News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[russ_watters]

I don't understand why Obama is winning when the decision is supposed to come down to the super delegates, and Hillary has more super delegates. I know there is a lot going over my head, I don't think I really know how this works.

The way you worded that is kinda strange. There is no "supposed to". The super delegates and normal delegates votes are worth the same amount. Obama has more awarded normal delegates and Clinton has more pledged (but not awarded) super delegates. In a truly democratic process, one would hope that the super delegates would vote for the person who won the most regular delegates, but that is not how it is working this time around. Hillary is the more 'conventional' candidate and because of that, the party is throwing its support toward her while the people are choosing Obama. That sets them up for the potentially very ugly scenario of the 'back room nomination', where the person who got the most votes and regular delegates doesn't win the nomination just simply because the superdelegates have the power to swing it regardless of what their people want.

Very ironic situation for a party supposedly big on democracy - and an irony that will bite them in the ass if it happens. You think black votors felt disenfranchised by the Florida election problems a few years ago? Just wait to see how they react to being openly overruled by their own party and see how many show up on election day.

 

[russ_watters]

For Hillary to win, the remaining supers need to rally behind her like never before. She will likely need over 75% of the remaining supers to go for her, the losing candidate. Keep in mind that when most of the early supers announced their endorsement for her, she was all but the presumptive nominee, and with all that (and the Clinton political machine pulling all its got), she's only got a 4% lead among he supers.

In fact, if anything, it is the supers that will now hand Obama a victory more than anything else. Of the last 26 supers to announce endorsements, 15 went for Obama.

Here's the current picture: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html

One of the bigger remaining sticking points is what to do about Fla and Mich.

Hillary has said she will continue to the convention and I believe her. She must have done the math and must know that she doesn't have a legitimate shot at winning with the current status quo, even if she gets big wins in the remaining primaries. PA didn't really change anything - it just failed to finish her off. I'd really like to know if she has a plan. Is she simply hoping they choose to seat the Mich and Fla delegates? Or is she going to fight for them? Wouldn't it be Hillarious if she sued the party over them?!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In a truly democratic process, one would hope that the super delegates would vote for the person who won the most regular delegates, but that is not how it is working this time around.

If that was the only purpose of the superdelegates, then they would have no purpose at all. The idea of superdelegates is that in a close election, the decision would be in the hands of experienced politicians, not the unwashed masses. It is anti-democratic.

 

[BobG]

If that was the only purpose of the superdelegates, then they would have no purpose at all. The idea of superdelegates is that in a close election, the decision would be in the hands of experienced politicians, not the unwashed masses. It is anti-democratic.

They have several purposes:

1) They do have a significant say in who becomes the nominee. Relying so much on primaries is a fairly recent development. When Humphrey won the nomination in 1968, he didn't even run in the primaries. Party leaders have had less say every election since.

2) A trip to the convention is a major perk for party leaders. A lot of superdelegates are politicians, but a significant number are just folks who put in the time. Even if they had no say in the election, the party would still want to give them a trip to the convention.

3) Superdelegates don't really have the ability to rescue the party from a late campaign disaster anymore unless the nomination is really close, but that safeguard is one of the reasons they aren't eliminated. Imagine what a disaster it would be if a fellow Democrat managed to label the front runner as being for "amnesty, abortion, and acid" and that same Democrat wound up being the Vice Presidential nominee before it was discovered that he was the source for the quote. It would be such a disaster that a discovery that the VP nominee had undergone electroshock therapy earlier in his life would just be throwing dirt on the grave. (In fact, it's surprising that the 1972 fiasco didn't result in Democrats eliminating primaries altogether).

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

They have several purposes:

1) They do have a significant say in who becomes the nominee. Relying so much on primaries is a fairly recent development. When Humphrey won the nomination in 1968, he didn't even run in the primaries. Party leaders have had less say every election since.

This agrees with what I wrote. However, I wrote it better. If any candidate had come to the convention with 2025 regular delegates, then the superdelegates would have no say, significant or otherwise. It is only in close elections that their votes count at all.

2) A trip to the convention is a major perk for party leaders. A lot of superdelegates are politicians, but a significant number are just folks who put in the time. Even if they had no say in the election, the party would still want to give them a trip to the convention.

This doesn't seem relevant.

3) Superdelegates don't really have the ability to rescue the party from a late campaign disaster anymore unless the nomination is really close, but that safeguard is one of the reasons they aren't eliminated. Imagine what a disaster it would be if a fellow Democrat managed to label the front runner as being for "amnesty, abortion, and acid" and that same Democrat wound up being the Vice Presidential nominee before it was discovered that he was the source for the quote. It would be such a disaster that a discovery that the VP nominee had undergone electroshock therapy earlier in his life would just be throwing dirt on the grave. (In fact, it's surprising that the 1972 fiasco didn't result in Democrats eliminating primaries altogether).

This doesn't seem relevant either. They don't nominate a VP. And once they nominate a P, they can't take it back no matter what dirty secrets come out afterwards.

 

[Gokul43201]

One of the bigger remaining sticking points is what to do about Fla and Mich.
...
I'd really like to know if she has a plan. Is she simply hoping they choose to seat the Mich and Fla delegates? Or is she going to fight for them? Wouldn't it be Hillarious if she sued the party over them?!

Speaking of FL & MI, here's a quote from Terry McAuliffe's book, What a Party! (pp. 324, 325), talking about penalizing Michigan in 2004 for wanting to advance the date of their primary.

They thought I was bluffing. But it was my responsibility as chairman to take action for the good of the party, and taking away half their delegates was well within my authority. Now all the presidential candidates were upset. They were getting calls from Iowa and New Hampshire asking them to pledge to come to their states no matter what Michigan did, putting the candidates in an impossible position. The whole primary calendar was in danger of spinning out of control. The candidates kept calling me and asking what was happening with the schedule, and I made it clear that I was not going to let Michigan throw the entire process out of whack. Finally I'd had enough and scheduled a meeting in Carl's Senate office for April 2 to settle this once and for all.

As I was escorted into Carl's office with my staff, Debbie Dingell and Carl's chief of staff, David Lyles, were already sitting there waiting with Carl. Sparks flew when I sad down with Phil McNamara and Josh Wachs and immediately complained about all the leaks to the press, which led to finger-jabbing and shouting back and forth between various people in the meeting. Soon, Carl and I were going at it.

"I'm going outside the primary window," he told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make the case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move Michigan up on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

"Well, that was a good meeting," I told my shell-shocked staff on the way out of Carl's office.

(emphasis mine) "Carl", is Michigan Senator Carl Levin.

DNC Chair, Terry McAuliffe speaks a very different language than Hillary Clinton campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe. But I guess that ability is a prerequisite for being a part of her campaign.

 

[BobG]

This agrees with what I wrote. However, I wrote it better. If any candidate had come to the convention with 2025 regular delegates, then the superdelegates would have no say, significant or otherwise. It is only in close elections that their votes count at all.


This doesn't seem relevant.


This doesn't seem relevant either. They don't nominate a VP. And once they nominate a P, they can't take it back no matter what dirty secrets come out afterwards.

Actually, they do nominate a VP, except this has also become an almost archaic tradition. Nowadays, they always nominate whoever the Presidential candidate selects as his running mate. That, too, wasn't always the case.

My post isn't really to contradict yours. It's more a comment about why the change to allowing Democrat voters (and Republican voters, for that matter) to pick the nominee occurs so slowly. I think leaders of both parties would prefer to hold power among the party leadership if they could get away with it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Based on what Dean said this weekend, it appears to be most likely that the votes from Fl and Mi will be split, and the superdelegates from those States can vote how they want, as would be true anyway.

 

[turbo]

Based on what Dean said this weekend, it appears to be most likely that the votes from Fl and Mi will be split, and the superdelegates from those States can vote how they want, as would be true anyway.

Ooh! Clinton will fight that tooth and nail! She "won" those contests fair and square. Just ask her.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

She "won" those contests fair and square. Just ask her.

Yep, just more sleeze from the Clintons.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Does this help?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24437039"

 

[Gokul43201]

About as much as these:
Republicans kill babies
Republicans love clowns
Republicans say military is unimportant

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is the first time that I've ever seen press coverage of the Guam election results. Too funny!

 

[Astronuc]

Who Will Tell the People?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html
by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, NYTimes Op-Ed Columnist

Traveling the country these past five months while writing a book, I’ve had my own opportunity to take the pulse, far from the campaign crowds. My own totally unscientific polling has left me feeling that if there is one overwhelming hunger in our country today it’s this: People [Americans] want to do nation-building. They really do. But they want to do nation-building in America.

. . . .

That’s why Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous defense of why he did not originally send more troops to Iraq is the mantra of our times: “You go to war with the army you have.” Hey, you march into the future with the country you have — not the one that you need, not the one you want, not the best you could have.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I flew from New York’s Kennedy Airport to Singapore. In J.F.K.’s waiting lounge we could barely find a place to sit. Eighteen hours later, we landed at Singapore’s ultramodern airport, with free Internet portals and children’s play zones throughout. We felt, as we have before, like we had just flown from the Flintstones to the Jetsons. If all Americans could compare Berlin’s luxurious central train station today with the grimy, decrepit Penn Station in New York City, they would swear we were the ones who lost World War II.

How could this be? We are a great power. How could we be borrowing money from Singapore? Maybe it’s because Singapore is investing billions of dollars, from its own savings, into infrastructure and scientific research to attract the world’s best talent — including Americans.

. . . .

Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.

Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.

. . . .

From my experience of traveling internationally, I'm always amazed at the difference between foreign cities and ports of entry, and those of the US. Many of the US airports look run down compared to foreign airports in the industrialized countries, although I have seen slight improvements at JFK, and Newark (EWR) Airport is actually quite nice.

America needs to be investing in America. Deferred maintenance on the national infrastructure is a growing problem, as the American Society of Civil Engineers reminds us annually.

 

[Gokul43201]

I spent the weekend in Bloomington Indiana, volunteering (knocking 'n' talking) for an undisclosed candidate. It was quite an educational experience!

 

[turbo]

America needs to be investing in America. Deferred maintenance on the national infrastructure is a growing problem, as the American Society of Civil Engineers reminds us annually.

The state of our public infrastructure is shameful and deferring proper maintenance will cost us far more in the long run than we know. Hillary and McCain want to give us all a gas-tax holiday for the summer, robbing our highway maintenance budget of sorely-needed revenue. If they want to bring down the price of fuel, they should get together in a bi-partisan partnership and ram a bill through Congress requiring that Bush immediately stop adding to the strategic petroleum reserve. It's idiotic to crimp oil supplies and waste money adding to the reserve while oil prices are at record highs and production is maxed out. Bush's oil-company buddies are raking it in, laughing at how we are being played for suckers.

 

[mheslep]

I spent the weekend in Bloomington Indiana, volunteering (knocking 'n' talking) for an undisclosed candidate. It was quite an educational experience!

Good for you Gokul. There is nothing like going door to door and being allowed to enter someone's home to talk about a candidate for learning about democracy and elections. One might think there would be a lot of rudeness but I found it to be incredibly civil, 99% so, even when knocking on doors of those that you know ahead of time oppose your candidate.

 

[Astronuc]

I'll go with Obama to win NC and IN primaries today. I expect IN might be close.

 

[lisab]

I think Clinton will take Indiana, but by such a small margin the delegates will be evenly split. Obama will take North Carolina.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I spent the weekend in Bloomington Indiana, volunteering (knocking 'n' talking) for an undisclosed candidate. It was quite an educational experience!

It must have been difficult to push the appropriate agenda if no one knows who the candidate is.

Seriously, my hat is off to you, Mr. Gokul.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'll go with Obama to win NC and IN primaries today. I expect IN might be close.

I think Clinton will take Indiana, but by such a small margin the delegates will be evenly split. Obama will take North Carolina.

Trends from the last 1 week of polling data suggest Obama by 5-9 points in NC and Clinton by 4-8 in IN. The most recent polls (both Zogby) have shown better numbers for Obama, but I've noticed this in the past with their data.

Good for you Gokul. There is nothing like going door to door and being allowed to enter someone's home to talk about a candidate for learning about democracy and elections. One might think there would be a lot of rudeness but I found it to be incredibly civil, 99% so, even when knocking on doors of those that you know ahead of time oppose your candidate.

It must have been difficult to push the appropriate agenda if no one knows who the candidate is.

Seriously, my hat is off to you, Mr. Gokul.

Thanks, you two.

Ivan, get your hat back on, grab Integral, Tsu and anyone else around you and get moving. Oregon is right round the corner...

 

[Art]

Based on the polls consistently exaggerating Obama's vote I'd say Clinton IN by ~9 points and Obama NC by ~5 points or less.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, get your hat back on, grab Integral, Tsu and anyone else around you and get moving. Oregon is right round the corner...

eeeek, truthfully I hadn't even thought about it. Since when does the Oregon vote matter?!

Get this: Something has changed and as an Independent, I can't vote in the primary. I could have re-registered as a Dem, but I'm an Independent for good reason and won't compromise my principles now.

 

[turbo]

I think the Gokulator is about on with his prediction. Heavy early turnout in Barak-leaning regions of IN was looking good for him, but the most dependable voters are older women, and they will likely hand Clinton a thin margin of victory today. NC for Obama, but by single digits. Clinton will not get out of this race. In fact, operatives in her campaign say that they will use what they call the "Nuclear Option" to force the credentialing committee to seat the MI and FL delegates she claims to have won. If she pulls that off, we'll see hordes of black voters voting for McCain or staying home.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/clinton-camp-considering_n_100051.html

 

[turbo]

eeeek, truthfully I hadn't even thought about it. Since when does the Oregon vote matter?!

Get this: Something has changed and as an Independent, I can't vote in the primary. I could have re-registered as a Dem, but I'm an Independent for good reason and won't compromise my principles now.

I think that the last time I registered, it was as a Democrat, to get the opportunity to vote for a pro-labor candidate for Congress in the primaries. I have changed affiliations over the years to support candidates I like, not as a spoiler. I wish the Republicans had put up a more intelligent presidential candidate this year, instead of the more-of-the-same-Bush idiot. Why can't Republicans dig into their party and come up with decent thoughtful candidates like Bill Cohen - former Maine senator, former Secretary of Defense? We could have a First Lady of African-American descent!

 

[lisab]

Why can't Republicans dig into their party and come up with decent thoughtful candidates like Bill Cohen - former Maine senator, former Secretary of Defense? We could have a First Lady of African-American descent!

We still could !

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm an Independent for good reason and won't compromise my principles now.

Yeah, this is a bad time for it.

 

[chemisttree]

Trends from the last 1 week of polling data suggest Obama by 5-9 points in NC and Clinton by 4-8 in IN. The most recent polls (both Zogby) have shown better numbers for Obama, but I've noticed this in the past with their data.

Zogby does poll stronger for Obama than Clinton. A nice review of the pollsters is posted on the http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/6/9452/28619/919/509617" . Zogby has been quite off this primary season.

Survey USA has the best record of those examined and is slightly +Clinton.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=06dd4624-776e-440d-811a-79584a511f2f". 12% sounds a bit off, though. We'll see...

 

[G01]

Obama in Both States, by small margins, but a somewhat bigger small margin in NC.

Is that a vague enough prediction for everyone?

 

[Gokul43201]

Exit polls in IN give Hillary a 4 point win, but early counting (20% reporting) has her with a 14% margin.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IN

NC exit polls give Obama a 13% margin, and CNN has called the race for him there. Polls just closed minutes ago in NC.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NC

 

[Gokul43201]

With 72% complete in IN, Hillary's lead is down to 5%. Most remaining numbers are to come from Bloomington, Indy and Gary. This may end up being pretttty close!

 

[G01]

MSNBC has just changed IN status from "too early to call" to "too close to call."

Looks like it's going to be an exciting night. Hilary's lead down by 4...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Woohoo, not a good night for Clinton.

 

[Gokul43201]

What you really need to know if you will be voting in Oregon: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24474746#24377512
(wait for 1:14)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was wondering why Obama Girl answered the phone when I called the help line.

 

[Gokul43201]

You didn't ask her (or was Tsu around)?

Things are essentially decided now.

Obama will win NC by at least 13%, and Clinton will win IN by at least 3%.

We seem to have reached some kind of hiccup with the counting in IN, with 57% of Marion county (Bloomington and neighborhood), and 100% of Lake County (Gary...) not reporting for the last hour or more.

Curiously, if Obama narrows the margin in IN to less than 3.0%, then CNN will report it as 2% for Hillary!

 

[russ_watters]

Woohoo, not a good night for Clinton.

Dunno, she seems pretty optomistic to me!

We've come from behind, we've broken the tide and thanks to you it's full speed on to the White House!"

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/05/clinton-full-sp.html

 

[Gokul43201]

She may yet have to eat those words!

Holy cow...are the numbers from Gary looking good for Obama...way better than I'd expected. Clinton's lead is now down to 2% and falling fast...real fast!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Re Russ: She needed a larger victory in IN and a smaller loss in NC. This may effectively be the end for Hillary - money and superdelegates.

Re Gokul, YES! Obama still has a chance.

 

[Gokul43201]

The race in Indiana is over and Hillary won by 1.8%. The final numbers from Lake County actually went Hillary's way, just as predicted by David Schuster on MSNBC.

 

[russ_watters]

Re Russ: She needed a larger victory in IN and a smaller loss in NC. This may effectively be the end for Hillary - money and superdelegates.

No, I agree, I just thought it was funny. Hillary picked-up 10 delegates in PA and considered that a huge win, but tonight she lost 20. That really should be it for her.

I asked this before: does she have a plan?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Clinton's decisive win in the primary last night proves once again that she is the clear choice for the Democrats. I expect Obama to drop out before the next round of primaries. The math is against him. Here are the numbers:

Delegates: Obama only has 1622, far short of the 2025 he would need to win.
Superdelegates: Obama only has 254, far short of Clinton's 273.
States: Of the last three primaries, It's Clinton 2, Obama 1. Even though he said Indiana was the tie breaker.
Popular vote: Clinton got 638,274 to Obama's 615,862. And this in Indiana alone.

Our next President is going to have to explain our defeats in Iraq as if they were victories. Who better than Clinton to take over that responsibility?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Last night McCain also came one step closer to defeating his opponent, 'anyone but McCain'. He picked up an impressive upset victory with 74% of the vote in North Carolina, and 78% in Indiana. McShane McBlain McClane, spokesperson for the McCain campaign called on the republican party to unite. However, exit polls found little support for McCain. Voters said they were simply voting for anyone but 'anyone but McCain'. Sillary Clinten, spokesperson for the 'anyone but McCain' camp vowed to stay in the race until 2012.

 

[drankin]

We've got an anyone but Hillary camp and an anyone but McCain camp. Conservatives get the bad deal this election.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Based on everything that I'm hearing, less Clinton's rhetoric, it seems that this race is over:

OBAMA IS THE WINNER!

Did anyone catch Hillary's blooper the other night? She said ~ "No matter how this turns out, I will support the nominee for the Democratic Party" She was implicity acknowledging her defeat.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare... If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/05/obama_speaks_ou.html

PASTOR JOHN HAGEE: John McCain will be a strong courageous and effective leader from the first day...

BILL MOYERS: That's John Hagee, pastor of a conservative mega church in Texas and one of television's most powerful prophets of the end times, anointing John McCain for the White House:

PASTOR JOHN HAGEE: To lead America into a bright and promising future. Ladies and gentleman ...

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/watch.html

I think people can make judgments accordingly.

 

[Astronuc]

I heard a comment from a political scientist the other day stating that the three candidates: McCain, Clinton and Obama, got as far as they did precisely because they have the support of corporate/political interests and lobbyists. So don't expect much change in the election process or subsequent government operation, as of Jan 20, 2009.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I seems to me that Obama has gotten as far as he has because of internet donations. Where is the corporate money? Something like 90% of his money comes from donations less than $100...

 

[Poop-Loops]

90% of his donations or 90% of his total money came from donations that were <$100?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I believe it is 90% of his money, but either way, donations are limited to $2500 per person, so the two numbers shouldn't be that far apart. And it doesn't leave much room for bundlers.