WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com
Puerto Rico gets its turn to vote today. A total of 55 delegates are up for grabs. There are 36 district, 12 at-large and 7 pledged PLEOs. Polls opened at 8am local time and closed at 3pm local time.
| Delegates Left | % Vote In | % Clinton | %Obama | Delegates Clinton | Delegates Obama | |
| Puerto Rico | 0 | 98% | 68% | 32% | 38 | 17 |
| Previously Pledged Delegates (GP) | 1586.5 | 1723.5 | ||||
| Total Pledged Delegates | 1624.5 | 1740.5 | ||||
| Superdelegate Endorsements | 290 | 330.5 | ||||
| Total Delegates | 1914.5 | 2071 | ||||
| Delegates Still Needed to Win Nomination | 202.5 | 46 |
Also... The Maine Democratic Party will pick an add-on superdelegate today.
Next up is the last day of primary season. Montana and South Dakota vote on Tuesday.
del.icio.us
101 comments:
Am I right in thinking you PR table has an error in that it says Obama needs 44 to win (overall), but the sidebar says 41?
fixed, thanks.
This may be the most unpredictable of the primaries. You can't necessarily translate the feelings of Hispanics (even Puerto Ricans) living on the mainland into the feelings of those still on the island. Likewise, there are very few polls by recognizable name pollsters (and, again, you have the question of how well those pollsters do outside the mainland U.S.).
Having covered my butt enough for flopping tremendously, my projections for Sunday
Overall vote -- Obama at least 30%, Clinton at least 40% (projection Clinton 60%, Obama 40%)
District 1 -- 6 delegates (Obama should get 2, Clinton should get 3, 1 toss-up, project Clinton 4, Obama 2)
District 2 -- 5 delegates (Obama should get 1, Clinton should get 2, 2 toss-ups, project Clinton 3, Obama 2)
District 3 -- 4 delegates (Obama should get 1, Clinton should get 2, 1 toss-up, see below for projection)
District 4 -- 4 delegates (Obama should get 1, Clinton should get 2, 1 toss-up, see below for projection)
District 5 -- 4 delegates (Obama should get 1, Clinton should get 2, 1 toss-up, see below for projection)
District 6 -- 4 delegates (Obama should get 1, Clinton should get 2, 1 toss-up, see below for projection)
District 7 -- 4 delegates (Obama should get 1, Clinton should get 2, 1 toss-up, see below for projection)
From the 5 districts with 4 delegates, am projecting Obama getting 3 of the toss-ups and Clinton 2)
District 8 -- 5 delegates (Obama should get 1, Clinton should get 2, projection Clinton 3, Obama 2).
Net from districts, (Obama should get 9, Clinton should get 17, 10 toss-ups, projection Clinton 22, Obama 14).
Obama should also get at least 3 at-large and 2 PLEOs with Clinton getting 5 at-large and 3 PLEOs leaving 4 at-large and 2 PLEO toss-ups. Projection Obama 5 at-large and 3 PLEOs, Clinton 7 at-large and 4 PLEOs. Net Clinton 33, Obama 22.
If Obama gets 20 delegates it's a maximum.
Beyond the delegates, HRC looks for the volume of voters to claim the overall lead. She should get a net gain of well over 200k, thanks to a high turnout (the time of their lives for PR people - other than Public Relation people, who've already been having the time of their lives for a couple of months).
ABC, the most pro-Clinton source, puts her ahead of Obama in votes including FL and MI (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008).
A 60% win tomorrow could be very helpful for her cause should she fail to get what she wants today.
On the other hand, if Obama loses by less than 10 points behind in PR (fat chance) it's over.
Ermm...
It's over.
It's been over for almost three months now, ever since Obama won in TX.
Just like Bill Clinton predicted.
I think it is over anyway, The PR vote is good for PR, but beyond the very legitimate arguments against the Pop vote counting for much in a close overall primary race (too many non-standard contests), the sheer idea of a territory which 1. Can not vote in the GE and 2. Doesn't even have a Democrat party, having a significant say over the outcome of the Dem primary staggers credibility.
It really is going to come down to the SDs, and even then, running numbers that are pretty unfavorable to Obama for the next three primaries, and making the assumption that the FL and MI resolution is halving the delegation in some manner, my back of the notebook numbers seems to suggest Clinton will need close to 90% - 100% of the rest of the SDs to endorse her to tie or win.
At least from what I can tell, if someone has something better I'd be open to seeing it.
Indeed, it is over!
And in PR they don't care about the primary since they don't vote and many of them don't want to get the right to vote in GE either.
Probable turnout - 567K
Hillary's margin 18% or less - max 102K
Delegates Obama 22-26, Hillary 29-33
Hillary will be behind in the popular vote if you don't count MI and no decent source will anounce her winning the popular vote that way.
tmess made the minimal projection, we have to see if the toss-up delegates will split (as I predict) or go Clinton (as SM wishes).
I believe there are about half to dozen supers that will endorse Hillary if she wins the popular vote with FL included if that happens based on that argument. Unfortunately that will not be the case and I wonder will they dare to endorse?
The Obama Campaign's Results Board on its web site used to be two ahead of DCW in the "needed to win" item. However it now shows 41 same as DCW.
If recent polls are correct (i.e., Obama getting at least in the upper 30s), then we're looking at a 31/24 split.
As for turnout--it may not be as high as the Clintons are hoping. See Poblano's post:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
2008/05/
turnout-in-puerto-rico.html
I really had to look, because I wasn't sure (and I thought it was curiously missing for those of us political junkies who just like looking at election returns): local time in Puerto Rico is also Eastern Time.
Dan,
it looks like Poblano has similar figures to the ones I have. I kind of like the double trap for Hillary - bigger turnout means less delegates and probably the same gap in popular vote :) Because in this election the unsure if-they-will-vote voters are heavily Obama. This time Hillary is the one with the hard core and die-hard supporters. Maybe if RBC reach agreement today, Obama has to fly PR and win it!
Yvonne Gates of NEvada Endorses Obama!
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/obama-picks-up-nevada-superdelegate/n20080601034509990004
Question: How can the popular vote count or be important in this election?
I see this as contrary to your party's rules in the way a nominee is elected. With the decision yesterday wouldn't Obama have the right to claim the undecided voter population, ans how do you count the "estimated" number of votes in the caucus states?
If I was a Superdelegate (which I am not...wrong country)I certainly would not take popular votes into consideration, would I?
Claudia in Canada
Popular vote doesn't count. It is merely an argument being made to try to convince unpledged delegates which candidate should be supported.
By way of analogy, imagine a small centrist party in a parliamentary system. It has about equal differences with the two main parties. In an election in which neither party has an absolute majority, they both need that party to form a coaltion government. Assuming that both parties made similar offers regarding policy compromises and cabinet positions, how do you convince that small party "should" join your government. Both say the party in the lead deserves to form the government, but one wants to count members of parliament to determine the leader and the other wants to use the national vote count. Are either criteria binding on the third party? No, but it might influence some members of that party's leadership in making the final decision.
Bioclyde said:
Question: How can the popular vote count or be important in this election?
It is important because it allows Hillary to form a thin thread of argument to claim the election was stolen from her instead of admitting that she made a mistake and that the biggest reason she lost is that she ran a poor campaign and ignored the caucus states.
The argument has a ring among a certain segment of her supporters.
For anyone who makes any attempt to actually understand the process it is meaningless. The election is for delegates. If it were for popular vote each candidate would have run a very different campaign.
Fortunately for us the super delegates are among those who understand the process. No one who is not already in her camp will buy that argument.
Here's is a new link tot the Gates endorsement. Looks good to me.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jun/01/obama-picks-up-nevada-superdelegate/
As to above posts of what 60-40 would mean in numbers, it is hard to tell. On the mainland, candidates run for office as Republicans and Democrats. That makes it easy to analyze that District X tends to vote Republican and infer which candidate will outperform the state-wide percentage in that district.
In Puerto Rico, they have different parties which do not strictly translate into Republican and Democrats. (One of the main differences being the position on the status of Puerto Rico -- commonwealth vs. statehood vs. independence). That make it hard to predict which districts are good for which candidate.
Since the split in one district is at 58.34% (the 6 delegate district) and the split in five districts is at 62.51% (the 4 delegate districts), this lack of information makes it a guess as to how these districts wil actually split. (In addition, 64.29% and 62.75% each alter one commonwealth-wide delegate). You can run a scenario in which the two five-delegate districts favor Senator Obama (i.e. Clinton wins by 52-48 instead of 60-40) and the other 6 do not (that gives Senator Obama 19 delegates). Alternatively, you can run a scenario in which those two districts favor Senator Clinton (i.e. Clinton wins those two 67-33 instead of 60-40) and the other 6 -- especially the one 6 delegate district -- favors Obama (that gives Obama 25 delegates).
Most likely is a scenario in which Senator Obama gets the extra delegate in some of those districts and Senator Clinton gets the extra delegate in others. However, whether that is an even split (giving Obama 22) or someone wins more than the other, I have yet to see any descriptions of the tendencies of those districts to support a tighter projection than something between 19 and 25.
I'm going with amot's 22-26 delegate range for Obama out of Puerto Rico. Leaning to the high side of 25.
Thanks for the responses to my questions. Here the leader or what the USA describes as the nominee is elected within each party by the delegates, and only the delegates. Popular votes are only counted in the General election and not within the party's nomination process. I am a delegate for my party (New Democrats) in both the Federal and Provincial parties. We have conventions, like in the USA, where we vote for our leader...who will then run against the leaders of the other parties.
It sounds simple,but in reality it isn't because there are controversies. But as true democrats the controversies rarely go public and we stand behind the person elected because we are strong believers in what our party stands for..that said, I think that your party demonstrated one of the best public views of unity any outsider can witness in the RBC meeting yesterday. I watched the entire process unfold and you guys need to be proud of the event!!
Take care,
Claudia in Canada
PR gets its turn not it's. pls correct
I hope Obama has a closer than expected race. Also some Super Delegate news. I got it on my site
www.ourhispanicvoices.com
He picked up another SD late yesterday, this one a RNB member once the meetings were finalized.
One minor point to clarify: Puerto Rico is actually in the Atlantic Time Zone, one hour ahead of the Eastern Time Zone. But PR doesn't follow Daylight Saving Time, so at the moment PR time is the same as Eastern Time. The polls in PR close at 3 pm today (why so early? I have no idea, but apparently that's the way they've always done it there), so returns should be available fairly early this evening.
What I read is Obama actually has a strong area - San Juan metropolitan. He can give good performance there but at the price of several 3/1 splits in several four-delegates districts. Plus I think the presence of Hillary gives her additional boost. I still believe Obama will use street money and get the margin below 15%. That will be major blow! I still like the 25 delegates scenario the most, but I admit 22/33 is 80% probable.
Interesting tidbit--Prisoners in PR can vote. In fact, they already voted on Friday with about 8,000 of PR's 17,000 inmates voting.
Among those voting was Edison Misla Aldarondo, former President of the PR House of Representatives. Considered a surprise voter since when he was arrested in 2001 he was a National Delegate for the Republican Party. No word on which Democratic candidate he voted for.
What iIfound on the net is that turnout is less than usual but larger than expected. Analysis say that favours Obama since Clinton is the one with die-hards who vote always. Let's see if that is true. Expected outcome 23/32 at the moment! Votes that come in the afternoon should favor Obama and can better his position.
i read somewhere that PR has a tradition of actually giving ALL of its delegates to one candidate! any word on that, is it possible it could end up 55-0 either way?
uplandpoet--It is not uncommon for a delegation to vote unanimously for the Party nominee at the Convention. PR got some notoriety when the Gov. voted the PR delegation unanimouly for Dukakis in 1988 when Jackson had won the territory.
You're going to need a lot of help come Tuesday night. Tim Russert just said that there are Super Delegates lining up to endorse the SECOND polls close and the primaries are over. There will be dozens of endorsements happening at the same time.
Looks like Obama will definitely go over the top on Tuesday night.
some sunday morning talk show said insiders are saying hillary has no intention of taking it to denver, but then, if not why is she still out there? does she want vp
? will obama give it to her? will it really be over tuesday?
55-0 is not possible under Democratic Party Rules. The Rules mandate proportionality. Failure to use the proportionality rules mandates the same 50% cut in delegates as does the timing rule (combined with re-allocation under the rules)
CNN calling race for Clinton "by a wide margin" before any official results are in. Their exit poll shows 70-30.
For those taking about 55-0 delegates. Theoretically possible if loser does not reach 15% "viability threshold" in any district. Not very likely.
Yes, a 55-0 vote is possible (not likely this year though) at the Convention. Remember, just becuase delegates are assigned to candidates, does not mean they have to vote for that candidate.
Yes, a 100% delegate split is possible if only one candidate gets over 15% of the vote. Obama took 100% in the Virgin Islands.
I heard the Tim Russert comment too. I think it would be unfortunate if too many supers do that. It would be better if they leave time for the networks to call Obama as having gone over the top by pledged delegates.
It's fun to watch, especially since a number of media figures (e.g. Chuck Todd) have now marked the Montana-puts-Obama-over-the-top scenario as a "movie ending" that the Obama team is angling for. But I give the probability of making it work at only about 25%...there's a good shot that too many supers will jump the gun, or that too many will wait until Wednesday.
Either way, it's only symbolic, but it's an interesting window into the inside-politics abilities of the Obama team.
Back to PR.
70% Clinton is what the morning voters created, mostly seniors. The big lines now are more likely split equally so the margin will drop to probably 25-30%.
We will see Amot. Turnout is expected to be low. I think 70-30 could be wrong, I`m thinking more 65-35. But I think the biggest issue for Clinton here is turnout, if the turnout is less than 400K it would be a disaster for her.
Maine superdelegate add-on for Obama:
Gwethalyn Phillips.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2008/06/01/maine_democratic_convention_adds_one_delegate_for_obama/
I don't know if CNN does polling in Puerto Rico enough to trust the exit polls. Exit polls work by finding the right precincts to use for polling. If you use the wrong precincts, the numbers are going to be very inaccurate.
Will be 650-700K. I think Obama put the street money to counteract Clinton. I know it doesn't sound fair, but believe me, I am backing him on that, because he has better way to spend his time. I highly respect PR and its citizen, but Obama needs every day and every minute to turn this country totally blue. Since Clinton is saying and doing everything no matter how disrupting and untrue it is, using street money instead of losing 3-4 days to campaign and achieve the same result, is excusable!
I believe Obama will be close to 40% when it is over.
Latest CNN exit poll has Obama creeping up 1-2% to 31 or 32%. So Amot may be correct about timing. I'm not trying to give credibility to their numbers - just that they're the most concrete I can find.
60-40 is ok, 70-30 is not good and could give a boost to those irritating Clinton surrogates.
I think 650-700K sounds a bit high, I`m think more liker maximum 450-500K. But we will see.
First official votes are in. You can watch here.
It would be nice for Obama if the Clinton margin in PR is less than 150k. That would pretty much assure him the popular vote lead at the end of the process by any metric which does not include Michigan.
400k turnout with a 40% Clinton margin gives 160k for Clinton--still reasonably good news for Obama.
700k turnout with a 20% Clinton margin gives 140k for Clinton.
So whether Amot's scenario is correct or not, it's not really a good scenario for Clinton's popular vote argument.
A conservative figure for PR is HC/BO 70/30. BAsed on the exit poll number, BO will not have more than 35%. So expect pledge delegates of no more than 20 and as low as 16 for Obama. Corresponding figures for HC are 35 and 39.
No spinning. BO is smoldered!
65-35 for Clinton. With ~400k votes. A net gain of no more than 125k popular votes for Clinton.
It won't be enough for her to overtake Obama in the popular vote count, especially after South Dakota and Montana, and especially if estimates are included for caucus states.
still early returns in, no results from districts 1 and 2
district 3 looks like 70-30 (3-1)
district 4 looks like 67-33 (3-1)
district 5 looks like 56-44 (2-2)
district 6 looks like 70-30 (3-1)
district 7 looks like 63-37 (2.5-1.5)
district 8 looks like 56-44 (3-2)
Assuming district 1 and 2 come in the upper 60s, they would break 4-2, and 3-2 respectively.
The overall 65-35 equals 8-4 and 4.5-2.5 on the at-large and pleos.
So currently, 38-17.
Presently 1,168 votes cast out of 8,111 voters. It's probably too early to know but that's only about 14.5% turnout times the published 2.37 million votes, 340,000ish votes.
Just curious, does anyone know what they mean by "pending" votes?
See here: http://www.ceepur.org/Presidenciales08/Div/index.aspx-op=ISLADISTRITOSSENATORIALES.htm
FYI:
NBC has allocated Partial PR:
Sen. Clinton - 26 and Sen. Obama - 11.
and they also acknowledged that 16 Edwards delegates have moved to Obama. That's 4 more than they had yesterday.
Three points:
1st: exit polls was conducted at the morning plus you folks know that not all voters respond and some lie. In this case older responders were 3% more than the actual share plus Obama, believe me or not, is the response many people wouldn't admit to give when asked whom they vote for
2nd: 1st and 2nd CDs are the biggest and they will give the real picture as votes overall
3rd: any result with net gain below 200K is good for Obama , with SD and MT he will be leading again
As for the split, let us wait...
38-17, give or take 1 vote, is about right. ~ 20 to 22 pledged delegates advantage.
Congratulation to Hillary and her Campaign team.
Let's now work together to unify the Democratic party and win the general election
Andrew found something - so far the reported precincts are with 15% turnout, so they obviously favor Clinton according to the preliminary analysis. With average turnout of 25-30% some precincts must have close to 40% turnout and those will shape the global picture.
uplandpoet - some sunday morning talk show said insiders are saying hillary has no intention of taking it to denver, but then, if not why is she still out there? does she want vp
? will obama give it to her? will it really be over tuesday?
---------------
She should not have dropped out prior to today. Reason? Look at the Puerto Rico results. How would it look for Obama to be blown out to a candidate no longer in the race. This way on Tuesday when MT and SD go for Obama, the race comes to a close with him winning the final two primaries. :)
Ok, come one, give me a break, I'm being optimistic at this point. I just HOPE that is the reason she is still staying in. Plus she still needs to raise the money to pay off her campaign debts. She has to continue with the front of being a "fighter" so people continue donating to her......no matter how worthless of a cause it is, people are still donating.
Latest reporting on KOS is:
9% reporting
Splitting 67/33 for Clinton/Obama
Exit polls. One thing that I found interesting about the exit polls conducted by msnbc - you know the questions favorable, unfavorable, not sure.
Obama had a 52 % approval, 10% disapproval and 37% said not sure. So this just tells me that the people of Puerto Rico simply don't know who he is. That's all. It's not that they didn't like him, they just don't know him.
If you want to follow the results directly as they come in, you can go HERE.
There really isn't much reason for Obama to hang around campaigning hard in Puerto Rico. He's very likely going to win the nomination and Puerto Rico doesn't vote in the general so he can't double use any resources placed there. Hillary on the other hand needs Puerto Rico to maintain any case for winning so she needed to dump tons of resources in.
independent voter--following your optimistic lead: Clinton has developed a reputation as a "fighter," as someone who doesn't quit despite the odds. Even if she knows she's not going to get the nomination, there's no use throwing that away a few weeks before the magic number is reached.
The big question is how she reacts once Obama gets to 2118--or let's say to 2123 so there isn't a lingering Michigan question. In, say, basketball, there's a big difference between playing hard until the final buzzer and not shaking hands after the game is done.
The turnout will probably be quite low. 22% reported, less than 60K votes counted. I think it is likely that turnout will be less than 400K, perhapes as low as 300K. That will make it difficult for Clinton to spin this, because it will show that people from PR didn`t care that much.
Obama knows he has the nomination. And he knows that if he fails to win the GE it doesn't matter who will be the 2012 nominee.
Too many supers are waiting to join the winner and last month Hillary is begging them not to endorse her, but to not endorse before the convention with the hope Obama will be out of the picture by some reason.
Yet I think Obama made a mistake. He had to fight hard enough last month and win more convincingly. Because now many Clinton supporters feel like he stole the nomination and Hillary will do everything to keep that impression and fail him. How can one be that selfish!
sarah.... The big question is how she reacts once Obama gets to 2118--or let's say to 2123 so there isn't a lingering Michigan question. In, say, basketball, there's a big difference between playing hard until the final buzzer and not shaking hands after the game is done.
--------
Very true. I truly hope that she comes out and truly "fights" as hard to get him elected in November as she has to try to get herself the nomination. I think she will. However, I'm not so sure that Bill will try very hard to get Obama elected. I hope that he does, but I'm not really counting on it.
Scott, Peter,
turnout is 15% at the moment.
Let's say I am wrong and it stays 15% ~ 360K votes, 100-110K lead for Hillary. Even if I am right and it goes at 20% ~ 470K she will still net gain less than 140K. She lost the popular vote. PERIOD.
Hmm...amot--suppose Obama had fought hard for the remaining primaries instead of pivoting to the GE. Perhaps he could have "only" lost WV by 30%, KY by 25%, PR by 10%, but everyone would have known he gave his best shot in those places and still got walloped. Do you think that would have been better or worse for him? That's not a rhetorical question; I'm really not sure...
CNN is looking at 18 for Obama, 47 for Clinton. Plus the map guy stated that there are 2 superDs for Obama.
Hey, you guys awake?
Scott, he lost 10 delegates in PR that he could easily win had he stayed one or two more days at the island. Plus maybe 10 more in KY and WV. Not a big deal, but he would win bigger. And give her no chance for the popular vote even including MI. Plus he is blamed that he is not campaigning for every state and every vote as he promised. Actually since March he only made a strong campaign in IN and NC!
On the other hand her voters will not vote for him even if he had won 3000 to 1000. Some 15%-20% of the Democrats will not vote Obama and I wonder what will they do...
I actually don't get why PR (or any other territories for that matter) has the ability to participate in the democratic race because they have no involvement in the general at all and the policies of the candidates don't really affect them because U.S. laws and policies don't apply to them. Am I correct? It seems to me that PR is more of a popularity contest than a political contest...
The Puerto Rico Election Commission site -- It lists 110 "precincts" with about 2,000 voting places. Anyone know enough to figure out which of those precincts are close to fully reported and which one still have a lot of votes to count?
U.S. laws and policies apply to the territories (or at least can if Congress chooses). They just don't get to vote in the general election. The Framers saw the territories as pre-states and never figured something like Puerto Rico would be in territorial status for 100 years.
Using the MSNBC/First Read numbers, which has 16.5 Edwards pledged delegates to Obama, and extrapolating to Tuesday night with 21 more pledged for Clinton and 20 more pledged for Obama (10 remaning Puerto Rico going 7-3 for HRC, then 8-7 and 9-7 for Obama), I have the "magic" number of 26.5 more needed, hopefully by Tuesday night.
have a look here:
http://www.ceepur.org/Presidenciales08/Div/index.aspx-op=Isla.htm
Electores Unidades Reportadas/Voters in Reported Units 531,296
i guess that's the actual turnout as reported by precincts. looks like an estimation, since it's still changing a bit.
so that would translate in an overall turnout of about 22.5% which would give clinton a net gain of ~170k...
No, not all the laws don't really apply in PR, for example, you can be 18 to drink alcohol while US law requires you to be 21. Also, suppose Roe v. Wade gets overturned, will it also affect PR or will they only follow their own rulings?
Ian,
US Laws and Policies do apply to Puerto Rico. Citizens of Puerto Rico are citizens of the US. They serve in the army. There is a US District Court in Puerto Rico whose judges are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate (as are the judges of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals which hears appeals from that court and justices of the US Supreme Court).
Amot,
Obama has campaigned in these contests. He went to Puerto Rico, West Virginia, and Kentucky. Could he have spent more time in those places? Sure, but then he would have spent less time campaigning in other places. He can afford to lose a few more delegates in the primary contests. His goal should be the general election. One can argue of whether it would be better general election strategy to have spent more time in those places, but I think Obama has run a pretty amazing campaign so far, so I'm not about to second-guess his decisions of where to spend time. I recall some criticizing him spending time in Idaho and Kansas instead of California. In hindsight he think he made a brilliant call.
Amot- Hillary's behavor throughout this campaign is there for all to see. It is truly deplorable. For me the change came after the debate before Ohio and Texas. At the end of the debate, she was virtually conceding, with teary eyes, after giving the "whatever happened in this campaign" speech. Her advisers told her that her only chance was to go negative, and she sheepishly followed, not minding what the impact will be on the party or its eventual nominee. Then we had the "Shame on you, Obama.." speech and the rest is history. Amazingly, this was followed by 0-11 loss by HC.
When going negative did not work, she insinuates, hopes and prays for her opponent's assassination. No presidential aspirant in recent memory has sunk this low. She would rather tear the party apart to achieve her goal.
The result of the nomination is not just a victory for Obama and his supporters. It is a victory of the Democratic party supremacy over powerful individuals and groups who would use rather than serve the party.
I am glad that this is ending soon, in few days!
ian:
I know you're not saying this, but I always find it odd when people think that the Democratic primary process is solely about picking the candidate most likely to win in November. If that were true, and the same were true for the Republicans, shouldn't they both then pick the same candidate? :D
The process is also about picking the candidate that the party thinks represents their views and their interests. So there's a balance between electability and preference. I think most people would choose a candidate they loved whom they thought had a 65% chance of winning over one they didn't care for whom they thought had a 70% chance of winning. Electability does enter at some point; people are hesitant to choose a candidate they think is very unlikely to win.
All of that is a long-winded way of saying that just because PR doesn't get to vote in the general election, it doesn't mean they shouldn't have an influence on the candidate the Democratic party puts forward. US laws and policies do apply to them; Puerto Ricans are US citizens. Yes, the status of PR is different than that of a state, but the same is true for the District of Columbia, and perhaps even more true of Native American lands, although I don't know the legal details in that case. So both the Democrats and the Republicans give them a say in their nominating processes.
Ian. The drinking age is set by the state governments, and not by the federal government. (The federal government encourages states to raise their drinking age to 21 in order to get federal highway funds, but a state doesn't have to do so). If Roe v. Wade was overturned it would be up to Puerto Rico (as it would be up to each individual state) as to whether to permit abortion. If Puerto Rico currently tried to pass a law prohibiting abortion, though, it would be declared unconstitutional.
49% reported, Clinton has a 57K edge at the moment, if this increase to 130-140K with 100% reporting it will be ok. I think Clinton camp is extremly disappointed. The turnout will be less than 500K, it could also be less than 350K which is low.
Ooh okay, thanks galois and sarahlawrencescott for clarifying this for me. But what about the alcohol law difference? Also, why shouldn't thry be allowed to vote in the GE if the policies do apply to them? They don't have the ability to voice their concern about a policy that is going to screw them? Regardless of the fact PR is not a state, it should have some say if the policies do apply to them just like DC.. why exactly does it not have that ability?
RealClearPolitics is reporting partial PR result of 34-14, with 7 yet to be allocated. I will split the 7 remaining pledged delegates 4-3 or 5-2, giving the final count 38-17 or 39-16 HC/BO.
The issue with Puerto Rico is first that they need a constitutional amendment to vote in an GE.
Second they are subject to some laws but not others, they don't pay federal income tax for example. (DC is different because their residents do).
They do have a "Resident Commissioner" in congress, who can speak in the House, vote in committee and on floor amendments but not final passage votes.
Interesting.. why is it that signs in liquor stores say "federal law prohibits sale of alcohol to those under the age of 21"?
Sorry if im posting things after u've already answered them, I'm typing on my sidekick so there's a little delay, my apologies.
Just checked the exit polls! Some facts:
- 40% admit gender was the most important and voted heavily than average Clinton
- those who approve Bush voted 90% Hillary
- those who want more war in Iraq voted Hillary 90%
I wonder is she the Republican candidate in this contest?
Ooh gotcha, thanks andrew.
...and DC doesn't have a vote in the Senate or House (they have a non-voting member in the House similar to PR's "Resident Commissioner"). There are all sorts of quirks in any political system, including ours.
I know very little about PR politics, but clearly one of the big issues there is whether they want to be a state, with full voting rights and attendant responsibilities or remain in this unusual Commonwealth status.
Then there are "territories" like Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. In theory they could some day become states. Most states in the US were once territories, and at that point did not get to vote for President in the GE.
Max:
Actually:
Electores Unidades Reportadas
Voters in Reported Units 1,077,587
Is the number of registered voters represented by the voting units that have already reported. Thus right now since there are
Total de Electores
Total of Voters 2,366,667
Those polling places counted represent 51% of the total election sites counted.
The turn out of 168,000 means means the tunout percentage in PR is about 15%...
At least that is how I read it.
DC gets to vote in the presidential election because there was a specific constitutional amendment that gives them that right. Except for that constitutional amendment, they wouldn't get to vote for President.
As to Congressional Representation, the rules of the House recognize non-voting (at least on final passage) representatives of DC and the territories.
As to the Constitution, any ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on a constitutional matter applies in the territories (except perhaps American Samoa which has a weird status under international law). However, the degree of home rule in the territories is entirely a matter of Congressional statute -- so it is unclear who would get to decide for the territories if Roe v. Wade were overturned or modified.
Does anyone know what a "pending vote" is? 615 have been cast.
CD3, Cd4, CD5 and CD6 will split 3/1 Clinton
CD1 4/2 Clinton
CD8 3/2 Clinton
CD7 can split 3/1 or 2/2
CD2 can split 4/1 or 3/2
at-large 8/4 Clinton
PLEO 5/2 Clinton
Total 37 Clinton, 16 Obama, 2 more to go
@oregon dem: you're right. my fault...
Looks like PR site went down. Yet with 72% in according to CNN Hillary will gain 125-130K the most. Turnout 16-17%. CD2 most probably will split 3/2, CD7 is heading toward 3/1.
From Clinton's PR victory speech:
"In the final assessment, I ask [the superdelegates] to consider these questions:
Which candidate best represents the will of the people who voted in this historic contest?
Which candidate is best able to lead us to victory in November?
And which candidate is best able to lead our nation as our President in the face of unprecedented challenges at home and abroad?"
I absolutely agree with her that those are good criteria for superdelegates, and for that matter primary and caucus voters, to use. Of course, I might disagree with her particular answer to some of those questions...
sarahlawrencescott, don't you mean ALL not some of these questions? ;-)
Sorry I keep asking but can anyone explain what the 1,215 Pending ballots are? http://www.ceepur.org/Presidenciales08/Div/index.aspx-op=ISLADISTRITOSSENATORIALES.htm
Are they like uncommitted votes?
I take that back, I think pending those are ones where the vote counters could not determine which candidate was chosen.
Votos adjudicados or pending votes are challenged ballots (votos recusados) which are cast enclosed in special envelopes.
They also include votes from hospitals which are set aside until it is verified that the voter didn't also vote at a polling place.
That should have read "votos no adjudicados."
I liked how Hillary opened her victory speech with "go to my website and give me money". She wasn't even subtle about it. She must really be hurting financially if she would resort to hitting people up for cash like that.
It always amazes me when I hear someone argue that Hilliary might not campaign for Obama. Why would you want her to? If I was the nominee I think there would be concerns about how much work it would be to clean up after her! She is a loose canon (like Bill) and having the two of them running around the country saying who-knows-what is putting the whole thing in great vulnerability.
Don't encourage her!
One of our Canadian talk shows made an interesting comment. It was stated that Hilliary would lose and then run AGAINST Obama as an independent. Perhaps that would explain her drive to win the popular vote. She is still determined to win as President so this may be the vehicle she is looking for. After all, she is NOT happy with the Democrats right now. Perhaps she and Bill will run a ticket together with her name on top!
With 14 voting places out, it looks pretty solidly 38-17 and 140,000 net votes.
So 46 delegates to go with 14-19 on Tuesday.
Running as an independent is pretty much out the window at this point. Unlike most other countries, ballot access is controlled by state law and the deadline is already past or is fast approaching in many key states. Plus, in most states, to assure getting on the ballot, you need to hire professionals to gatehr signatures on the petitions, and the Clinton campaign does not have that type of money (unless they want to invest more of the family money in what would probably be a losing cause).
Sorry, folks, but if Hillary does not campaign vigorously for Obama, the chances of his winning in November are drastically reduced. 17 million people really did vote for her, after all. Because of that, how this week plays out may be one of the most crucial aspects of the whole campaign.
Scott, yes, 17M voted for her. But do you think those 17M are her puppets? I bet 16M are Dems first and Hillary's supporters second. The last 1M are fanatics and/or racists.
Post a Comment