News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Astronuc]

And we have another 10 months to go! or

 

[Gokul43201]

Thanks for the update Bob!

Points?

We're running a Fantasy League. See the first page of posts for how it works.

And you can join anytime!

 

[Gokul43201]

What's the final verdict on Fl - Dem delegates? Will they count, or won't they?

I recall reading in the news a while ago, that the ban will likely not withstand a court challenge. So far, I'm not aware of any such challenge, but I assume Floridians are going to go ahead and vote, nevertheless. The candidates are adhering to a state party pledge to not campaign there so I fully expect the results to favor Clinton by about a dozen points.

 

[BobG]

What's the final verdict on Fl - Dem delegates? Will they count, or won't they?

I recall reading in the news a while ago, that the ban will likely not withstand a court challenge. So far, I'm not aware of any such challenge, but I assume Floridians are going to go ahead and vote, nevertheless. The candidates are adhering to a state party pledge to not campaign there so I fully expect the results to favor Clinton by about a dozen points.

How can Florida delegates count if Michigan delegates don't? Moving the primaries up in spite of the penalties was a gamble that the nomination would be wrapped up by convention time and that delegates would still get their trip to Denver. If the nomination is close enough to depend on Michigan and Florida, then it will be an interesting summer.

A meaningless ballot in which Clinton was the only major candidate still attracted 600,000 in Michigan, so I would expect the Florida turnout to be pretty strong.

If the Republicans are really, really close, I imagine there will be some noise about the states that were penalized half their delegates, as well. Half of Michigan's and Florida's delegates is still a fairly large chunk of delegates.

 

[lisab]

.

It seems to me that with Hillary's exceedingly high negatives, something like this could easily throw the election to the Reps.

I'm with you on that, Ivan. I think she was planning to use Bill in the general election as her saving grace to overcome her significant negatives. Say what you will about him, he can campaign with the best of them.

But I don't think he's been doing her much good, lately. He comes off as too angry.

Say it with me: O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!

 

[falc39]

lol

McCain talks about president Putin, of Germany.

hahahahaha

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=36a_1200899945"

He already has lost all credibility with me on Iraq after the baghdad marketplace lie and the "make it 100!" statement. Oh yea, and plus that reporter thrashing him.

There was also this other time where he referred to Canada as part of Europe in a debate. http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4091842

If you listen closely you can hear Ron Paul make fun of him after the statement.

 

[Gokul43201]

Early to be looking this far out, but what the heck...

This electoral vote projection has McCain beating Obama and Clinton in the general election:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Jan22.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Jan21.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Thompson's out. Finally.

Rudy could be next. Florida is going to kick him in the ballot[/color]s! He must now depend on NY and NJ to make something work for him! But McCain is uncomfortably close in both states.

 

[Gokul43201]

How can Florida delegates count if Michigan delegates don't?

I only ever read anything about Florida wanting to sue the DNC.

 

[wildman]

My picks for Iowa:

Democrats
1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards

Republicans
1. Huckabee
2. Romney
3. McCain

Wow! You are really good.

 

[Gokul43201]

Wow! You are really good.

Hardly! Most others here were more accurate on Iowa. See post#68.

 

[jim mcnamara]

<< marginal picture deleted by berkeman >>

I wonder what marginal means in this context? Most of what the candidates discuss is marginal IMO, so maybe we can get berkeman to delete them from the race

By this I mean that that candidates revert to divisive issues like race or abortion or flag waving rather than substantive issues. The impending Recession which is a substantive topic, was, IMO, caused by the fact that the politcos have failed to understand how greed in the banking industry helped to cause Black Friday in 1929, and how our current impending downturn has similar root causes. However, candidate discussion is all about band-aids, or about finding reasons to perpetuate ideology (lowering taxes or giving public money to the poor and middle class), not solving the problem permanently.

 

[BobG]

Rudy could be next. Florida is going to kick him in the ballot[/color]s! He must now depend on NY and NJ to make something work for him! But McCain is uncomfortably close in both states.

This is the most shocking development of the race. I know the 'experts' point out the fact that no one has successfully pursued the strategy Giuliani's pursuing successfully, but the early primaries went almost to perfection. The only way they could have gone better would be to have Thompson win South Carolina.

I'm really stumped by how he could be running low on money. He didn't campaign heavily in the early states, so, if he spent his money, it had to be somewhere else. Maybe somewhere besides Florida? He sure doesn't seemed to have gained any advantage in Florida by avoiding the distraction of Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.

Giuliani came into the primaries as the nearly overwhelming front runner and could disappear from the race without even making a noise!

In even more bad news for Giuliani, Duncan Hunter endorsed Mike Huckabee. Don't be mislead by how few votes Hunter got in the primaries. I'm absolutely positive Americans have been waiting eagerly for Hunter to give them voting advice. (How in the world am I leading the PF 2008 FLFFTNODBTVPCIASBSB when I find it possible to make statements like that!)

 

[lisab]

And another one down...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22827738/

He wasn't in the poll, though.

 

[mheslep]

And another one down...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22827738/

He wasn't in the poll, though.

Looks like Kucinich is going lose his House seat too.

 

[DeadWolfe]

Looks like Kucinich is going lose his House seat too.

That's tragic.

 

[Astronuc]

Rudy could be next. Florida is going to kick him in the ballot[/color]s! He must now depend on NY and NJ to make something work for him! But McCain is uncomfortably close in both states.

Locally, I've heard that NY Republicans are favoring McCain over Giuliani.

 

[falc39]

Locally, I've heard that NY Republicans are favoring McCain over Giuliani.

This is what I have a hard time understanding. Can anyone tell me why people are favoring Mccain? I thought the '100 years war' statement would be the end of him, but I guess not.

I mean, how can you even trust a guy who says "I wish interest rates were zero."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just wait... We had a thread about McCain melting down not too long ago. IIRC someone [I think Evo] even mentioned how sad it is when people get old and start losing it. I can't help but think that sometime before Novermber he is going to have a problem in the public view.

Everything else aside: The job ages a man [or woman?] ten or twenty years in four, and McCain is already too old.

 

[Gokul43201]

This is what I have a hard time understanding. Can anyone tell me why people are favoring Mccain? I thought the '100 years war' statement would be the end of him, but I guess not.I mean, how can you even trust a guy who says "I wish interest rates were zero."

Are you forgetting that McCain is not running as a Democrat? An aggressive foreign policy statement will not hurt him nearly as much in his Primary as it will in the general election.

 

[Astronuc]

South Carolina
Democratic:
1. Obama (doing well there)
2. Edwards (homey)
3. Clinton (south will be tough for her)

Revising:
1. Obama (doing well there)
2. Clinton
3. Edwards


In Florida:
Democrats
1. Clinton
2. Obama
3. Edwards

 

[Gokul43201]

South Carolina
1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards

In Florida:
Democrats
1. Clinton
2. Obama
3. Edwards

Florida doesn't count for the Dems. Put down Florida predictions only for the Reps.

 

[Gokul43201]

I wonder what marginal means in this context?

Marginal = belonging in the margin.

Ever since Fermat pulled his last trick, all marginal things have gotten a bad rap. In PF, aything marginal is considered highly speculative, and probably unprovable.

 

[Astronuc]

Florida:
Republicans:

1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Giuliani
4. Huckabee

I think it will be close between Romney and McCain.

 

[Evo]

South Carolina
1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards

Florida:
Republicans:

1. Romney
2. McCain
3. Giuliani

 

[Ivan Seeking]

SC
1). Obama
2). Clinton
3). Edwards

 

[Art]

S.C.
Dems

1 Obama
2 Clinton
3 Edwards

Fl
GOP
1 Romney
2 McCain
3 Giuliani

 

[BobG]

South Carolina
1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. Edwards

Florida
1. McCain
2. Romney
3. Giuliani

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The pundits were claiming tonight that Bill Clinton has damaged Obama and that there is a shift in Obama's support [going to Hilllary] that is not reflected in the most recent polls.

 

[Astronuc]

The pundits were claiming tonight that Bill Clinton has damaged Obama and that there is a shift in Obama's support [going to Hilllary] that is not reflected in the most recent polls.

I think Bill Clinton needs to be quiet and sit on the sidelines.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080126/ap_on_el_pr/south_carolina_primary

COLUMBIA, S.C. - In a Democratic primary sure to attract a large number of black voters, race remained a persistent subtext as Barack Obama found himself going up against two Clintons.

South Carolina became a "must win" state for Obama, whose victory in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3 began to fade after he lost contests in Nevada and New Hampshire to Hillary Rodham Clinton. A win here on Saturday could help reinforce Obama's co-frontrunner status with Clinton, while a loss would severely imperil his candidacy.

. . . .

Widely popular among black voters, Bill Clinton complained that reporters cared too much about the racial aspect of the campaign even as he predicted Obama would win here because of his race.

. . . .

The run-up to the primary was noteworthy for its nasty tone — from a rancorous televised debate early in the week to the first negative ads of the campaign.

Clinton and Obama clashed bitterly in a televised forum Monday in Myrtle Beach, chiding one another on issues of character and trustworthiness. Edwards tried to rise above the rancor while pleading for equal air time.

. . . .

It is unfortunate that candidates waste our time sniping at each other. I want to hear about solutions to problems, not insults. I want to hear ideas on ending the war on terrorism, not prolonging it. I want to hear their ideas about sustainable economic development, more opportunity, better health care, improvements in education, greater security, . . . .

Negative campaigning leads to a lower common denominator, and the best we get is the mediocrity we have.

 

[BobG]

The pundits were claiming tonight that Bill Clinton has damaged Obama and that there is a shift in Obama's support [going to Hilllary] that is not reflected in the most recent polls.

Not in South Carolina. Clinton's comments are shifting votes towards Edwards.

Now that Edwards is almost safely out of it, though, I think the Clintons are comfortable categorizing Obama as the black candidate. If blacks vote for Obama in South Carolina, white men vote for Edwards, and white women vote for Clinton, then the Clinton's have the race framed the way they want it. There's a lot more whites, even in the Democratic Party, and Edwards isn't going to hurt them that much in accumulating delegates.

Of course, there's a risk in having Bill Clinton do so much campaigning. Even more people are asking just what Bill Clinton will do around the White House with no real job?

The first three women governors* in the country all stepped in as replacements for their husbands, so it's not a huge surprise the first serious woman Presidential candidate would be a former President's wife, but I don't think she can win if the similarity becomes too blatantly obvious.

*Nellie Ross won election to succeed her deceased husband as Wyoming Governor; Miriam Ferguson won election to succeed her husband as Texas Governor after her husband was impeached and convicted as governor; Lurleen Wallace won election to succeed her husband as Alabama Governor when George Wallace was ineligible due to term limits (Lurleen Wallace's story is pretty bizarre).

 

[smashingtime]

I would guess Romney in FL and Obama in SC...

 

[Astronuc]

Meanwhile - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080126/ap_on_el_pr/remember_iraq;_ylt=AoEZM5ZvexLX52l4sf_2apRh24cA

WASHINGTON - Republican angst over the war in Iraq may be helping fuel John McCain's rise as a top presidential contender, even though he has been the campaign's highest profile supporter of the unpopular conflict, according to surveys in early voting states and interviews with GOP pollsters.

In states that have held GOP nominating contests so far, the Arizona senator has done better with people naming Iraq as the country's top problem than with those who picked other issues, entrance and exit polls of voters show. He has also done better with GOP voters saying they disapprove of the Iraq war than with those saying they approve.

Unlike Democrats and independents, most Republicans support the war, which several national polls show has been overtaken by the economy as the campaign's defining issue. Yet while only a minority of Republicans express displeasure with the conflict, their numbers are significant in the close race for the GOP nomination.

Republican pollsters say GOP voters unhappy over Iraq are generally displeased with how the Bush administration has conducted the conflict and don't oppose the war itself. They say that with violence in Iraq declining in recent months, those Republicans see it as vindication for McCain's longtime support for a continued strong U.S. military effort.

. . . .

Lance Tarrance, a pollster and informal adviser to McCain, said reduced U.S. and civilian casualties in Iraq are helping McCain get "the best of both worlds" — support from Republicans who favor the war and from those who feel it has been mismanaged.

Others say the numbers showing McCain's strength among GOP war critics reflect that many of his supporters are independents or have moderate views on many issues, which happen to include doubts about the war, and are not driven by misgivings about the conflict.

. . . .

We'll see. The longer the occupation of Iraq lasts, the more resentment there will be in the world, and the greater the adverse economic impact will be on the US.

 

[BobG]

Meanwhile - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080126/ap_on_el_pr/remember_iraq;_ylt=AoEZM5ZvexLX52l4sf_2apRh24cA
We'll see. The longer the occupation of Iraq lasts, the more resentment there will be in the world, and the greater the adverse economic impact will be on the US.

He's helping himself in the primaries. 61% of Republicans say stay as long as it takes. Only 26% of Independents and 8% of Democrats agree with that though, plus logistics will require reducing troops very soon.

Funny how the percentages on Iraq have changed. The percentage supporting staying and saying Iraq is improving are going up, but overall opinion of Bush's handling of the war have stayed steady (as in dismal). McCain seems to be getting the credit for saving Iraq from Bush.

If violence stays down as troops are withdrawn, McCain will be very popular. If violence rises as troops leave, then McCain is probably set to take a lot more blame than any other candidate and maybe even more than Bush. The primaries will be over by time the long term impact of the surge is known, but Republicans might be hoping for a brokered convention just to delay having to decide on a candidate.

 

[Gokul43201]

From CNN's exit polls in SC, Obama did very poorly among whites (especially women). That could be troubling!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

 

[Astronuc]

From CNN's exit polls in SC, Obama did very poorly among whites (especially women). That could be troubling!

In this day and age, that is troubling - more so for the country than for Obama.

 

[G01]

Anybody see Obama's speech tonight? That was moving and optimistic. It's great to feel optimistic after a speech by a presidential candidate. It's been a while since I felt like that!I also think poorly may be a relative term here. Obama didn't win with the margin he did with only black votes. I think the number may be around 24% of whites SC Dems voted for Obama. While this isn't great, it is about double what most were expecting. I think it was a great day for Obama.

Another thing that should be pointed out. Obama got as many votes this year as there were voters in the 2004 SC primary. I think this shows Obama's ability to pull in those people who were otherwise apathetic. This is another positive I see in SC.

 

[turbo]

In this day and age, that is troubling - more so for the country than for Obama.

It is a sign that voter preferences are based on something other than than the candidates' political positions and intentions. That's not good. There are a whole lot of people (especially in the south) that would never vote for Clinton, and there are a whole lot of people (especially in the south) that would not vote for Obama. Anybody who does not recognize that the southern states are critical in this election just isn't paying attention.

 

[mheslep]

From CNN's exit polls in SC, Obama did very poorly among whites (especially women). That could be troubling!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

In this day and age, that is troubling - more so for the country than for Obama.

Perhaps. That conclusion would also depend upon which areas he focused his campaign efforts in SC. My little experience working campaigns has been that people tend to want to go campaign where they're already popular, despite full knowledge that such is a poor use of resources. It takes a disciplined effort to get yourself out into areas where you're behind (like everything else ;-). Also, Sen. Obama is one of most inclusive dems I've seen, but could some of his rhetoric have been at least slightly polarizing? Attacking Sen Clinton for her MLK-but-it-takes-a-President comments?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From CNN's exit polls in SC, Obama did very poorly among whites (especially women). That could be troubling!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#SCDEM

It may or may not be significant. There is still a lot of racism in that part of the country.

 

[Gokul43201]

That conclusion would also depend upon which areas he focused his campaign efforts in SC.

That was exactly my first thought - that Obama campaign advisors would have him targeting dominantly black areas and possibly devoting disproportionately greater talk time to issues that concern blacks more. Rallying the base is what it always comes down to.

 

[Astronuc]

My little experience working campaigns has been that people tend to want to go campaign where they're already popular, despite full knowledge that such is a poor use of resources. It takes a disciplined effort to get yourself out into areas where you're behind (like everything else ;-).

I agree. For example, Kerry by-passed states like Colorado since it was considered a 'red state'. That IMO is wrong. Any politician running for president needs to go to every state and make the case as to why he/she should be elected president. The president is supposed to represent everyone, even those who disagree or even villify him/her.

Also, Sen. Obama is one of most inclusive dems I've seen, but could some of his rhetoric have been at least slightly polarizing? Attacking Sen Clinton for her MLK-but-it-takes-a-President comments?

It's possible. I've missed those particular recent statements where Obama has criticized Clinton. I've heard Obama responding to Bill Clinton's comments. Obama, and others for that matter, should avoid negative campaigning.

Unfortunately, too many voters seem to respond to negative campaigning, which encourages more of it, and that IMO undermines the democratic process.

 

[BobG]

I was tempted to pick "Other" for the Democrats. I think Al Gore still has a chance! I think there's a good chance of both nominations not being decided until the conventions.

I still went with Clinton for Dems just because her organization gives her an advantage with the superdelagates. I think she'll at least go into the convention with the lead.

I went with McCain for the Republicans but I really think it's a toss-up as to who will have the lead going into the convention.

 

[Astronuc]

This will probably disappear after May or June, but -
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/primaries/

A lot of states up for grabs on Super Tuesday, Feb 5.

Clinton has apparently moved on the campaign in TN.


McCain is rising in Florida following an endorsement by Gov. Bill Crist.


Obviously I missed something, but why was Obama not registered in the Michigan primary?

I think Al Gore still has a chance!

Really!?

I think there's a good chance of both nominations not being decided until the conventions.

I tend to agree.

I still went with Clinton for Dems just because her organization gives her an advantage with the superdelagates. I think she'll at least go into the convention with the lead.

Possibly.

Let's see Feb. 6.

 

[Evo]

Obviously I missed something, but why was Obama not registered in the Michigan primary?

The state moved it's primary up without approval from the DNC, so that primary didn't count. I believe Florida won't count for the Democrats for the same reasons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151/

 

[Astronuc]

The state moved it's primary up without approval from the DNC, so that primary didn't count. I believe Florida won't count for the Democrats for the same reasons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151/

Ah! Thanks! Now Gokul's comment about FL many posts ago makes sense.


One would think with something as significant (important?) as a presidential primary, people would be more responsible, and not play games.

I remember hearing something back in Dec. about some states moving up their primaries to compete with IA and NH, and the folks in Iowa threatened to have their caucuses the year before!

I do think the smaller states need the attention of the nominees, which is why IA and NH have their primaries early in the year.


Clinton is still looking to Florida, perhaps to buoy her campaign for Super Tuesday.

“We now turn our attention to the millions of Americans who will make their voices heard in Florida and the twenty-two states as well as American Samoa who will vote on February 5th,” Clinton said in a news release after the South Carolina results showed her losing by a 2-to-1 margin to Obama.

. . . .

Clinton is still polling well ahead of Obama nationally, in Florida and in the biggest Super Tuesday states.

. . . .

Unlike the Michigan Democratic primary, all the Democratic candidates are on the ticket in Florida, but the Democratic National Committee has stripped the state of its delegates as punishment for moving up its primary ahead of Super Tuesday. Candidates would still like a victory there for both bragging rights heading into Feb. 5 and for Florida’s delegates, should they at some point be reinstated

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/blog/2008/01/clinton_edwards_soldier_on_tow.html

So does MI and FL have delegates at the Dem national convention?

 

[Astronuc]

Independents' influence in the nominating process

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080127/ap_on_el_pr/super_tuesday_independents

(AP)Two of those states — California and New Jersey — together have nearly 6 million unaffiliated voters who will be allowed to cast ballots. Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts and Alabama are among other prized catches with millions of independents eligible for the Feb. 5 contests.
. . . .

"Obama's trying to do two things at once. On the one hand, energize the liberal base, but also attract independents who are looking for a bipartisan problem-solver," said Jack Pitney, a former deputy research director for the Republican National Committee and a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. "That's a very difficult balance, and (Hillary) Clinton is trying to highlight the contradiction there."
. . . .

I don't see a contradiction. Politics is about compromise, and probably no one is completely satisfied with the choices, but in theory a nominee must find the common ground.

Fifteen of the 24 states holding contests on Super Tuesday have some form of flexible voting system. Some are wide open, allowing voters to cast ballots in either party regardless of political affiliation. Others have semi-open primaries, allowing unaffiliated voters to participate if they register with a party on the day of the primary.

Obama could get the biggest boost, analysts said, because independents appear to be leaning toward Democrats this year.

Six in 10 opted to participate in the Democratic contest in New Hampshire's open primary. In exit polls, they have expressed dissatisfaction with President Bush and the war in Iraq, as well as strong concerns about the economy.

Among Republicans, McCain has continued to attract independent voters as he did against George W. Bush in 2000, but they haven't turned out as strongly.

In winning South Carolina's GOP primary on Jan. 19, McCain took 42 percent of the unaffiliated vote to Mike Huckabee's 25 percent. But those voters made up only 18 percent of the electorate, compared with 30 percent in 2000.

Another potential pitfall for McCain is that in California — which has more delegates than any other state — independents will not be allowed to participate in the GOP primary because party leaders decided to close their contest, while Democrats are keeping theirs open.
. . . .

So Super Tuesday could be decisive! Either Obama maintains a lead or Clinton comes from behind.

I think the Republican contest is more of a three-way race. Giuliani is hoping FL goes with him, which would make it very interesting, but I think McCain, Romney and Huckabee are the top three, and McCain and Romney will be jousting for top spot.

 

[BobG]

Obviously I missed something, but why was Obama not registered in the Michigan primary?

And you sounded so certain in your Michigan predictions, too.

Since Michigan and Florida defied the Democratic Party's rules, the plan was to completely boycott their primaries. The delegates wouldn't count, the candidates wouldn't participate in the offending states' primaries. All of the Democratic candidates pledged not to participate in the primaries of states that violated Democratic rules. Unfortunately, the pledge didn't include a definition for 'not participating'.

Both Obama, Edwards, and most of the other Democratic candidates withdrew from the Michigan primary. Clinton and Dodd didn't and the plan went awry (Democrats withdraw from Michigan 'Beauty Contest'). Kucinich attempted to withdraw three times, but didn't follow instructions. He also was the only candidate to campaign in Michigan the week before the primary, but this also could be due to an inability to understand directions - he got lost on the way to New Hampshire or Nevada (one of those 'N' or 'M' states).

It really puts the Dems up against it when it comes to holding the line on stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates or relenting and allowing Michigan and Florida delegates to attend the nomination and vote. If all of the candidates were at least on the ballot, a case could be made that the primary was somewhat fair and Dems could change their mind about whether Michigan delegates would count or not. The Dems have almost no choice but to stand behind the penalty they imposed on Michigan and Florida.

 

[Astronuc]

And you sounded so certain in your Michigan predictions, too.

Well, yeah! I was certain. Obviously I missed out on the controversy.

Kucinich attempted to withdraw three times, but didn't follow instructions. He also was the only candidate to campaign in Michigan the week before the primary, but this also could be due to an inability to understand directions - he got lost on the way to New Hampshire or Nevada (one of those 'N' or 'M' states).

And Kucinich wants to be president!?

It really puts the Dems up against it when it comes to holding the line on stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates or relenting and allowing Michigan and Florida delegates to attend the nomination and vote. If all of the candidates were at least on the ballot, a case could be made that the primary was somewhat fair and Dems could change their mind about whether Michigan delegates would count or not. The Dems have almost no choice but to stand behind the penalty they imposed on Michigan and Florida.

That would disenfranchise a lot of people. They should've worked this out months ago.

From BobG's link

Under Democratic National Committee rules, only Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina are allowed to hold primaries before February 5.

But Michigan Democrats moved their state's primary date to January in an effort to increase the state's influence in the nominee selection process, arguing Iowa and New Hampshire unfairly dominate the process.

So let Michigan move up, what's the big deal!? They had their primary after IA and NH.

How can people take something so simple and really screw it up!? Oh, yeah - politics.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Caroline Kennedy threw her support to Obama while comparing him to her father, JFK, and now Ted Kennedy has officially thrown his support to Obama as well. He is expected to give an impassioned speech telling why he believes that Obama is who we need.

Apparently he was quite offended by the Clinton tactics of late.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy will endorse Barack Obama for president tomorrow, breaking his year-long neutrality to send a powerful signal of where the legendary Massachusetts Democrat sees the party going -- and who he thinks is best to lead it.

Kennedy confidantes told the Globe today that the Bay State's senior senator will appear with Obama and Kennedy's niece, Caroline Kennedy, at a morning rally at American University in Washington tomorrow to announce his support. [continued]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/ted_kennedy_end.html