless I missed something she did not apologize directly to Sen. Obama.

She was not exactly a class act today, either making the assasination suggestion, nor semi-apologizing for it.

Any Superdelegate still supporting her should be acutely - exquisitely - embarrassed to be endorsing the Party-destroying candidate Clinton.; May 23, 2008 6:54 PM
JayW said...: OK... so regarding Obama's VP pick...

Why has no one on this site talked about Joe Biden?

I think Joe Biden is a stand up guy with tons of experience that would really help Obama. Not to mention that they seem to get along and have a ton of respect for one another.; May 23, 2008 6:58 PM
Anonymous said...: I hear the excuse they are making is she was tired. Must be all of those 3 a.m. phone calls.; May 23, 2008 7:03 PM
rkw said...: JayW - I like Biden and think he would be a good VP or president. Unfortunately, I don't think he would be a very good candidate. He has a tendency to make gaffes (on TV) and does not bring a particular block of voters along.; May 23, 2008 7:04 PM
billyjay66 said...: Jayw re biden

I like Biden too. But the media has always had too much fun with him. He would reinforce the elitism hammer that Obama will get hit with. Just a codeword for intellectual.; May 23, 2008 7:08 PM
Leah Texas4Obama said...: Biden needs to stay in the Senate. With Ted Kennedy fixin' to have chemo soon, we need Biden to stay in the Senate and take care of things :); May 23, 2008 7:11 PM
jpsedona said...: JayW,

When Biden is at his best, he's really good (like during some of the debates).

However, it's possible that he might not pass the vetting process. He's also has a history of opening his mouth before engaging his brain. He would be a good counterbalance to McCain. He's more likely to take a cabinet position.

Another name that hasn't been mentioned much is Dick Gephardt. He would be an interesting choice... the drawback is he wouldn't be viewed as change oriented.; May 23, 2008 7:13 PM
Yamaka said...: jp:

"Pull out your crystal ball and tell us how will Hillary's comments today play with SD's?"

My view on this:

1. She did not mean any harm whatsoever to Sen Obama, period.

Liberal media and his supporters spin this out of proportion, and create mayhem in this Campaign Season. Very very sad for me.

This too will pass very soon.

2. This per se will NOT influence how the SDs will vote now or at the Convention.

These professional politicians worry more about Electability in the GE than anything else.

I happen to believe BHO has more baggages like Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Univ of Chicago, Michelle, very thin experience at the National level etc which would very seriously hurt his election, against vastly experienced giant of a man McCain.

Her baggages are already known and she is a "known devil", as put it.

They will like a known devil than any unknown devil.

:-); May 23, 2008 7:14 PM
tmess2 said...: While discussing math, I thought I would post the remaining primaries.

Puerto Rico will vote on June 1st. There are 8 districts in Puerto Rico.

1 district has 6 delegates which makes the vote break down:
15% = 1 delegate
25.01% = 2 delegates
41.67% = 3 delegates
58.34% = 4 delegates
75.01% = 5 delegates
85.01% = 6 delegates

2 districts have 5 delegates which make the break down:
15% = 1 delegate
30.01% = 2 delegates
50.01% = 3 delegates
70.01% = 4 delegates
85.01% = 5 delegates

5 districts have 4 delegates which makes the break down:

15% = 1 delegates
37.51 = 2 delegates
62.51% = 3 delegates
85% = 4 delegates

There are 12 at-large spots which makes the break down:

15% = 2 delegates
20.84% = 3 delegates
29.17% = 4 delegates
37.51% = 5 delegates
45.84% = 6 delegates
54.17% = 7 delegates
62.51% = 8 delegates
70.84% = 9 delegates
79.17% = 10 delegates
85.01% = 12 delegates

Finally, there are 7 PLEOs, which would have a breakdown of:

15% = 1 delegates
21.43% = 2 delegates
35.72% = 3 delegegates
50.01% = 4 delegates
64.30% = 5 delegates
78.58% = 6 delegates
85.01% = 7 delegates.

If you assume a West Virginia/Kentucky/Arkansas result (Obama between 25 and 30%), he would get 14 delegates.

If you assume a result around 60-40 (which would be Obama's 4th worst result)and that he only gets 1 delegate in 2 of the 5 districts with 4 delegates, Obama would get 19 delegates.

If you assume a result like Pennsylvania and Ohio (55-45), Obama would get 25 delegates.; May 23, 2008 7:18 PM
JayW said...: Re Biden...

I do think that you guys are right about Biden in some aspects.

Especially...
"He's also has a history of opening his mouth before engaging his brain."

But I guess that is what I like about him. Many times when he speaks he tells it like it is. Really doesnt sugar coat things well. I am of the impression that Americans actually like and respect that. With him, it isnt "politics as usual." That is why I was thinking he would be a good running mate. Not to mention, he isnt afraid of laying the smack down when attacked.

In any event... I am sure that Obama will make a wise choice. As long as he does not get forced into selecting HRC I will support whomever he decised to run with.; May 23, 2008 7:25 PM
tmess2 said...: On to Montana and South Dakota for the delegate math:

Montana splits the state in two (an eastern district and a western district) for the "district-level" delegates. Both districts get 5 delegates each (see math above for % breakdown). There are 4 at-large (again see above math for % breakdown) and 2 PLEOs (so 25.01% for 1 PLEO and 75.01% for both). Assuming a narrow win for Obama in both districts, you get 9 delegates. A narrow loss in boht districts gets you 7.

In South Dakota, there is only one district with 9 delegates making the breakdown:

15% = 1 delegate
16.67% = 2 delegates
27.78% = 3 delegates
38.89% = 4 delegates
50.01% = 5 delegates
61.12% = 6 delegates
72.23% = 7 delegates
83.34% = 8 delegates
85.01% = 9 delegates

A narrow win in the state gives, you 8 delegates. You need to get into the 61-63% area to get 9 or 10 delegates and into the 72-76% area to pick up 11 or 12.

Since we don't have many other primaries in this part of the country (most of the neighboring states are caucus states), a conservative estimate would be to give Obama 14 delegates. However, the most likely number is between 17-20.; May 23, 2008 7:33 PM
Obamaniac said...: Patrick's analysis re: the MI/FL voters is good and appropriately modest. Of note, if one looks at the demographics of the two states, in an absolute worst case scenario, Obama would likely get 40% in FL and 46% in MI. The more likely numbers are 47% in FL and 49-51% in MI. As Patrick has pointed out, HRC wants the DNC to assume that none of the ~250,000 in MI that didn't vote for her would vote for Obama, an absurd notion. If the DNC goes with 2209 as the number, they'll split the 17% "others" in FL and likely award 45% to Obama in MI. In that scenario, with the "Pelosi Club" members, the 10 SDs from FL/Mi endorsing Obama, and presuming 40 PDs to Obama from the remaining 3 primaries, he presently stands 48 delegates from the 2209 figure. Patrick is right. SDs are coming out at a rate of 10-20/week for Obama and the close of the primary season will speed it up. Bottom line: the race is over. Obama is the nominee. As for VEEP, my rational vote is for Joe Biden, my political vote for Ted Strickland or Ed Rendell. I don't think Richardson can deliver the Hispanic vote, which makes him less likely, but a good choice given his foreign policy and executive experience. McCaskill and Sebalius (sp?) won't help the ticket. HRC is dangerous, especially if the VEEP's vote is a decider in the Senate. Don't think for a moment she wouldn't highjack President Obama's agenda given the chance.; May 23, 2008 7:40 PM
tmess2 said...: With the details from my last two posts, time to talk end-game math. What does Obama need to wrap up the nomination when the results come in from Montana on June 3rd, and what does he need as of May 30th to go into the RBC meeting as the presumptive nominee under the current rules.

First, for the RBC meeting, I am assuming that the number needed for the nomination is 2026 as I think most of the RBC members will be assuming a win in the Maryland Special election. That means today, Obama is 57 short.

Working backwards, I think most RBC members will assume Obama will get at least 28 delegates from the last three primaries (14 in Puerto Rico and 7 each in South Dakota and Montana). Likewise, of the 19 add-ons from the "Obama states" to be chosen after the RBC meets, I think they will assume that he will get at least 9 of them. That means that between now and when the RBC meets, he needs to pick-up 20 or more unpledged (or Edwards)delegates between now and May 30th.

Since I think Obama wants to have the voters clinch it on June 3rd, he will probably not announce more than 30 prior to May 30th.

That leads us to the RBC meeting, there are two realistic options on the table -- seat as is with each delegate getting a half vote (which is still less of a penalty than Rule 20.C and less than the RNC did on the Republican side) or seat Florida as is and Michigan at 69-59 with each delegate getting a half-vote.

I am going to assume for these calculations that the media reports are correct (that Obama has at-least 24 of the district-level delegates from Michigan and another 7 of the Edwards delegates from Florida). Assuming seating as-is with half-votes, Obama would currently be 95 votes short of the nomination.

One potential solution to the issue of the 19 at-large/PLEO uncommitted delegates might be to
give all four of the candidates not on the ballot (Obama, Richardson, Edwards, and Biden), the right to review delegate candidates for these spots with the agreement of all four needed to veto a candidate. (Given that two of the three who have withdrawn are offically supporting Obama and the third is unofficially supporting Obama, this gives a figleaf to Clinton while assuring Obama of the loyalty of the 19 delegates for another 8.5 votes).

Assuming that he has gotten the 20 by May 30th, that would put him 65-75 short going into Puerto Rico. Assuming that Obama will get between 15 and 25 on June 1st (from Puerto Rico and Maine), that would put Obama in the area of 40-60 delegates short going into the last two contests. To assure clinching the nomination by the delegates won on June 3rd, he would need between 25 and 45 additional unpledged/Edwards delegates on June 1st, June 2nd, and June 3rd (and 66 total between now and June 3rd).; May 23, 2008 8:00 PM

«Oldest ‹Older 1201 – 1400 of 4317 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

4317 comments:

Tags