The flipside of this is that the problem in 2000 with Florida wasn't "not counting the votes". It was that the Supreme Court (arguably) got involved in a state matter of trying to determine the rules. The problem was with changing the rules - not overturning a popular vote (every vote count available showed Bush winning). Similarly, here, the caucus is the rule. You can argue that it shouldn't be, but the campaigns were told the rules in advance and had opportunities to work based on that. There was no "stealing of votes" or anything of the sort. The caucus structure actually apportions delegates more fairly than the primaries - except the problem is that fewer people are able to participate. But in a caucus, a 60-40 win likely means that the winning candidate will get about 60% of the delegates. In the primary, a 60-40 win means the winning candidate gets about 55% of the delegates. Winning 60-40 can be the same as 53-47 in many districts. Both systems have problems; the simplest and most reasonable system would be to take a statewide primary and apportion the delegates that way - but unfortunately no one seems to do it.
I agree McCain has had some skeletons. You could also go back to his 1st marriage (lots of other women and boozing). But that is pretty old history and should stay that way (unless his campaign tries to attack Obama for his college drug use or something--then this stuff is fair game). I think if you poll Americans on the attributes Desert_Rocket lists among politicians, John McCain is near the top. He did lose a lot of respect from me in supporting Bush's reelection as strong as he did in 04--but I'd still say I respect him more, and view him more indepedent, than most politicans. That said his temperment, and even more so, his foreign and domestic policies (outside of immigration and ethics reform), are why I would not support him in the general. One thing is for sure, McCain is by far the Republican candidate with the best chance to win, credit to many of them for figuring it out despite all those party winds against him. Still, based on turnout for both Hillary and Obama--McCain is the underdog.
I guess we should start a new thread, but I can't come up with a catchy title. 30% reporting in WY Obama 58% Clinton 40% 18 delegates up for grabs. Could Obama wipe away Clinton's TX, OH gains with one state that "doesn't matter?"
It looks like some sort of deal for a "redo" of Michigan and Florida is in the works. Caucuses in Michigan have been mentioned as a possibilty there. If Clinton agrees to that, she's an idiot. The format doesn't favor her, whether she has majority support in the state or not. Texas has proved that. She was out spent and out organized in the caucus phase of the Texas election. Thus, she wins by 3% in the actual election and loses by 10% in the caucus. A lot of her supporters simply left caucuses before participating, simply because they were older, were unprepared for such a long (and cold) process, and many women were there with kids to be concerned about, as well as many who never got a chance to eat dinner. Obama still would have won the caucus (younger supporters willing to put up with the BS due to their enthusiasm), but I think it would have been much closer had Clinton been as prepared (and had the money) as the Obama people. Impeach Bush.
Yup. Her net gain of 4-6 delegates from "Sorta-Super-Tuesday" is probably wiped out by .... Wyoming. Just as her win from New Jersey was matched by his win in Idaho. And her likely win in Pennsylvania will probably be nullified the next week in North Carolina. It's stuff like this that makes it so difficult/impossible for Clinton to turn this around. She wins these media-attracted states, but the math is severely against her.
One problem she may have is that both campaigns apparently have said they would agree to whatever solution the DNC and states come up with. A regular primary can't happen - it's too expensive for both states. And both Dean and Pelosi have made clear that neither delegation will be seated as-is under any circumstances. It looks like FL is leaning towards a soft-money-funded mail-in primary ("The 2nd Democratic Primary... brought to you by Viagra!"), which seems like a feasible solution (I have no idea who this would favor). I don't know if MI has that as a possibility or not. But Clinton, if she wants FL/MI seated, may have to accept a less-than-ideal revote for her. If they say a caucus is the only option, I'm not sure what Hillary can do, unless she funds a primary herself.
WY has 12+ 1 extra that is supposed to vote the way the state votes as a whole. So it is looking like Obama- 7(+1 makes 8) to Clinton- 5.
Here's the scenario I've been discussing that's more important to Supers than the pledged delegate count: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_...ndidate_with_most_votes_should_get_nomination Considering that so much of a superdelegate's vote is influenced by public opinion, it's definitely relevant...
Cat, that gives quite a bit of HOPE to the Hillary campaign. The caucus process is a fraud that doesn't reflect the will of the people of a given state. Texas is proof positive of that.
A couple of counter-arguments - I think there's certainly a lot of unknown here, but this is just the "other side". 1. I think most of Clinton's most likely supporters are already on board. Since Super Tuesday, she's gotten something like 5 superdelegates to his 60 or so. Here's an unbiased site's analysis of the remaining superdelegates and who they are likely to favor: http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/updated-predictions-on-unpledged.html It's relatively even overall, but with a slight edge to Obama. They update their model every week or so based on new data from superdelegates that do commit. 2. There's the "who's better to win the Presidency" vs" who's better to grow the party" argument. Even with the popular vote for Hillary, and a sense that maybe Hillary has a better chance in November, a lot of superdelegates are more interested in growing the party in the long-haul, especially those in the red states. The perception that Obama has potential to bring in a new generation of people to the party (whether accurate or not) is likely to have some influence, as is his interest and willingness to campaign in more states than she is, which helps down-ballot Democrats. His work on that in 2006 (where Hillary did very little and he campaigned for dozens of people across the country) will help in that regard as well. 3. TPM had an interesting analysis on something that's being missed by the media - of the remaining 350 superdelegates or so, 76 are chosen at the state conventions, and generally are picked by representatives of the candidate than won the state. So while they technically aren't pledged delegates, they all will vote for the candidate that won. His winning a bunch of states helps him in this regard. Of the 62 that are allocated from the states already having gone, it's estimated that Obama will have a +14 margin. So that takes 76 superdelegates out of the pool and likely gives Obama an edge - or at worst, break-even, meaning Clinton has an even smaller pool of superdelegates to get on her side (or flip). http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/convention-math-remember-the-u.php All around, it's certainly still possible - and FL/MI change the dynamic - but it's really going to take tearing up the party to make this work for her.
Obama ended up with a huge win in Wyoming. 61% - 38% with 100% finally reporting. I'm not sure how that will split the delegates from this state though.
Good numbers for Obama in MS today -- ARG: Obama 54%, Clinton 38% (March 10) InsiderAdvantage: Obama 54%, Clinton 37% (March 10) Rasmussen: Obama 53%, Clinton 39% (March 8)
mc mark, based on past experience with polls, I guess that means a dead heat? I hope he hits a homerun today.
I tend to agree. I haven't heard a good argument why delegates should count more than popular vote. Biased sites like DailyKos which are heavily pro-Obama only do delegate math while ignoring popular vote counts. It's the only hope Clinton has left- winning the popular vote, because she has zero chance of winning overall pledged delegates. And from whatever math I've seen, winning the popular vote would be very, very, very hard for her as well. But if anyone has a link with analysis I'd like to see it. I'd love to see how many more total votes she garnered on the Tuesday with TX/RI/OH/VT. If I recall correctly Obama has half a million more votes than Clinton. I don't see how even a 20 point win in PA can overcome that. ...okay, I've done a little more research. Real Clear Politics has Obama with 603,603 more votes than Clinton. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html This count does not include Michigan and Florida. However, it also does not include results from Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine, which have not released popular vote totals. Looking at super tuesday II, Clinton got 330,000 more popular votes than Obama. That is a big gain. Look a little further down the graph on real clear politics, and you see Obama wiping that out with two states like Wisconsin and Louisiana, for example. Let's say Clinton wins 500,000 more votes than Obama in a crushing 35 point win in PA. How is she going to make up for the losses in all the other states like NC? I don't see how it happens, even with re-votes in MI and FL. Those would run a lot closer now than they did the first time around.
Because delegates are how the Democratic Party selects the nominee. You can disagree with the system, but it is the system and all the players knew it before they started. Aditionally, how can you base anything on the popular vote when some states only held a caucus? Curious enough, this thread, titled Popular Vote Count, is one done by kos himself and is currently on the front page of the site: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/11/143228/984/382/473558 I agree.
