News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[turbo]

I'm not so sure running Clinton on the ticket would help Obama win. I'm not sure what she'd actually bring to the party. For victory they need to win over the uncommitted voters many of whom might support Obama but detest Clinton so much they wouldn't vote for him if she's part of the package which probably cancels out the female voters who will defect if she is not on the ticket.

Obama's main problem is I would think with a hardcore sizeable minority of racist voters particularly from the Hispanic community whose prejudices probably won't be overcome by Clinton's presence either.

I would like to see Obama pick Bill Richardson as VP. Smart, skilled diplomat, former secretary of energy, and a man who can work across party lines. Such a choice would also help Obama with the hispanic voters.

 

[Gokul43201]

According to this site: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html" Clinton needs to get 5.5 delegates for each delegate that Obama gets, going forward. That's considerably better than she did in WV and KY. In fact, it's rare that you can get people to agree with each other that much about anything. The good news for her is that Obama got 7 delegates to her 1 delegate since May 25, so it can be done.

Now that's fuzzy math! It's much easier to win supers by a large margin than it is to win pledged delegates. Clinton needs to win total delegates by a better than 5 to 1 ratio, while Obama has gained supers over the last few days by a 7 to 1 ratio. The latter is like eating a lollipop, and the former, like trying to pitch one into orbit around the Earth.

Here's what a more likely scenario looks like - let's weight it in Clinton's favor to see if she can pull off a win: Obama is currently 44 delegates short of 2026. In Puerto Rico, if Clinton wins by 20%, Obama gets 22 delegates. Obama is expected to win the remaining two races, but let's give Clinton a 10% win in both SD and MT - that gives Obama 15 delegates from those states. This leaves him only about 7 supers shy of the 2026 target. Clinton will have to start winning over supers by a 30 to 1 ratio to stop Obama short...and she will have to start now.

Most likely, Obama will have these 7 supers on his side by Tuesday, but by then, the Rules Committee may have made a decision. The math changes if some fraction of MI & FL delegates get seated, depending on the fraction and on how they are distributed among the candidates. It may actually be in Hillary's interests to have a decision reached by Sunday about seating MI & FL. If not, the magic number remains 2026 for the moment and Obama gets to make a BIG announcement Tuesday night, when he will cross that number. Add this to the likely scenario that it will also be a victory speech for the last two races in the contest, and that might cause a superdelegate tidal wave.

 

[BobG]

Now that's fuzzy math! It's much easier to win supers by a large margin than it is to win pledged delegates. Clinton needs to win total delegates by a better than 5 to 1 ratio, while Obama has gained supers over the last few days by a 7 to 1 ratio. The latter is like eating a lollipop, and the former, like trying to pitch one into orbit around the Earth.

Here's what a more likely scenario looks like - let's weight it in Clinton's favor to see if she can pull off a win: Obama is currently 44 delegates short of 2026. In Puerto Rico, if Clinton wins by 20%, Obama gets 22 delegates. Obama is expected to win the remaining two races, but let's give Clinton a 10% win in both SD and MT - that gives Obama 15 delegates from those states. This leaves him only about 7 supers shy of the 2026 target. Clinton will have to start winning over supers by a 30 to 1 ratio to stop Obama short...and she will have to start now.

Most likely, Obama will have these 7 supers on his side by Tuesday, but by then, the Rules Committee may have made a decision. The math changes if some fraction of MI & FL delegates get seated, depending on the fraction and on how they are distributed among the candidates. It may actually be in Hillary's interests to have a decision reached by Sunday about seating MI & FL. If not, the magic number remains 2026 for the moment and Obama gets to make a BIG announcement Tuesday night, when he will cross that number. Add this to the likely scenario that it will also be a victory speech for the last two races in the contest, and that might cause a superdelegate tidal wave.

Tough to say. There's no way she gets the majority of pledged delegates no matter what happens with Florida and Michigan. Getting the two states in play only helps her claim that she won the majority of the popular vote and hope that sparks a landslide of superdelegates towards her. That would probably be very unrealistic at this time.

Her best bet might be to hope she still looks like a better bet for the general in August, when we're closer and people are paying more attention to the polls. I think getting the superdelegates to wait until August is about as unrealistic as expecting them to flood to her at the end of this week.

I really think she's cooked either way. I think Obama has a majority by the end of next week regardless of whether MI/FL receive all their delegates, half their delegates, or none of their delegates.

 

[lisab]

Getting the two states in play only helps her claim that she won the majority of the popular vote and hope that sparks a landslide of superdelegates towards her.

She keeps using that term "popular vote," and she says we need to count the all votes (meaning FL and MI). Well, I live in a caucus state. I took the time to go to caucus - twice, because I was a delegate. The term she's using - "popular vote" - doesn't include votes from caucus states.

Why won't she count MY vote?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

She keeps using that term "popular vote," and she says we need to count the all votes (meaning FL and MI). Well, I live in a caucus state. I took the time to go to caucus - twice, because I was a delegate. The term she's using - "popular vote" - doesn't include votes from caucus states.

Why won't she count MY vote?

She was also assuming that she would get all of the votes cast when Obama wasn't even on the ticket. This in part is the sort of dishonesty that is driving superdelegates to Obama.

 

[turbo]

I'm also in a caucus state - one which Obama won handily, despite the fact that fewer than 1% of Maine's citizens are black. Why couldn't Clinton carry a state in which people are less-educated and lower-income than the national average? And why don't we count in her twisted math?

 

[Gokul43201]

Tough to say. There's no way she gets the majority of pledged delegates no matter what happens with Florida and Michigan. Getting the two states in play only helps her claim that she won the majority of the popular vote and hope that sparks a landslide of superdelegates towards her. That would probably be very unrealistic at this time.

Her popular vote argument rings hollow to anyone with even half a brain. I imagine most superdelegates have more than half a brain each (even if they're Delegates Abroad).

 

[G01]

Tough to say. There's no way she gets the majority of pledged delegates no matter what happens with Florida and Michigan. Getting the two states in play only helps her claim that she won the majority of the popular vote and hope that sparks a landslide of superdelegates towards her. That would probably be very unrealistic at this time.

Even if she decides to use the "I have the popular vote with FL and MI counted" argument, can't the Obama camp refute her by pointing out that that margin is meaningless since the people of Michigan were not even able to vote for him, since he followed the rules and removed himself from the ballot?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Now that's fuzzy math!

I've given this some thought and I have come to agree with you. Obama getting 7 superdelegates to 1 superdelegate for Clinton is not such good news for Clinton after all.

 

[mathwonk]

when we got our latest appeal to give money yesterday, my wife pointed out to me why hillary is doing real harm to her party by dragging out a losing fight. there is a finite amount of money that supporters are willing to give to a political campaign, and the democrats are wasting most of it fighting each other.

i for instance am about given out, and the election campaign has not even begun.

although mccain has raised less money than either obama or hilary, that is misleading since he does not need any money for his nomination campaign. the money is going to the republican party for the election campaign.

so hilary has wasted something like over 100 million dollars in her effort, while obama has raised over 200 million.

this is far more than mccain, but the republican party has something like twice as much money as the democratic party.

elections are won with money in the us, and dirty tricks of course, and the state of the economy,... but this makes me finally change my mind about the long primary being just a display of free speech. it seems like a very wasteful and potentially losing financial strategy for the democrats.

what do you think? i have not read or heard anything about this angle anywhere.

 

[BobG]

Her popular vote argument rings hollow to anyone with even half a brain. I imagine most superdelegates have more than half a brain each (even if they're Delegates Abroad).

I think Reagan had more popular votes than Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries, as well. Another primary battle that went all the way to the convention.

 

[quadraphonics]

Even if she decides to use the "I have the popular vote with FL and MI counted" argument, can't the Obama camp refute her by pointing out that that margin is meaningless since the people of Michigan were not even able to vote for him, since he followed the rules and removed himself from the ballot?

Sure, but responding to the arguments of a candidacy that is manifestly dead in the water would be a waste of time. It would only legitimize Hillary's refusal to accept reality and drop out. Obama's energy would be better spent finding a VP and positioning himself relative to McCain.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

elections are won with money in the us,

The two most important things in politics are money, and I forget the other one.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think Reagan had more popular votes than Ford in the 1976 Republican primaries, as well.

The "as well" is misplaced. Hillary doesn't have more popular votes than Obama by any reasonable reckoning of the numbers. If the candidates were prevented from campaigning in all of the states, Hillary would have wound up with thrice the popular vote of Obama.

Another primary battle that went all the way to the convention.

And how good that was for the Republican nominee? And the previous instance that there was a divisive Convention battle was 1968 DNC (the one Hillary talks about to make the case that long primary battles are good for the party), when the Dem lost the general election.

How far back to we have to go to find the winner in a contested Convention win the general election?

 

[mheslep]

...How far back to we have to go to find the winner in a contested Convention win the general election?

I think '48 would qualify thematically, even though there was not another challenger inside the party. Everybody was convinced Truman would lose the general election, the convention itself was poorly run, some Southern delegates walked out and nominated Strom Thurmond for their own Dixiecrats spin off, and even more Dems spun off to the Progressive party under Henry Wallace. Truman beat them all.

 

[BobG]

And how good that was for the Republican nominee? And the previous instance that there was a divisive Convention battle was 1968 DNC (the one Hillary talks about to make the case that long primary battles are good for the party), when the Dem lost the general election.

How far back to we have to go to find the winner in a contested Convention win the general election?

It's hard to compare past history with so few examples, and 1968 was so turbulent that it makes a really poor example.

Ford in '76 and Carter in '80 make the best examples, but both were incumbents. The fact that they faced a serious challenge in the primaries in the first place was more an indication that they were likely to be beaten than the cause of their being beaten (although Truman showed that's no sure thing).

And, in Ford's case, he cut a 34 point deficit to a 2 point deficit between the Republican Convention and the election. I'm not sure what that shows - that Reagan crippled him with a poor start that was impossible to overcome or that the impression formed during the general election winds up being more important than the primaries.

Carter was toast no matter what. The only reason he survived Kennedy's challenge was the Iran hostage crisis. Carter had a short rise in popularity as President in a national crisis and beat Kennedy in most of the early states. Unfortunately, he couldn't resolve the crisis, his ratings dropped, Kennedy beat him in just about all the late states, and things never got any better for the general election. The hostage crisis had more effect on the '76 election than Kennedy, otherwise Carter wouldn't even have won the nomination. (In fact, Clinton's claim is more similar to Edward Kennedy's situation even if Kennedy's claim was a lot stronger).

I don't think you could say a fight all the way to the convention is a good thing, but I sure wouldn't be betting on it turning into a disaster based on so few examples. I think what happens in Iraq and what happens to the economy over the summer is going to have a lot bigger impact than an Obama-Clinton fight to the finish.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't think you could say a fight all the way to the convention is a good thing,

This is the contention of the HRC campaign. Well, they have argued, at the very least, that it can't be a bad thing.

but I sure wouldn't be betting on it turning into a disaster based on so few examples.

Agreed. But it seems those are the only examples we have, and not a single one helps the Clinton case.

I think what happens in Iraq and what happens to the economy over the summer is going to have a lot bigger impact than an Obama-Clinton fight to the finish.

Possibly. I can't argue that a convention fight will certainly doom the Obama campaign, but a unified convention could do him a whole lot of good. And this is particularly important for a candidate that is young and relatively unknown to the people - an overwhelming endorsement by the DNC will allay a lot of doubt that voters seem to be plagued by.

 

[BobG]

If they divide the delegates 50-50, will Michigan residents be fooled into thinking they've been included?

What a mess. They should have penalized them 50% right off the bat. There is no good resolution for Michigan.

 

[turbo]

No matter how the delegates are divided, if the DNC does not give Clinton exactly what she wants, she stays in the race. To get her out, the DNC should give Clinton EXACTLY what she wants in return for all the uncommitted superdelegates pledging to Obama. That way, she will have NO reason to stay in the race, and anything short of a gracious concession will damage her legacy beyond repair. Pelosi and Reid should have rallied the Dem superdelegates and put such a deal together weeks ago, but Dems seem to have a huge capacity for self-destruction.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Either way, we will know about FL and MI before long.

This is more exciting than waiting for the Pope smoke to change colors at the Vatican!

 

[BobG]

No matter how the delegates are divided, if the DNC does not give Clinton exactly what she wants, she stays in the race. To get her out, the DNC should give Clinton EXACTLY what she wants in return for all the uncommitted superdelegates pledging to Obama. That way, she will have NO reason to stay in the race, and anything short of a gracious concession will damage her legacy beyond repair. Pelosi and Reid should have rallied the Dem superdelegates and put such a deal together weeks ago, but Dems seem to have a huge capacity for self-destruction.

The funny thing is that the nomination is virtually a done deal. Lost in the RFK quote is the fact that she was having to discuss why she was still in the race. If debate over whether she should quit or not is bigger than the debate over issues, did she have any chance any more?

She hasn't handled the tail end of a losing campaign near as well as Huckabee did. Then again, no one has defended why she should stay in the race better than Huckabee did. I can't find his interview after Clinton's RFK comments, but his comments showed a lot more class than most (I guess he can sympathize both with a losing campaign, plus really dumb comments).

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/dems.delegates/index.html?iref=topnews

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Members of a Democratic rules committee voted on Saturday to seat all of Florida's delegation to the party's national convention and give its delegates a half vote each.
. . . .

Lawyers for the committee advised in a memo CNN obtained this week that the committee's rules call for 50 percent of the delegations to be seated.

Seating all of the states' delegates is not on the table, the committee Co-chairwoman Alexis Herman said in her opening remarks.
. . . . .

The chairman of Michigan's Democratic Party called on the committee to seat Michigan's delegation in full, with full voting rights, and divide the pledged delegates between Clinton and Obama, 69-59.

In Michigan, Clinton got 55 percent of the vote, and 40 percent of Democrats voted for an uncommitted slate.

Mark Brewer admitted under questioning from the panel that the party had not followed any set guidelines in determining the split but had reached this compromise because "we have to do something in this situation; we can't do nothing. I wish there were more, I wish it were better, but it's all we have."

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

MIchigan delegates will get half votes too.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080531/ap_on_el_pr/primary_scramble"

 

[Art]

Perhaps Clinton and her supporters should have a look at this you tube broadcast from last October when while defending leaving her name on the Michigan ballot she states it doesn't matter because it's clear this election is not going to count for anything'

Hillary is a pathological liar.

I find it extraordinary that some democrats who have spent the past 7 years complaining about lies emanating from the Whitehouse are almost desperate in their determination to get a proven liar elected to the role of president.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm very surprised by that outcome. I don't see any logic in it at all.

 

[lisab]

I'm very surprised by that outcome. I don't see any logic in it at all.

Well, it's a compromise. As for me, I think rules are rules, and neither FL nor MI should have been seated. They knew the rules and broke them, trying to jump ahead on the calendar.

In those two states the electorate should throw out the state party leaders, in any case.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm very surprised by that outcome. I don't see any logic in it at all.

Which outcome? Can you elaborate?

 

[BobG]

Well, it's a compromise. As for me, I think rules are rules, and neither FL nor MI should have been seated. They knew the rules and broke them, trying to jump ahead on the calendar.

In those two states the electorate should throw out the state party leaders, in any case.

For both parties, losing their "super delegates" would have been the best punishment (Repbublicans have them too; just not as many). In both parties' primaries, voters from those states lost out because they had no control of the primary calendar. For both parties, the superdelegates are elected officials and party officials from that state.

Taking away the superdelegates would have been a personal blow against the officials responsible for moving up the primaries instead of a blow against voters of that state. The voters may focus on the votes, but attendance at the National Conventions is every bit as important as how many votes a state gets to the people either allowed or prevented from attending the convention.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I listened to a good deal of yesterday's rules committee hearing. I learned a lot that I hadn't known. For one thing, the primary date in Florida was not set by the Democrats at all. It was decided in the Florida legislature which is controlled by Republicans. In addition to the primary, there was a referendum. If the Democrats had boycotted the primary, they would have lost on the referendum.

Everyone who spoke at the hearing had lofty words to say about fairness, but in reality, it was hypocrisy. The issue being debated was not Florida and Michigan, it was Clinton and Obama. The head of the Democratic party in Florida made an impassioned plea to let the people of Florida be represented and have his state's delegates counted half (Obama's position). When he was asked if he would support his own state's delegates to be fully represented (Clinton's position), he was tongue-tied.

The Clinton position on Michigan was that it should be counted the way it went down, 73 delegates for Clinton, 55 for uncommitted, 0 for Obama. While I think that Kim Jong Il could see the logic in that, the rules committee decided to let it pass. Obama's position was that Michigan should count 64 delegates each. In other words, their votes count, but not toward the nomination. The compromise was to give Michigan half of its votes but apparently there are two ways to do that. In one method, half of Michigan's delegates would go to the convention, in the other they would all go, but they would get a half vote each. For some reason, the former would have given Clinton, 4 more, and Obama, 4 less delegates. The rules committee went with the latter and that is what Ickes was going on about when he said that 4 delegates had been hijacked. He said that Clinton had told him that she reserved the right to reopen the issue at the convention, but I wonder if she also told him to say that out loud. To me it came off as an ominous threat. And probably a pointless one. As soon as he can safely do so, Obama is going to suggest that all the Florigan delegates be counted with Michigan's uncommitted going to him. On that day hypocrites will be coming out of the walls like the cockroaches that they are. And that day may be Wednesday. I heard that there are a lot of Obama supporting superdelegates who are holding back till the last primary is over. Clinton supporting superdelegates have a strong incentive not to wait, so I don't expect an offsetting rush for her.

 

[Gokul43201]

When he was asked if he would support his own state's delegates to be fully represented (Clinton's position), he was tongue-tied.

And understandably so. Florida's votes should not have counted at all, and their voters (who are partly to blame for not kicking up this same fuss back in December) were disenfranchised in January, not on on May 31. What was decided yesterday was to hand Clinton a bunch of delegates from states that did not have legal primaries. Heck, if Clinton wanted the system rigged in her favor she would just have had to find a way to make more of these primaries where the candidates were not allowed to introduce themselves to the electorate - that would have gotten her a landslide victory.