Stupor Tuesday (TX/OH/RI/VT) [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

triggercut

03-04-2008, 09:55 AM

What to watch for tonight:

Vermont polls close first, at 7pm EST. If Obama isn't declared victorious by 7:05pm EST, something's afoot.

Polls close at 7:30 EST in Ohio. Watch this carefully. In past elections, returns from rural Ohio districts (which should favor Clinton heavily) have come in early. Cincy and Columbus also come in reasonably early...

...but precincts in Cincy that favor Obama will be late reporters. And Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) will be tardiest of all; results there will be a trickle until 9:00pm or later.

So, in Ohio, Senator Clinton really needs to be sitting on a 12-15 point lead early on. She'll actually need to be up by 14-16 points to get her double-digit win (her internal polling shows her up by 10 in OH), because the late results will break towards Obama. Figure that late-reporting from Cuyahoga and Obama-favoring precincts in Toledo and Cincinnati will give him a 4-6% gain on the overall vote vs. Hillary, so do the math. If Obama is within double digits before 8:30 or 9:00 tonight, Hillary isn't having a good day. If she's up 14 or more, she'll proclaim herself the nominee and give her victory speech before those Obama-favoring areas can report and show the lead narrowing.

Ok, then TX. Polls close there at 9:00pm est. Thanks to the record-setting early voting in TX, exit-pollers and data collectors will have a solid idea for how the vote will go fairly early. If the early results have Obama within 3, Hillary is in big trouble, because the late votes coming from election day in Houston, Dallas, and Austin will break heavily for Obama.

RI closes its polls at 9:00 too. Clinton has been up by as much as 12 points here in recent polls, but internals show that there may be some slippage there. This race should be called by 9:15-9:30 for Clinton. If Obama is close, something odd is afoot.

Finally: the Texas Caucuses start at 9:00pm EST (8pm local time). To caucus in Texas, you must show a receipt that you voted in the primary. Expect absolute chaos here, as confused non-primary voters attempt to turn out for the party, and Obama crowds overrun caucus sites. Lord only knows when we'll see results here.

bdfinally

03-04-2008, 10:00 AM

End Game?

Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" Tuesday morning, Tom Brokaw dropped a bombshell on Terry McAuliffe, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman.

"Somebody very close to the Obama campaign told me yesterday that they've got 50 [superdelegates] that they've identified who are ready to go public before too long," Brokaw said. Off-camera, someone else from the show (it sounds like host Joe Scarborough) can be heard exclaiming, "Wow." Video of Brokaw's remarks appears below.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

BlueJackalope

03-04-2008, 10:22 AM

Thanks for the breakdown Trigger.*

I'm (really really really really really really really) hoping that Ickes and Penn's backing away from ownership of Hillary's campaign like it was an Ebola victim are indicative that they know its game over man.

*Edit - We need to rig up a live cam and a dry erase board for you a la Russert.

Matthew Gallant

03-04-2008, 10:23 AM

And Brokaw was talking about superdelegates that are in the Clinton tally currently.

BlueJackalope

03-04-2008, 10:27 AM

And Brokaw was talking about superdelegates that are in the Clinton tally currently.

How do you know that? (I can't watch the video at work).

Andrew Mayer

03-04-2008, 10:28 AM

But they won't switch if it's too close tonight...

Otherwise yes, I think that there will be plenty of high powered people looking to force the primaries to end.

Matthew Gallant

03-04-2008, 10:30 AM

How do you know that? (I can't watch the video at work).
Before the quoted line, he says, "I think the obvious question is how they're holding on to their superdelegates and whether they are, or not."

BlueJackalope

03-04-2008, 10:34 AM

But they won't switch if it's too close tonight...

Otherwise yes, I think that there will be plenty of high powered people looking to force the primaries to end.

How many of her pledged superdelegates are from districts/states that went Obama?

Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell from WA are pledged Hillary and Cantwell at least, is viewed as fairly vunerable. The last thing she needs is a primary challenger or a dissaffected base. I'm sure it would be a huge relief for both of them if they can safely switch before the convention.

John Lewis, who not long ago was on the News Hour attacking Obama, has now switched. I have to imagine all of her pledged black superdelegates are facing insane pressure to switch.

Lum

03-04-2008, 11:17 AM

Finally: the Texas Caucuses start at 9:00pm EST (8pm local time). To caucus in Texas, you must show a receipt that you voted in the primary. Expect absolute chaos here, as confused non-primary voters attempt to turn out for the party, and Obama crowds overrun caucus sites. Lord only knows when we'll see results here.

Actually polls close at 7p Central (8p EST) and caucuses start immediately thereafter. (At least here.)

BlueJackalope

03-04-2008, 11:26 AM

Actually polls close at 7p Central (8p EST) and caucuses start immediately thereafter. (At least here.)

How does this work? Polls count for 50% and caucus for 50%?

EDIT: Or does it just depend on what your district is?

Lum

03-04-2008, 11:37 AM

It's a rampaging clusterfuck that confuses literally everyone. Basically, we vote twice!

Vote 1 is the primary, which works just like other primaries. We vote, winner of each precinct submits a delegate. Situation normal.

Vote 2 is the caucus, where, as best I understand, the number of delegates submitted is weighted by the level of Democratic turnout the LAST election.

BlueJackalope

03-04-2008, 11:38 AM

Rimbo

03-04-2008, 11:42 AM

Texas, our Texas, all hail the mighty state!

Tom McNamara

03-04-2008, 12:19 PM

And Brokaw was talking about superdelegates that are in the Clinton tally currently.

If they are being subtracted from Clinton's column and added to Obama's, I'm pretty sure that would put him ahead with superdelegates. And since Hillary would have to blow the doors off today to pull even with regular delegates, that would mean that Obama would be ahead in both categories.

Sorry if that sounds obvious to everyone -- I think my lunch made me a little drowsy.

jeffd

03-04-2008, 01:13 PM

Clinton cannot make up the pledged delegate gap today. It's just not possible. Today is going to be all about spin - proving that her campaign is alive.

If Clinton can win Texas and Ohio both (and I'm talking just the primaries here, not the Texas caucus) - it will be spun as "she's still alive!" There will probably also be people questioning why Obama can't put her away.

If Clinton loses either Texas or Ohio the pressure for her to withdraw will mount.

If Clinton loses both, it's done.

Other thoughts: This race will be decided by superdelegates. Neither candidate will get to 2025 pledge delegates - it's just not possible. Obama would have to win about 70% of the remaining pledge delegates. Clinton would have to win more than 80%. The only question is whether or not the supers will override the majority of the pledge delegates.

Slainte Mhath

03-04-2008, 01:35 PM

Clinton will likely win Ohio. I live in southern Ohio (Cincinnati) and she's fairly popular here, but she's even moreso in the cities and towns that rely on manufacturing and other blue collar jobs for their economy. I voted this morning (Obama thank you) and turnout here was VERY light. My district is fairly heavily populated, and last general election there was up to a 90 minute wait to vote. This morning I walked right in and was the 39th democratic ballot issued, and the polls had been open for over 2 hours.

That said, I kind of hope some of my fellow Ohioans stay home. I was very dismayed to see in several television and print stories just how ignorant we seem to come across to the rest of the country. 60 Minutes had a guy on their panel that was voting Clinton becasue "Obama is a Muslim". He "read it in an email". I'm guessing my state ranks #1 on the victims of Nigerian email fraud per capita chart. Other gems I've seen from Ohioans lately included referring to Obama on national talk radio as "Barack Hussein Obama" with an obvious negative connotation on the middle name and referring to Obama as "too ethnic" to be electable (read as : he's black, oh noes!). There is also a very strong contingent here that firmly believes that electing Hillary Clinton as President means that we'll get Bill Clinton back in the White House. While that's technically true, it's not going to work the way they believe it will.

Tom McNamara

03-04-2008, 03:58 PM

CNN just called VT for Obama.

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

Edit: Some interesting exit poll trends:

--Obama received 68% of the independent vote. If I'm reading the chart correctly, almost 40% of the people who participated in the exit poll are registered indepedents.

--Obama won the female vote by 16 points. 56% of VT voters in the Demo primary were women.

BlueJackalope

03-04-2008, 04:15 PM

Way to go you Liberal Honkeys!

Lum

03-04-2008, 04:26 PM

Drudge Report is claiming "deadlocked" exit polls in TX (no surprise) OH (?) and RI (!!!).

Bear in mind this electoral cycle exit polls have been about as reliable as examining goat entrails. Anyway, off to caucasize, even though the Clinton campaign finds the exercise frivolous!

triggercut

03-04-2008, 04:27 PM

Ben Sones

03-04-2008, 04:30 PM

An Obama win in RI would be pretty surprising.

BlueJackalope

03-04-2008, 04:32 PM

An Obama win in RI would be pretty surprising.

I haven't paid attention to it, what would Hillary's (presumed) strength in RI be?

Tom McNamara

03-04-2008, 04:32 PM

Polls have closed in Ohio; looks like it's going to be a close count.

Clinton took 54% of the female vote, according to the exit poll, and the state voted 59% women, 41% men. So I'm inclined to give her the win there, barring precinct-level surprises.

Jason McCullough

03-04-2008, 04:36 PM

Ohio (http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=35FE709DD1C69F9446C1348ED1 3C04BB?diaryId=4336) full exit poll, implying 51/48 or so for Clinton. Throw in early voting and it might expand more. Of course, even final exit polls have sucked this cycle.

triggercut

03-04-2008, 04:40 PM

I haven't paid attention to it, what would Hillary's (presumed) strength in RI be?

She's got a lot of regional support there, and establishment endorsement.

Jason McCullough

03-04-2008, 04:45 PM

BREAKING

MUST CREDIT JASON REPORT

Ohio secretary of state asking for sandusky polls to be held open until 9

STOLEN FROM MSNBC

Edit: DailyKos.com says Cuyahoga too, from weather, apparently being argued in some court somewhere.

Tom McNamara

03-04-2008, 05:24 PM

I can't seem to find any exit polls for Texas. And the vote count appears to have stopped in OH because of the poll extension.

DoomMunky

03-04-2008, 05:38 PM

I keep hearing intense movie music as I read this thread.

JeffL

03-04-2008, 05:42 PM

I keep hearing intense movie music as I read this thread.

LOL! Yeah, I can hear that guy that does all the movie trailer voice overs, in that deep sonorous voice, "after 11 straight defeats, everyone was throwing dirt on her grave. But underneath the soil, as the votes came in from Texas and Ohio, there was a stirring, a motion in the dirt, and then...."

Tom McNamara

03-04-2008, 05:46 PM

http://www.stampede-entertainment.com/wrmkllr/rworm-l.jpg

Sarkus

03-04-2008, 05:46 PM

LOL! Yeah, I can hear that guy that does all the movie trailer voice overs, in that deep sonorous voice, "after 11 straight defeats, everyone was throwing dirt on her grave. But underneath the soil, as the votes came in from Texas and Ohio, there was a stirring, a motion in the dirt, and then...."

If I was a Republican I'd find this all very entertaining. Since I'm not, I'm finding it all very depressing. I realize not everyone agrees, but if it takes until the end of August (when the Dem convention is) for them to figure who their nominee is my gut feeling is that it will be looked back on as a bad thing.

Funkula

03-04-2008, 06:51 PM

Tom McNamara

03-04-2008, 06:54 PM

Looks like the votes in the high-population precincts in OH and TX are going to come in very slowly tonight. They all seem to favor Obama, except for San Antonio, so I don't think we're going to get a clear picture until the wee hours.

Edit: But I think it's fair to say that there won't be a substantial change in the balance of delegates. At least, in favor of Clinton.

JeffL

03-04-2008, 06:59 PM

The early numbers I'm seeing are pretty big for Clinton in OH and pretty small lead for Obama in TX - is the smart money saying these are too early to give much credence to?

Fooey

03-04-2008, 07:00 PM

These Texas vote totals are looking insane. 1.1 million votes counted with only 8% of the precincts reporting.

Udarnik

03-04-2008, 07:05 PM

Well, I just finished caucusing here in Dallas. We went 63% for Obama, and he gets 12 of our precinct's 19 delegates to the district convention. I'm gonna be one of them!

Demographically, Hillary seems to be doing well among a)old people, b)white women, and c)old white women. Of course we all knew this, but it was still striking to see, on the Clinton side, perhaps two people under 30 and no black people. Not one, in a turnout of around 250.

Finished caucusing in Lubbock. Our precinct was split 50/50. Hillary's demographic was the just as you called it. Obama had all the youth and all the blacks. It was a pretty striking contrast. My wife is going to be a delegate, too. It'll be interesting to hear how the county convention goes.

Hanacker

03-04-2008, 07:09 PM

These Texas vote totals are looking insane. 1.1 million votes counted with only 8% of the precincts reporting.

The high numbers are from the absentee ballots they already counted. The percentage is only for precincts that have completed tabulation today.

Lum

03-04-2008, 07:45 PM

So, I just got back from the local caucuses here in Round Rock (an Austin suburb).

Last primary there were 15 people from our precinct to turn out. The state party warned of an expected 150%-200% additional turnout.

There were easily over 300 people tonight.

The local party organization was literally nonexistent - there was one (ONE) Democratic Party guy there who I don't even think was an elected official but just a local lawyer, and who kept saying that he had never seen so many people voting Democrat in a single room (we were taking up an entire church). So the first order of business was literally to elect enough party officials to make the caucus legal - like, a precinct party chairperson (previous to tonight the position didn't exist). Then we had to sign up and prove that we had voted in the primary already.

The Obama campaign in its instructions on texas.barackobama.com, instructed people that once you signed up with your preference, you could leave. Clearly they were basing this on state caucuses that had, well, any experience at all. Most of us looked at each other and said "Yeah, we probably better hang around".

During this process after we signed off, we went to pew sections cordoned off in Obama sections and Clinton sections for 2 precincts (they were both meeting in the same church and both in equal states of organizational disrepair). The Obama sections immediately started cheering every time someone came and "joined the family". One Clinton supporter came over and asked, simply, "Can you give one good reason why you're supporting Barack Obama?" I responded with a spoken version of the post I've probably made many times here, about politics of the past 16 years being divisive instead of inclusive, and Obama's core promise to change that and work together for all Americans. Another man, an old black man wearing a Vietnam Veterans ball cap, stood up and said simply that in his lifetime he never thought that he would see white people supporting a black man for President, and there was no way anyone could convince him to support anything else.

As we waited for the interminable signin process, the debates continued between the Clinton supporters and the Obama faction, fairly good-natured for the most part and actually made me feel really good about what this election is doing for just inspiring ordinary folks to get involved. The ethnic breakdown of our precinct, in my rough guesstimate was about 50% white, 25% black, and 25% Latino - most of the Latinos went for Clinton, all but one of the blacks for Obama, and the whites seemed about 60/40 for Obama. Finally the votes were tallied, and our precinct sent 2 delegates for Ms. Clinton and 5 for Mr. Obama (to loud raucous cheers). We then had to choose said delegates; the 8 or so candidates for the 5 slots stood up and said a few words, then we voted for each ones (having to vote 5 times total). It was about as complex as it sounds. The new precinct chairwoman and the Vietnam Veteran were both voted in as Obama delegates.

Finally, it was asked if we had any resolutions to propose to the state convention. One guy promptly stood up and said that we should make it so that instead of the candidate choosing a vice-president, they had to select the person who came in second. Despite the head shaking "is that even legal?" reaction from myself and most others, we voted... and the motion passed. Watch out, Constitution! OK, we're finally done, 2 and half hours later. NOPE! As we were heading out the door someone else stood up and read a pre-prepared statement, in legalese, that amounted to a motion to impeach the Republican Governor of Texas. That passed too.

Democracy: it's a messy business.

Alan Dunkin

03-04-2008, 07:53 PM

It's pretty much one of the biggest political events in Texas practically as far back as I can remember, which has been over 25 years now. Turnout, which is frankly pathetic at times (as Lum pointed out for Round Rock), is going to be huge, and even the early voting has had long lines everywhere I've seen.

I've got to say... it's pretty cool, messyness and all.

--- Alan

Mark Asher

03-04-2008, 08:04 PM

The early numbers I'm seeing are pretty big for Clinton in OH and pretty small lead for Obama in TX - is the smart money saying these are too early to give much credence to?

CNN just called OH for Clinton and she has a small lead in Texas. This may not be a good night for Obama. If he only carries VT, no way will Clinton be knocked out.

Sarkus

03-04-2008, 08:10 PM

There definately won't be a knockout. It looks like Hillary will narrow the gap a bit, but Texas will probably be so close that neither will gain much from it.

Alan Dunkin

03-04-2008, 08:16 PM

57% female, 43% male voters so far in Texas. That's kind of interesting, though I really have no knowledge of previous gender demographics here.

--- Alan

Tom McNamara

03-04-2008, 09:51 PM

CNN calls Texas primary for Hillary. Caucus is "too close to call."

Sarkus

03-04-2008, 10:09 PM

VictoriaWong

03-04-2008, 10:12 PM

Yeah, these results aren't good for Obama. I can't think of a worse outcome for the Dems, since it all but guarantees this is going all the way to the convention.

Meanwhile McCain has officially clinched.
The only worse outcome I can think of is no one voting because of apathy. This is pretty bad, though. The speeches the Dems made kind of made the situation a little worse.

Rimbo

03-04-2008, 10:13 PM

Sarkus

03-04-2008, 10:29 PM

Looks like Obama's started off with a pretty good lead in the caucuses.

Remember, though; Hillary will probably still lose the delegates based on popular vote as well. She actually needed to win by about 55% v. 45% to do that, because of the gerrymandered districts. So it looks like she's won Texas for now, but let's see what she's won in the morning.

In the end she's narrowed Obama's lead, so she can claim victory. Also, she can also claim two more big states in her favor, while Obama's victories are almost all based on blowouts in smaller states.

I'm just saying that things got murkier tonight rather than clearer. The convention isn't until the end of August - does anyone really want five more months of arguing over who the Democrat's nominee is?

Rimbo

03-04-2008, 10:35 PM

I'm just saying that things got murkier tonight rather than clearer. The convention isn't until the end of August - does anyone really want five more months of arguing over who the Democrat's nominee is?

Oh, I can think of quite a few people who'd want that... and they all have one thing in common.

Sarkus

03-04-2008, 10:38 PM

Oh, I can think of quite a few people who'd want that... and they all have one thing in common.

Obviously, and that's the problem.

Let's see: a really close race, disputes about certain states and whether their vote was fair or should count, the threat of lawsuits. Remind you of anything?

Tom McNamara

03-04-2008, 10:40 PM

Yeah, these results aren't good for Obama.

But Clinton had to have a spectacular night, and she didn't. The results for Obama, while disappointing for his supporters, are not substantially outside of expectations. He still has the lead with delegates and the superdelegate momentum, and the popular vote (not counting FL and MI).

Sarkus

03-04-2008, 10:47 PM

But Clinton had to have a spectacular night, and she didn't. The results for Obama, while disappointing for his supporters, are not substantially outside of expectations. He still has the lead with delegates and the superdelegate momentum, and the popular vote (not counting FL and MI).

Hey, I'm all for Obama but that's not how this is going to be spun by Hillary or the newsmedia. We are now going to see talk that Obama's momentum has been stopped, that he can't win big states, etc.

We all know it's mathematically pretty much impossible for Hillary to overcome Obama's lead, but she's no longer playing to win on those terms anyway.

Jason McCullough

03-04-2008, 10:49 PM

Hillary isn't going to pick up enough delegates to matter. What does matter, I guess, is how this changes the campaign narrative and media coverage.

Basically, does the press go after Obama? Does Hillary keep wacking him (patty-cake style) on national security? Does one of them break out some serious sleaze? What the hell is momentum, anyway?

I wish I could skip to the part where QT3 unites and bashes McCain in harmony. :(

Tom McNamara

03-04-2008, 10:52 PM

Momentum in this case is delegates and superdelegates earned per week. If that rumor is true about 50 Clinton supers switching to Obama, then she'll be painted into a pretty small corner.

Jason McCullough

03-04-2008, 10:53 PM

Sarkus

03-04-2008, 11:06 PM

Oh, on a side note, I'm starting to wonder how "bad" it is if this thing goes until June. Say it was decided a month ago - would Texas have had this crazy turnout with this many people involved? There's some interesting stuff there about generating interest and party identification.

God knows it'll drive me crazy, but oddly I think it has helped the expected Democratic margin in the fall so far.

June? This is going until the convention, which is at the end of August.

Look, you can generate all the interest you want at this point, but in the end that has nothing to do with the fall. There was a ton of interest in Kerry in the spring of 2004.

All recent history says that when the nomination isn't decided early, the other side wins. That may be a quirk of history, but it may not be.

Hillary can't win the regular delegate count. So what does she or the party gain by dragging this out? As pointed out above, it just increases the likliehood that it reveals negatives for both.

Tom McNamara

03-04-2008, 11:09 PM

It's certainly gotten a lot more people across the country to participate in the process, both physically and psychologically. Unfortunately, it looks like a lot of people aren't looking past physical appearance. I'm reminded of that old Shaw quote:

Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.

Lum

03-04-2008, 11:16 PM

Eh. I actually am a lot less cynical about the American electorate after tonight. The caucus goers I spoke to, Clinton and Obama supporters both, were all fairly engaged and for the most part had well-thought out reasons for voting the way they did. Bear in mind this is also prime "Clinton country" for mining supporters - fairly working-class (our neighborhood is a residential district of a town populated in the main by people who don't want to pay a 50-100k surcharge on housing prices for buying in Austin proper), pretty racially diverse with a strong Latino presence, and seemingly of varying educational backgrounds. I think that television encourages us to underestimate the average voter.

Funkula

03-04-2008, 11:17 PM

http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/030408/american-political-process.gif

bigdruid

03-04-2008, 11:22 PM

June? This is going until the convention, which is at the end of August.

No, it's not. That's the whole point of having superdelegates - to allow the party to make the call early, heal the wounds, and be united in the convention.

For this to make it to the convention, the Democrats would have to be a bunch of incompetent...um...well. Ahem. Maybe it will make it to the convention.

Sarkus

03-04-2008, 11:27 PM

No, it's not. That's the whole point of having superdelegates - to allow the party to make the call early, heal the wounds, and be united in the convention.

For this to make it to the convention, the Democrats would have to be a bunch of incompetent...um...well. Ahem. Maybe it will make it to the convention.

If that's the case, then they would make the call right now, because almost no one thinks Hillary can win in the end based on the elected delegates. As I said above, Hillary is playing to win with the superdelegates on her side.

Jason McCullough

03-04-2008, 11:28 PM

Sarkus

03-04-2008, 11:31 PM

If Hillary can't win I think she should drop out, I'm just starting to wonder about the "decide it early" principle. So far the contested primary has got the Democrats piles and piles of free media coverage and intense voter engagement that they wouldn't have if one of them had locked it up in NH.

This is unlike Kerry, who got pretty good turnout, but nowhere near the incredible levels we're seeing now. I never dreamed I'd see a hot Democratic presidential primary in Texas.

I don't know if you can point to "turn out" as proof of anything. I understand the logic behind your thinking, but we've had this debate before. The national polls say the race is close so that means the turnout isn't making this an automatic Dem win.

Plus, you can't discount how late the convention is. Even if both sides make-up no matter the result, the reality is that won't happen until very close to the general election.

Finally, if Hillary ends up with the nomination I don't know if you can count on the overwhelming youth support for Obama switching to support Hillary. That group is very unpredictable.

Rimbo

03-04-2008, 11:47 PM

Also, remember that Texas has open primaries. A lot of Republicans showed up today.

Rimbo

03-04-2008, 11:50 PM

Also... Texas caucus results keep coming in, and right now Obama has the lead, 55/45.

Tom McNamara

03-04-2008, 11:50 PM

Even the stickiest mud won't help her now, but Obama or one of his associates can still make a big mistake. That's what she's waiting for. And she also has MI and FL in her ammo box. And hell, as long as the money keeps coming in, why not spend it?

ydejin

03-05-2008, 12:28 AM

Also, remember that Texas has open primaries. A lot of Republicans showed up today.
Added bonus Rush Limbaugh (http://www.middletownjournal.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/03/04/mj030408switchweb.html) was actually campaigning for Hillary.

godhugh

03-05-2008, 02:41 AM

Also, remember that Texas has open primaries. A lot of Republicans showed up today.

Based on Exit Polls, they went for Obama 52-47.

Mark Asher

03-05-2008, 05:20 AM

Unless Obama gets enough delegates to get a first round win at the convention, why shouldn't Clinton stay in even if the math doesn't favor her? And about those 50 supers about to switch to Obama, my guess is now they will wait.

I think the most recent poll I've seen for Pennsylvania has Clinton ahead there too. She's going to be able to make a good argument at the convention.

Ben Sones

03-05-2008, 06:33 AM

My prediction from a few days ago:

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see a split: Hillary wins Ohio, and Obama wins Texas. At the very least, he is highly likely to walk away from Texas with more delegates, but I think he may win the popular vote there, too.

Hillary did win Ohio, as I suspected. Obama did not win the primary in Texas, but it was a close race, and the caucus results are still coming in and look to be similarly close--but favoring Obama instead of Hillary. So it looks like Texas will essentially be a tie. Obama will likely come away with more delegates (but only barely).

The real question is: what does this mean? Certainly it allows Hillary the option of staying in the race (which she will), but realistically, she's still in pretty much the same position that she was on Monday. Behind, with little hope of catching up before the convention. Texas and Ohio are big states, but even though Hillary won both primaries, they really weren't big wins. Texas was basically a tie, and her 10 point lead in Ohio isn't exactly a blowout, especially for a state that was supposed to be Hillary's Ace in the hole.

As was discussed after the last round of primaries, she needed a blowout tonight, in both big states, to have a shot at catching up to Obama in terms of pledged delegates. She did not get a blowout, in either state. So when it comes down to brass tacks, her nomination still depends on convincing superdelegates to break from the popular vote, and at this point, that is unlikely to change before the convention. Can she do that? Who knows. I have my doubts, though. I don't think the supers are going to be particularly inclined to break from the popular vote, but there are a lot of complex factors at work here, so it's hard to say how it will play out at this point.

Jazar

03-05-2008, 06:35 AM

And the band played on. :/

mystery

03-05-2008, 06:57 AM

The big news last night was McCain, and that's all the meat heads had to talk about for hours, it seemed. With McCain being the nominee, he could concentrate on taking the fight tot he democrats, and wouldn't have to worry any more about competition among his own party.

I guess I see it a lot more complicated than John's acceptance speech would make it seem:

1. Last night, 30% of the voting republicans still voted for Huckabee. From all the polls, the general consensus is that they were voting for him because he "thinks like I do". If we examine the distinguishing characteristics between Huckabee's spin and McCain's spin, I think the difference falls out in religion. If that's the case, and they can't see themselves voting for McCain in the end, we may have a lot of folks breaking for Obama, who's definitely got more of a religious background than Clinton.

2. If Clinton and Obama can play this right, they could have at least another month of double-teaming McCain. If, instead, they spend all of their time sniping at each other, they're going to wander blithely into the obvious trap that an early nomination decision by the Republicans sets up. Someone needs to convince both candidates that they can sell themselves as the "better opponent" of McCain, rather than "better than the other Democrat".

SlyFrog

03-05-2008, 07:02 AM

If I was a Republican I'd find this all very entertaining. Since I'm not, I'm finding it all very depressing. I realize not everyone agrees, but if it takes until the end of August (when the Dem convention is) for them to figure who their nominee is my gut feeling is that it will be looked back on as a bad thing.

I'm not so sure in this case.

I think in an odd way, this is all just continuing "buzz" for the Democrats. The campaign has not been particularly mean and nasty, so neither candidate will (at this point) emerge having been totally blasted and slimed by his or her Democratic opponent. I think the Democrats are doing a huge favor to their party (even if Obama and Hilary feel a bit restrained) by not having this campaign go negative. They really seem to be presenting a united "we disagree on the details, but agree on the general" front.

McCain having locked things up means that in part, his name will not be nearly as big of news as Obama and Hilary for the next few months. Out of sight, out of mind.

Slainte Mhath

03-05-2008, 09:21 AM

Voting here in Ohio was a total mess yesterday. Districts all over the state, but especially up north around Cleveland and in the southwest around Cincinnati, were running out of Democratic ballots. Polls were held open later and a mad scramble to get more copies of the ballots out ensued.

Now here's the interesting part. Many of the places where ballots ran low or ran out were in historically "red" districts, such as southwest Ohio (Cincinnati and surrounding counties) where I live. Why the sudden surge in Democratic turn out at the polls? The Hillary-Obama fight is that energizing? Nope. Turns out, state Republicans who have known for weeks that McCain was the inevitable lock have been urging party members to enter a Form 10X, switching party affiliations for the primary so they can vote in the Democratic primary race. Local and national conservative talk radio has been pushing this idea heavily, and thousands of Republican voters did just that. Guess who they voted for? Hillary Clinton.

It's really a mad sort of genius. Ensuring a win by Clinton in Ohio keeps her in the race, and keeps the Democrats fighting among themselves through the DNC, leaving McCain fairly untouched. Also, should momentum somehow shift Hillary's way thanks to victories in Ohio and Texas, and should she somehow get enough support to actually win the nomination, moderates and independants who would have supported Obama suddenly jump to McCain's camp. It's win-win for Republicans.

This kind of pisses me off. Some may say it's politics as usual, but local media is saying there are an unprecedented number of these "crossover voters" and the blatent conservative media push to do this prior to the primary borders on election tampering. It looks like Clinton would have won Ohio regardless, but how much momentum and hope does she gain from winning convincingly as opposed to winning by a narrow margin? I'm not sure how you could stop this kind of tampering short of forcing everyone who switches parties during the primaries to vote the same party come general election, which in itself would be a breech of rights.

SlyFrog

03-05-2008, 09:37 AM

Fooey

03-05-2008, 10:12 AM

1. Last night, 30% of the voting republicans still voted for Huckabee. From all the polls, the general consensus is that they were voting for him because he "thinks like I do". If we examine the distinguishing characteristics between Huckabee's spin and McCain's spin, I think the difference falls out in religion. If that's the case, and they can't see themselves voting for McCain in the end, we may have a lot of folks breaking for Obama, who's definitely got more of a religious background than Clinton.

The large majority of the people still voting for Huckabee at this point are never going to consider voting for someone so strongly pro-abortion rights that their positions could justifiably be called extremist (Obama wouldn't even vote in the Illinois legislature for a bill that outlawed the killing of viable babies that survived late-term abortions for chrissakes, a version of which passed the U.S. Senate before Obama arrived 98-0) no matter what his general religious demeanor might be.

delirium

03-05-2008, 10:14 AM

Reldan

03-05-2008, 10:15 AM

Finally, it was asked if we had any resolutions to propose to the state convention. One guy promptly stood up and said that we should make it so that instead of the candidate choosing a vice-president, they had to select the person who came in second. Despite the head shaking "is that even legal?" reaction from myself and most others, we voted... and the motion passed. Watch out, Constitution!

Interestingly enough, the Constitution originally held that the runner-up for President became Vice President. The 12th Amendment changed it so that President and Vice President are now voted on in the Electoral College on separate ballots. It's actually just due to mutual agreement by all parties involved that any elector picking a President will also cast the Vice Presidential ballot for that candidate's chosen VP.

Under the original terms of the Constitution, the members of the U.S. Electoral College voted only for office of president rather than for both president and vice president. Each elector was allowed to vote for two people for the top office. The person receiving the greatest number of votes (provided that such a number was a majority of electors) would be president, while the individual who received the next largest number of votes became vice president. If no one received a majority of votes, then the U.S. House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) would choose among the five highest vote-getters, with each state getting one vote. In such a case, the person who received the highest number of votes but was not chosen president would become vice president. If there were a tie for second, then the U.S. Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) would choose the vice president.
The original plan, however, did not foresee the development of political parties and their adversarial role in the government. In the election of 1796 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1796), for instance, Federalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party_%28United_States%29) John Adams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams) came in first, and Democratic-Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party_%28United_States%29) Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) came second. Thus, the president and vice president were from opposing parties. Predictably, Adams and Jefferson clashed over issues such as states' rights and foreign policy.
A greater problem occurred in the election of 1800 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_1800), in which the two participating parties each had a secondary candidate they intended to elect as vice president, but the more popular Democratic-Republican party failed to execute that plan with their electoral votes. Under the system in place at the time (Article Two, Section 1, Clause 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_3:_Electors)), the electors could not differentiate between their two candidates, so the plan had been for one elector to vote for Thomas Jefferson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) but not for Aaron Burr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr), thus putting Burr in second place. This plan broke down for reasons that are disputed, and both candidates received the same number of votes. After 35 deadlocked ballots in the U.S. House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives), Jefferson finally won on the 36th ballot and Burr became vice president.
This tumultuous affair led to the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutio n) in 1804, which directed the electors to use separate ballots to vote for the president and vice president. While this solved the problem at hand, it ultimately had the effect of lowering the prestige of the vice presidency, as the office was no longer for the leading challenger for the presidency.
The separate ballots for President and Vice President became something of a moot issue later in the 19th century when it became the norm for popular elections to determine a state's Electoral College delegation. Electors chosen this way are pledged to vote for a particular presidential and vice-presidential candidate (offered by the same political party). So, while the Constitution says that the president and vice president are chosen separately, in practice they are chosen together.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
If no vice presidential candidate receives an Electoral College majority, Article Two, section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution states that the Senate selects the Vice President. This is a curious anomaly since the sitting Vice President is also President of the Senate and would be called upon to break a tie vote, possibly for himself or his successor. However, there has been no occasion for the Senate to select the Vice President in this manner. (In the election of 1824, the selection of the President was made by the House of Represenatives due to four contenders who each received a significant number of electoral votes. However, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina easily won the election for Vice President with 182 votes out of 260 cast.)

Anti-Bunny

03-05-2008, 10:37 AM

Based on Exit Polls, they went for Obama 52-47.

So, they lied to the exit pollers. Gotcha. Certainly wouldn't be the first time exit polls were wrong.

JeffL

03-05-2008, 10:38 AM

So I'm reading that Hillary picked up a total gain of about 12 delegates. And that if the Texas caucus results come in the way they are trending, she may ultimately have gained close to zero delegates. In one article this morning I read:

"It doesn't get any better for Clinton after Tuesday. Just for kicks, pencil the New York senator in for landslide victories in Wyoming, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky plus narrow victories in Guam, Indiana, North Carolina, Montana and South Dakota — scenarios that give her a hefty benefit of the doubt and then some. And what happens?

She still trails Obama."

In other words - her only hope is really no different than it was before the results from last night: she can only win if the superdelegates decide to overturn the results of the elected delegates.

And now it will start getting nasty, Hillary is going to try to convince America that Obama is an extremely risky choice for president, Obama is going to have to respond with his own set of negative ads, and McCain and company are going to sit and drink lemonade while all of the political air time and speeches by the Democrats for the next few months are those which advertise to the country just how bad the Democrat candidates are.

Dirt

03-05-2008, 10:48 AM

Clinton wins in primaries when everyone votes and Obama wins in caucases. The general election isn't a caucus.

Enidigm

03-05-2008, 10:53 AM

My sister just told me she was elected as a local delegate from her precinct in Round Rock. Did you see a 25ish blond girl at your precinct Lum?

malphigian

03-05-2008, 10:53 AM

Clinton wins in primaries when everyone votes and Obama wins in caucases. The general election isn't a caucus.

The general election is also not between Clinton and Obama.

Also, Obama has won plenty of primaries (VT, MD, IL, GA, AL, WI, DC, VA, LA, UT, MO, CT, DE, SC to be specific).

mouselock

03-05-2008, 11:04 AM

Interestingly enough, the Constitution originally held that the runner-up for President became Vice President. The 12th Amendment changed it so that President and Vice President are now voted on in the Electoral College on separate ballots. It's actually just due to mutual agreement by all parties involved that any elector picking a President will also cast the Vice Presidential ballot for that candidate's chosen VP.

Obama/Lum '08!

Jason McCullough

03-05-2008, 11:07 AM

Lum

03-05-2008, 11:14 AM

My sister just told me she was elected as a local delegate from her precinct in Round Rock. Did you see a 25ish blond girl at your precinct Lum?

Did she caucus for Hillary? There's 3 polling places in Round Rock I think so it may not have been ours.

VictoriaWong

03-05-2008, 11:16 AM

Finally, if Hillary ends up with the nomination I don't know if you can count on the overwhelming youth support for Obama switching to support Hillary. That group is very unpredictable.
They're more likely to support Clinton than McCain. On the other hand, they might just not vote.

I'm not so sure in this case.
I think in an odd way, this is all just continuing "buzz" for the Democrats. The campaign has not been particularly mean and nasty...They really seem to be presenting a united "we disagree on the details, but agree on the general" front.
McCain having locked things up means that in part, his name will not be nearly as big of news as Obama and Hilary for the next few months. Out of sight, out of mind.
Phone ad, anyone? Agree on the general, yes.
His name will still be big as long as he keeps trickling policy statements out or starts attacking one of them.
Is it just for the media circus?
Yeah, pretty much.

Enidigm

03-05-2008, 11:32 AM

Did she caucus for Hillary? There's 3 polling places in Round Rock I think so it may not have been ours.

No, Obama. She'd die if i told her that... so i know how to address her next time :).

She's on the west side of the interstate.

milo

03-05-2008, 11:34 AM

What's the point of stretching the primaries for months and months, anyway? Why can't they just do the whole thing in one shot like is done for the general election? Is it just for the media circus? I've known pretty much everything I need to know about all the viable candidates for a long time now and it shocks me when I hear about momentum as if people are still switching their votes back and forth because Hillary won a few states or shed a tear on camera.

Couple of reasons:

1. At the very beginning of the primary process, there aren't just two or three viable candidates. Sometimes there are as many as ten hopefuls in each party. Of course, not all of those hopefuls are really viable, but this process gives the underdogs a chance to prove themselves to the public, rather than just relying on party bosses to call all the shots.

2. The primary campaign process in the early, smaller states tends to be a lot more personal and face-to-face, and therefore a lot more time consuming. Spreading out the primaries gives the candidates a chance to sell themselves to the individual voters.

Why things are still spread out for months now? No idea.

--milo

Ben Sones

03-05-2008, 12:23 PM

This kind of pisses me off. Some may say it's politics as usual, but local media is saying there are an unprecedented number of these "crossover voters" and the blatent conservative media push to do this prior to the primary borders on election tampering. It looks like Clinton would have won Ohio regardless, but how much momentum and hope does she gain from winning convincingly as opposed to winning by a narrow margin? I'm not sure how you could stop this kind of tampering short of forcing everyone who switches parties during the primaries to vote the same party come general election, which in itself would be a breech of rights.

One solution would be to not allow people to change party affiliation during the primary season. Before or after, fine and dandy. But not during.

bigdruid

03-05-2008, 12:25 PM

Clinton wins in primaries when everyone votes and Obama wins in caucases. The general election isn't a caucus.
You see, it's this kind of ignorant regurgitation of talking points that makes Dirt the laughingstock of Qt3.

Obama has won a *ton* of voting primaries - he didn't amass his insurmountable delegate lead by winning only caucuses. Undoubtedly he does better in caucuses than Hillary does, due to the enthusiasm of his supporters - only a diehard Clintonite would see any downside to that.

Dirt

03-05-2008, 12:53 PM

Apart from IL, he didn't win any of the big ones. And "insurmountable" is a hyperbole. Improbable is more likely. Even so, delegates are only part of the voters who choose the Democratic nominee.

Dave47

03-05-2008, 01:26 PM

Clinton wins in primaries when everyone votes and Obama wins in caucases. The general election isn't a caucus.
Obama has won more delegates from primaries than Clinton has.

JeffL

03-05-2008, 01:38 PM

Apart from IL, he didn't win any of the big ones. And "insurmountable" is a hyperbole. Improbable is more likely. Even so, delegates are only part of the voters who choose the Democratic nominee.

Ah. You're right. He's only won more delegates, more of the popular vote, and is almost certain to maintain both of those.

But aside from that, he really hasn't done anything to deserve the nomination.

Lum

03-05-2008, 01:42 PM

Ah. You're right. He's only won more delegates, more of the popular vote, and is almost certain to maintain both of those.

Well to be fair, many of those were in states that don't count. Only California and New York and Florida and Michigan and Ohio and Texas are real states.

JeffL

03-05-2008, 01:47 PM

Well to be fair, many of those were in states that don't count. Only California and New York and Florida and Michigan and Ohio and Texas are real states.

Oh, and New Hampshire. Don't forget New Hampshire.

It's a good point. It would save a lot of money and time if we all just decided to only hold primaries in California, New York, Florida, Michigan (but make sure that only one person is on the ballot here,) Ohio, and Texas. Heck, let's do the same for the presidential election. The voting could be done pretty quickly and we wouldn't have to stay up all night.

Gremlinclr

03-05-2008, 01:57 PM

Sarkus

03-05-2008, 02:07 PM

Ok, admittedly I don't follow this shit. But can someone explain to me how 96 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D) delegates out of 4,049 equal an insurmountable lead?

That number includes the superdelegates, which are assigned and not elected. The general consensus is that the voted delegates are really what matters when Obama and Clinton make their cases for who should be chosen. Superdelegates weren't designed to choose the nominee (except in extraordinary circumstance), they were designed to help unify the party once the nominee is chosen. If you take out the superdelegates, Obama's lead is 135.

Next, there are only about 1,000 voted delegates left to be chosen. To overcome Obama's lead, Hillary would have to win 570+ of those. Since the primaries award delegates based on proportional voting, she's have to win by about 57% on average in the remaining states. Let's look at Ohio, a state Hillary is considered to have won "big." She only got 54% of the vote there.

Edit: Looks like I made a mistake and included the supers in the total and my 1,000 delegates left number is incorrect.

In simple terms, the vote between Hillary and Obama for the remainder of the primaries is going to be close enough that Hillary is unlikely to catch up to Obama.

Mark Asher

03-05-2008, 02:09 PM

Ok, admittedly I don't follow this shit. But can someone explain to me how 96 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D) delegates out of 4,049 equal an insurmountable lead?

It's not insurmountable, but Clinton would have to win big the rest of the way to catch up. Clinton's 51-48% win in Texas, for example, netted her four more delegates there than Obama got, and he will probably erase that with caucus delegates. He's also likely to win a few more states, like Mississippi, before it's over.

It really does look like the super delegates will decide the issue.

bigdruid

03-05-2008, 02:09 PM

Ok, admittedly I don't follow this shit. But can someone explain to me how 96 delegates out of 4,049 equal an insurmountable lead?
OK, it's like when you are watching the end of an NBA playoff game, the Lakers are up by 10 points over the Nuggets, and there's 30 seconds left.

It's not that 10 points is a huge lead - it's that realistically the Nuggets can't come back in the limited number of possessions remaining unless the Lakers really screw up. Which, so far, the Lakers have shown no propensity to do.

But the Nuggets' coach keeps having his players make all of these hard fouls all the way until the buzzer sounds. And the Lakers fans are getting more and more pissed because they are afraid their players are going to get injured by the hard fouls which will hurt them in the next round of the playoffs.

Meanwhile, the Nets have already won their series and are sitting at home laughing their ass off every time some Laker player gets knocked to the floor.

Hope that helps.

StGabe

03-05-2008, 02:10 PM

Ok, admittedly I don't follow this shit. But can someone explain to me how 96 (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D) delegates out of 4,049 equal an insurmountable lead?

You start with the basic premise that superdelegates shouldn't be counted (because they change their vote at any time, and because it will be very difficult for them to decide the race without repercussions). If you assume that and use then Obama is up by 135 -- 1321 to 1186. There are 3253 total, non-super delegates. 746 of them are not yet pledged. In order to win the regular delegate count, Clinton has to get 441 of those delegates or over 59%. She has to beat Obama by an 18.2% margin. Despite winning the popular vote yesterday, she didn't do nearly that welll when it came to delegate counts and it seems unlikely that she has any big wins ahead of her to shift the balance. See other links that other people have given for analysis of the remaining states.

So it seems very unlikely that she'll win the non-super vote and it comes down to the super's weighing in for her and overriding that vote.

Funkula

03-05-2008, 02:10 PM

Several reasons.

1) They're only about five or six hundred delegates from the finish line (2025 delegates to win).

2) 794 of that 4049 are superdelegates, who are going to (or at least should) need serious convincing to overturn the will of the primary voters.

3) Any contest where Hillary isn't significantly outperforming Obama is a loss, because she needs to close that gap quickly. It's like how PS3 beating 360 on NPD doesn't mean much until they can do it consistently and thoroughly, because they have to make up the distance of the install base gap.

Edit: Lots of posts while I was writing this one, covering most of the same ground.

Dirt

03-05-2008, 02:15 PM

Why does everyone look upon the superdelegates like they're the Electoral College?

StGabe

03-05-2008, 02:19 PM

Why does everyone look upon the superdelegates like they're the Electoral College?

Because recent history has made even the electoral college seem ridiculous. If superdelegates overthrow the winner of the non-super votes it will play very poorly and alienate a lot of people. The democrats can't afford to go into the general election as the party that let "elites" choose their candidate.

Sarkus

03-05-2008, 02:25 PM

Because recent history has made even the electoral college seem ridiculous. If superdelegates overthrow the winner of the non-super votes it will play very poorly and alienate a lot of people. The democrats can't afford to go into the general election as the party that let "elites" choose their candidate.

Yeah, someone posted the official instructions to superdelegates somewhere here in R&P a few weeks ago and it's pretty clear they aren't supposed to be deciding who the nominee is unless the party is concerned that the likely nominee is unelectable or doesn't represent the party. They were created after the chaotic 1968 Dem convention to try and make sure something like that never happened again.

Ben Sones

03-05-2008, 02:28 PM

Why does everyone look upon the superdelegates like they're the Electoral College?

Because in practice, they play a nearly identical role. They serve as a buffer between the popular vote and who actually gets chosen. Like the electoral college, they pretty much always follow the popular vote. Thus, people view both as being vestigial and unnecessary, and also rather undemocratic in concept.

bigdruid

03-05-2008, 03:00 PM

Although the electoral college seems more analogous to regular delegates than super delegates. Because the selection of electors matches the popular vote in the same way that delegates do.

JeffL

03-05-2008, 03:17 PM

TomChick

03-05-2008, 03:27 PM

these party insiders could decide to hand the nomination to someone else, at their own discretion, with no real oversight.

Well, only if you consider being an elected official "no oversight".

Look, the nominee is selected by party rules, not popular vote. If the Democratic party decides the nominee will be selected by who can hold his breath longest in the deep end of the pool, folks who don't like it can either switch parties, work within the confines of the party to change the rules, or practice holding their breath. Right now, the superdelegates are exactly where the need to be: between the People's Choice Awards and the actual nominee. That they'll probably bow to whomever has the most votes is incidental. Superdelegates are working exactly as intended.

-Tom

Jason McCullough

03-05-2008, 03:40 PM

This superdelegate setup the Democrats have does kinda stink. It's not like they are a small voting bloc - these unelected delegates represent about the same amount of delegates as California, Ohio, Texas, and Illinois combined. Think about it - Obama is ahead by a pretty uncatchable 100 or more elected delegates. In theory, he could be ahead by almost 800 delegates, and these party insiders could decide to hand the nomination to someone else, at their own discretion, with no real oversight.

I'm not sure I agree, but they were put in there for what was thought to be a good reason - a counter-reaction to the McGovern primary reforms. Namely, to stop a short-term McGovern-like firestorm of hardcore party people nominating someone they love who'd lose the election in a landslide. The McGovern primary reforms originally were basically "let the party vote", rather than having elites pick them.

Some background (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/02/17/80s_rules_reform_skews_democrats_nominee_process/). I don't know what it says about me or the way 1968 was covered that I had no idea the protests partly occurred because Hubert Humphrey got the nomination without winning a single primary, unlike Eugene McCarthy.

For what it's worth, the only thing about the current system that really bothers me all that much is how many caucuses there are, which we've gone into before.

ravenight

03-05-2008, 04:42 PM

As far as the delegate lead thing goes, how would the math change if the delegates from MI and FL were seated? Would Clinton have a good shot at getting a majority of pledged delegates in that situation?

JeffL

03-05-2008, 04:53 PM

Well, only if you consider being an elected official "no oversight".

Look, the nominee is selected by party rules, not popular vote. If the Democratic party decides the nominee will be selected by who can hold his breath longest in the deep end of the pool, folks who don't like it can either switch parties, work within the confines of the party to change the rules, or practice holding their breath. Right now, the superdelegates are exactly where the need to be: between the People's Choice Awards and the actual nominee. That they'll probably bow to whomever has the most votes is incidental. Superdelegates are working exactly as intended.

-Tom

Oh, I understand. After all, it wasn't all that long ago that there was no popular vote - the party bosses basically decided who they wanted in the legendary smoke filled rooms, and that was the nominee. And I'm also on the record as saying Obama can't have it both ways - he can't say that everyone has to stick to the party rules when it comes to FL and MI and have any foundation for an argument that the superdelegates can't be allowed to pick whoever gave them their jobs (or their cousins, etc.) or whatever other reasoning they use.

I just don't like it. ;) But, since I'm hardly a life-long Democrat, much less an insider, the party is probably not gonna ask my opinion.

NowhereDan

03-05-2008, 05:28 PM

Sarkus

03-05-2008, 05:29 PM

And I'm also on the record as saying Obama can't have it both ways - he can't say that everyone has to stick to the party rules when it comes to FL and MI and have any foundation for an argument that the superdelegates can't be allowed to pick whoever gave them their jobs (or their cousins, etc.) or whatever other reasoning they use.

I think those are two seperate issues and just because Obama favors one doesn't mean that he's being a hypocritical on the other. The FL and MI issues have been well established and represent Hillary's challenge of not only a party decision but a decision she agreed with until it occurred to her that she might lose.

The superdelegate issue, however, is not really as clear. As far as I know Obama is merely stating that he thinks the superdelegates should take a look at how their constituents voted before making a decision, something the rules for superdelegates don't oppose. Superdelegates aren't required to vote with their constituents, but that doesn't mean they are supposed to disregard it as a factor either. If Obama was demanding that superdelegates vote with their constituents, that would be another thing altogether, but he isn't. Besides, we wouldn't even be talking about superdelegates if it weren't for Hillary arguing that they should be willing to ignore the elected delegates even if a majority of them favor Obama.

Rimbo

03-05-2008, 06:04 PM

OK, it's like when you are watching the end of an NBA playoff game, the Lakers are up by 10 points over the Nuggets, and there's 30 seconds left.

It's not that 10 points is a huge lead - it's that realistically the Nuggets can't come back in the limited number of possessions remaining unless the Lakers really screw up. Which, so far, the Lakers have shown no propensity to do.

But the Nuggets' coach keeps having his players make all of these hard fouls all the way until the buzzer sounds. And the Lakers fans are getting more and more pissed because they are afraid their players are going to get injured by the hard fouls which will hurt them in the next round of the playoffs.

Meanwhile, the Nets have already won their series and are sitting at home laughing their ass off every time some Laker player gets knocked to the floor.

Hope that helps.

That's a really, really good analogy.

Fooey

03-06-2008, 11:27 AM

I think those are two seperate issues and just because Obama favors one doesn't mean that he's being a hypocritical on the other. The FL and MI issues have been well established and represent Hillary's challenge of not only a party decision but a decision she agreed with until it occurred to her that she might lose.

The superdelegate issue, however, is not really as clear. As far as I know Obama is merely stating that he thinks the superdelegates should take a look at how their constituents voted before making a decision, something the rules for superdelegates don't oppose. Superdelegates aren't required to vote with their constituents, but that doesn't mean they are supposed to disregard it as a factor either. If Obama was demanding that superdelegates vote with their constituents, that would be another thing altogether, but he isn't. Besides, we wouldn't even be talking about superdelegates if it weren't for Hillary arguing that they should be willing to ignore the elected delegates even if a majority of them favor Obama.

Obama seems to have deemphasized the idea that superdelegates should follow their constituents after Clinton initially responded by saying she'd be more than happy for Senators Kennedy and Kerry to take that advice and switch their support to her.

bigdruid

03-06-2008, 11:36 AM

I think he's deemphasized it not because he doesn't want to lose Kennedy/Kerry's support, but because *he no longer has to emphasize it*.

He's winning, he has a surprisingly large lead, and barring any unforeseen surprises in the upcoming states he's going to maintain that lead. So he doesn't actually have to go after Hillary's superdelegates any more - he just has to maintain his lead, and get his fair share of the remaining uncommitted delegates.

BlueJackalope

03-06-2008, 11:39 AM

That's a really, really good analogy.

It is. I used it last night with some folks over beers. I didn't credit EDIT: The Original Large Boned Woodsman! The Stonehenge Avengah! BiiiiigDruid!, but I didn't say I invented it either.

Sarkus

03-06-2008, 12:14 PM

It is. I used it last night with some folks over beers. I didn't credit Sarkus, but I didn't say I invented it either.

No problem. Though bigdruid might disagree . . . :-)

BlueJackalope

03-06-2008, 01:19 PM

No problem. Though bigdruid might disagree . . . :-)

Ah me and my lazy not-upscrolling-far-enough-and-actually-looking-at-the-post ways.

Sorry Druid, I meant to not credit you, not not credit Sarkus.

bigdruid

03-06-2008, 01:24 PM

Ah me and my lazy not-upscrolling-far-enough-and-actually-looking-at-the-post ways.

Sorry Druid, I meant to not credit you, not not credit Sarkus.
Heh, no worries. I'm glad it was beer-worthy :)

Rimbo

03-06-2008, 01:36 PM

My brother added the following input to the analogy:

* it's more like a minute left than 30 seconds
* and it remains to be seen how well obama shoots free throws
* he's already blown a one and one

He then added as an aside, "the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Howard Dean is a republican plant"

Xaroc

03-06-2008, 01:53 PM

This article explains why Hillary can't catch up: http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

Dirt

03-06-2008, 01:55 PM

This article explains why Hillary can't catch up: http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=42780

Xaroc

03-06-2008, 02:02 PM

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=42780

Bleh, my bad.

bigdruid

03-06-2008, 05:11 PM

* he's already blown a one and one

Yeah, I'd have to disagree with this. Given the demographics in Ohio/Texas/RI, the Obama camp didn't expect to win those states (and, by any real measure, he "won" Texas in that he is likely to end up with more Texas delegates than Hillary once you count the caucus results). See my link from the other thread of the Obama campaign's primary predictions (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html), where they predicted a loss in those states, way back on Feb 7th.

The whole reason why the Clinton campaign played up Ohio and Texas was because they expected to win (which they did). Clinton will lose both Wyoming and Mississippi, then beat the crap out of Obama in Pennsylvania. The media will try to invent a narrative for this, but realistically it's just demographics.

So Ohio/Texas/RI were not free throws by any stretch - they were in Clinton's pocket from the get-go (which is why had Obama managed to take them, it really was "game over" for Clinton, because if she can't win there, she can't win anywhere). Now if Obama doesn't win comfortably in Wyoming/Mississippi, then you can start talking about him missing free throws.

JeffL

03-06-2008, 05:41 PM

I didn't really realize just HOW impossible it is for Hillary to win the delegates or popular vote. From that article:

"Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Clinton's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.

Then on April 22, the big one—Pennsylvania—and it's a Clinton blowout: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Clinton 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates. May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Clinton wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Clinton pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates."

OK - does anyone believe there is even a 0.01% chance of all of that happening? But here's the thing: even if it does, she still doesn't catch Obama in elected delegates.

And then, under any kind of reasonable results, Obama will only need about 50-100 of the 500 currently uncommitted superdelegates to have enough to win.

So there's really no practical scenario in which Hillary can win the delegates. Even if they did a do-over election in Florida and Michigan, she'd probably win Florida's old demographics, but by how much is a question, and Michigan's large black voting population (we might need Bill to remind us that Jesse Jackson won MI in 1988) would probably give Obama an outright win there.

So - what's going to happen is they will beat each other up for months, no doubt each campaign will make mistakes and say things that will come back to haunt them in the general election. And Obama will get the nomination anyway.

Jason McCullough

03-06-2008, 08:08 PM

The popular vote is possible, especially with revotes, but delegate count is getting ever more implausible. The only way I can see Hillary pulling it off is if she keeps attacking Obama, he keeps sucking at defending himself + doesn't throw punches back, and actually gets worse at it. A slight non-super lead wouldn't count for much if by convention time he'd shown a glass jaw.

Sepiche

03-07-2008, 07:36 AM

The whole reason why the Clinton campaign played up Ohio and Texas was because they expected to win (which they did). Clinton will lose both Wyoming and Mississippi, then beat the crap out of Obama in Pennsylvania. The media will try to invent a narrative for this, but realistically it's just demographics.
Indeed. In fact one of the stories getting lost in the media is the fact that two weeks before the primaries in Texas and Ohio Clinton had healthy 20-30 point leads. The fact that Texas came out (I'll be generous) a draw is just another sign of Clinton's weakening campaign.

http://www.pollster.com/08-TX-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Rimbo

03-07-2008, 11:21 AM

Yeah, I'd have to disagree with this. Given the demographics in Ohio/Texas/RI, the Obama camp didn't expect to win those states (and, by any real measure, he "won" Texas in that he is likely to end up with more Texas delegates than Hillary once you count the caucus results). See my link from the other thread of the Obama campaign's primary predictions (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html), where they predicted a loss in those states, way back on Feb 7th.

The whole reason why the Clinton campaign played up Ohio and Texas was because they expected to win (which they did). Clinton will lose both Wyoming and Mississippi, then beat the crap out of Obama in Pennsylvania. The media will try to invent a narrative for this, but realistically it's just demographics.

So Ohio/Texas/RI were not free throws by any stretch - they were in Clinton's pocket from the get-go (which is why had Obama managed to take them, it really was "game over" for Clinton, because if she can't win there, she can't win anywhere). Now if Obama doesn't win comfortably in Wyoming/Mississippi, then you can start talking about him missing free throws.

You're correct that Obama performed as he (and we) expected. I think a more accurate application of that to the analogy is that we know the Lakers are not very good from the free-throw line, and that once the Nuggets started fouling that we'd miss a few. The Lakers still missed the FT's though; expecting that they'd miss doesn't change that. :)

Rimbo

03-07-2008, 11:24 AM

Yeah, I'd have to disagree with this. Given the demographics in Ohio/Texas/RI, the Obama camp didn't expect to win those states (and, by any real measure, he "won" Texas in that he is likely to end up with more Texas delegates than Hillary once you count the caucus results). See my link from the other thread of the Obama campaign's primary predictions (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html), where they predicted a loss in those states, way back on Feb 7th.

The whole reason why the Clinton campaign played up Ohio and Texas was because they expected to win (which they did). Clinton will lose both Wyoming and Mississippi, then beat the crap out of Obama in Pennsylvania. The media will try to invent a narrative for this, but realistically it's just demographics.

So Ohio/Texas/RI were not free throws by any stretch - they were in Clinton's pocket from the get-go (which is why had Obama managed to take them, it really was "game over" for Clinton, because if she can't win there, she can't win anywhere). Now if Obama doesn't win comfortably in Wyoming/Mississippi, then you can start talking about him missing free throws.

Actually the intriguing thing about what you're saying here is something that the Democrats have done for a long time that's just now coming back to haunt them. They've benefitted for a long time based on what you might call "victim" politics. They've been able to get minorities and other protected classes to vote for them in blocs. And today, they continue to vote in blocs. The problem is that the two candidates are both attractive to voters for different reasons, and both are members of protected classes. And people keep voting in predictable ways. The only exception to this is age; Obama appeals more to those under 30, and Hillary appeals more to those over 60.

Rimbo

03-07-2008, 11:26 AM

Indeed. In fact one of the stories getting lost in the media is the fact that two weeks before the primaries in Texas and Ohio Clinton had healthy 20-30 point leads. The fact that Texas came out (I'll be generous) a draw is just another sign of Clinton's weakening campaign.

http://www.pollster.com/08-TX-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

I agree with that, and that's a point that the media generally seems to be missing. While Obama lost, it's amazing how much ground he made up. Which is why I think he needs to just keep on doing what he's been doing -- stay positive -- and not worry about the attacks from Hillary.

Dirt

03-07-2008, 11:29 AM

Jason McCullough

03-07-2008, 01:26 PM

Protected classes?

Sarkus

03-07-2008, 03:19 PM

Chuck Todd on MSNBC on Tuesday affirmed bigdruid and said that for there to be a decisive win, both Obama and Clinton would have to win the other's demographics (state) in order to show that they have the true edge. Either Obama in PA or Clinton in MS, say. I think this is really going to the superdelegates.

Maybe technically, but Obama will have to do very poorly the rest of the way (average 40% or less of the vote) not to have the most pledged delegates. Add another 200 of the undeclared superdelegates and it's all over.

Hillary only wins if Obama is knocked out by some revelation. She may make it close, but all she's doing is opening up the attack avenues that McCain will use later.

I think the drawn out nature of this process would be less significant if the convention was at a typical time, like late July/early August because then you have time to get everyone together if the convention is contentious. However, with the convention being at the end of August, the nominee is going to have to go into full campaign mode right away and do you really want them having to spend time making the unhappy factions happy? McCain gets to work on that for the next five months and can start laying out his general campaign.

Andrew Mayer

03-07-2008, 03:30 PM

Hillary only wins if Obama is knocked out by some revelation. She may make it close, but all she's doing is opening up the attack avenues that McCain will use later.

I harbor this fantasy that she's already decided she's going to lose, and she's secretly toughening him up for the general.

She's doing it for the rest of us!

Dirt

03-07-2008, 03:37 PM

More likely she's setting up Obama to lose so she can run again in 2012.

Rimbo

03-07-2008, 03:41 PM

Protected classes?

Anyone who's a member of a group that has been oppressed by the majority for being born as a member of that group. They are "protected" in an attempt to keep reactionaries from using sheer numbers to overpower them and revert things back to the earlier state -- to deny them the rights that are their due. Folks who have recently fought to have the same civil rights that white males enjoyed and even today have those rights under attack.

Andrew Mayer

03-07-2008, 03:59 PM

More likely she's setting up Obama to lose so she can run again in 2012.

The night of his election, when she reveals what she sacrificed in order for him to succeed, and how hard it was for her to attack the man she truly loved, there won't be a dry eye in the country.

"Now get out there damn you. Get out there and give that acceptance speech. Tell them you'll lead them, and that you'll be the best damn president this country has ever seen!

Tom McNamara

03-07-2008, 04:05 PM

There is a certain irony that I can't get over: Her campaign is basically designed to defeat Bill Clinton circa 1992 -- the guy who put her on the political map in the first place.

Fooey

03-07-2008, 06:24 PM

There is a certain irony that I can't get over: Her campaign is basically designed to defeat Bill Clinton circa 1992 -- the guy who put her on the political map in the first place.

They played these remarks from Bill Clinton during the 2004 election on Meet the Press last week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo

Obama could run this unedited as response ad to Hillary's latest line of attack.

Jason McCullough

03-07-2008, 07:33 PM

Anyone who's a member of a group that has been oppressed by the majority for being born as a member of that group. They are "protected" in an attempt to keep reactionaries from using sheer numbers to overpower them and revert things back to the earlier state -- to deny them the rights that are their due. Folks who have recently fought to have the same civil rights that white males enjoyed and even today have those rights under attack.

I don't see how your definition of protected here distinguishes them from any other interest group. Every group gets the party to push for its interests, with varying success.

strummer

03-07-2008, 08:42 PM

They played these remarks from Bill Clinton during the 2004 election on Meet the Press last week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo

Obama could run this unedited as response ad to Hillary's latest line of attack.

I was fully expecting to hear "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message" immediately after the clip.

bigdruid

03-07-2008, 09:43 PM

There is a certain irony that I can't get over: Her campaign is basically designed to defeat Bill Clinton circa 1992 -- the guy who put her on the political map in the first place.

Except Bill Clinton had been a governor.

There's a reason why so many ex-governors have been President:

1) It *sounds* good - it sounds like real executive experience, even though it's really not any better than being a senator.
2) Governors don't really do all that much. It'd be kind of like the US Presidency would be without any military or diplomatic duties - so there's not much to criticize about their record.
3) The stuff that they *are* responsible for, people outside the state usually don't care about anyway. Who cares about funding for education in Arkansas, or the death penalty in Texas? As long as you aren't letting Willie Horton out on parole, people don't care.

If Obama had 4 years as a governor somewhere, the whole "experience" thing wouldn't hold any water for people. He doesn't, so he's left having to attack Hillary's experience rather than pointing to his own record.

Sarkus

03-07-2008, 10:45 PM

If Obama had 4 years as a governor somewhere, the whole "experience" thing wouldn't hold any water for people. He doesn't, so he's left having to attack Hillary's experience rather than pointing to his own record.

What experience? See, this is the thing that I really dislike about Hillary - this claim of experience. I'm sorry, but being first lady doesn't make you ready to be president. For gods sake, she didn't even have a security clearance and yet she'd have you believe (and lots of people seem to accept) that she was there for every major decision. Are you going to tell me Nancy Reagan or Barbara Bush are experienced enough to be a president too, then? And don't give me that crap about travelling the world either - or is Queen Elizabeth of England now considered a foreign policy expert because she's been doing the "dog and pony" tour for decades?

I'm not saying Obama has great experience either, but Hillary realistically can only point to her time in the Senate as "experience."

Rimbo

03-07-2008, 11:53 PM

I don't see how your definition of protected here distinguishes them from any other interest group. Every group gets the party to push for its interests, with varying success.

It distinguishes them from every president the country has ever had. Each one of them, if elected (highly likely before today, but less and less likely as this drags on), will be a first. And therein lies the problem: Many people are voting for Hillary because they want to see a woman in the White House, and many people are voting for Obama because they want to see an African-American in the White House. Conversely, if one loses to the other, it's either the men holding back the women again, or whitey holding back the black man again, and a huge section of the electorate turns away, jaded.

By playing these kind of politics for so long, the Democrats are in a stew of their own cooking.

Sarkus

03-08-2008, 12:01 AM

Anyone who's a member of a group that has been oppressed by the majority for being born as a member of that group. They are "protected" in an attempt to keep reactionaries from using sheer numbers to overpower them and revert things back to the earlier state -- to deny them the rights that are their due. Folks who have recently fought to have the same civil rights that white males enjoyed and even today have those rights under attack.

I hope you aren't suggesting that women are one of these groups. Because I know I'm worried that men will use their sheer numbers as a minority gender to overpower women and take away their rights.

Even for some other groups, I'm wondering what qualifies "a group" to become protected. It seems to me that there are minority groups that are doing just fine without the protection of a major political party.

Rimbo

03-08-2008, 12:02 AM

I hope you aren't suggesting that women are one of these groups. Because I know I'm worried that men will use their sheer numbers as a minority gender to overpower women and take away their rights.

Even for some other groups, I'm wondering what qualifies "a group" to become protected. It seems to me that there are minority groups that are doing just fine without the protection of a major political party.

I guess you're too young to have heard of the "glass ceiling." Or to remember a time when women were expected to hold only jobs as teachers, nurses and secretaries.

Sarkus

03-08-2008, 12:10 AM

I guess you're too young to have heard of the "glass ceiling." Or to remember a time when women were expected to hold only jobs as teachers, nurses and secretaries.

The glass ceiling appears to be fast shattering (we've had women CEO's as well as women at every level of government outside of the President and Vice President and we've had serious candidates for both) and I'm not sure that past oppression requires current protection unless you can show where society is currently working to bring back the bad old days.

On top of that, women outnumber men in general in the US and by even a greater number in terms of voting. Who's the minority?

Rimbo

03-08-2008, 12:19 AM

The glass ceiling appears to be fast shattering (we've had women CEO's as well as women at every level of government outside of the President and Vice President and we've had serious candidates for both) and I'm not sure that past oppression requires current protection unless you can show where society is currently working to bring back the bad old days.

I agree with you -- and this is the problem: The Democratic Party has been practicing an outdated form of politics based on these protected classes since the era of the Civil Rights Movement, and right now it's haunting them.

On top of that, women outnumber men in general in the US and by even a greater number in terms of voting. Who's the minority?

That's why we use the term "protected class" instead of "minority." If I'd meant "minority," I would have said that originally. :)

bigdruid

03-08-2008, 09:17 AM

I'm not saying Obama has great experience either, but Hillary realistically can only point to her time in the Senate as "experience."

I agree - my point was that it's all about "perception". Being a governor is not particularly impressive experience either, but people perceive it as being sufficient. Hillary doesn't have better experience, but again it's about perception, not reality.

Attacking your opponent's experience is a pretty crappy response to attacks on your own experience, as at *best* it just makes you both look bad. It's unfortunate that Obama has to resort to that, because it won't fly against McCain - it'd be nice (and more in keeping with the themes of his campaign) if he could defend his own experience or make it a non-issue.

Otherwise, he somehow needs to make the "my opponent only has experience in making bad decisions" claim stick, or more strongly cast himself as a Washington outsider, where his perceived lack of experience is a plus.

bigdruid

03-08-2008, 09:28 AM

I agree with you -- and this is the problem: The Democratic Party has been practicing an outdated form of politics based on these protected classes since the era of the Civil Rights Movement, and right now it's haunting them.

Interestingly enough, I see Obama's candidacy as the first step towards leaving that mindset behind.

There's a reason why party members over 50 tend to support Clinton - there's a demographic divide between people who are still mired in the politics of the '60s (the feminist movement, civil rights, the sexual revolution, etc) and those of us who grew up after these victories were won.

There are many themes in this campaign, but one thing that is not being discussed even by the most reactionary Clinton haters is whether a woman is inherently incapable of serving as the President - that in and of itself signals that the "glass ceiling" is no longer relevant.

That's not to say that there isn't still progress to be made - it's just that I welcome a Democratic Party that recognizes that sexism and racism are no longer at the top of issues we need to grapple with as a nation.

Jason McCullough

03-08-2008, 03:35 PM

It distinguishes them from every president the country has ever had. Each one of them, if elected (highly likely before today, but less and less likely as this drags on), will be a first. And therein lies the problem: Many people are voting for Hillary because they want to see a woman in the White House, and many people are voting for Obama because they want to see an African-American in the White House. Conversely, if one loses to the other, it's either the men holding back the women again, or whitey holding back the black man again, and a huge section of the electorate turns away, jaded.

By playing these kind of politics for so long, the Democrats are in a stew of their own cooking.

What are you basing your interpretation of this on? I have yet to talk to anyone who'll be jaded that "the black guy" or "the woman" won't win.

They support them because they expect them to do certain things; their personal identity is just a rollup of the things they do and don't expect them to do. People don't support Obama because of his skin color; they think that his skin color means he's part of the African-American cultural group, and they'd prefer someone with the views and agenda of that cultural group in charge because of what they're likely to do and not do. I think you're using the fallacy that this only applies to the powerless, too; it applies just as much to Huckabee (they want someone with evangelical views running things) and McCain (they want rich old warmonger white guy).

"These kind of politics" is normally known as "politics." It's just not considered "identity politics" or whatever people call it when you're pushing for the views of the dominant majority, because hey, people don't constantly remark on breathing air either.

Sarkus

03-08-2008, 03:41 PM

What are you basing your interpretation of this on? I have yet to talk to anyone who'll be jaded that "the black guy" or "the woman" won't win.

They support them because they expect them to do certain things; their personal identity is just a rollup of the things they do and don't expect them to do. People don't support Obama because of his skin color; they think that his skin color means he's part of the African-American cultural group, and they'd prefer someone with the views and agenda of that cultural group in charge because of what they're likely to do and not do. I think you're using the fallacy that this only applies to the powerless, too; it applies just as much to Huckabee (they want someone with evangelical views running things) and McCain (they want rich old warmonger white guy).

I wish you were right, but there are plenty of feminists, just as an example, who've made it pretty clear in what they've written and what they say on TV that they view Obama as a man that's stopping their dream from coming through. And a lot of the time they don't try to argue that it's because Hillary's a better candidate.

So yeah, they are doing what Rimbo is suggesting.

Walter Yarbrough

03-08-2008, 03:44 PM

And don't give me that crap about travelling the world either - or is Queen Elizabeth of England now considered a foreign policy expert because she's been doing the "dog and pony" tour for decades?

I'd actually consider this one of the major strengths of a constitutional monarchy - I would certainly consider Queen Elizabeth more of a foreign policy expert than, say, George W.

Jason McCullough

03-08-2008, 05:44 PM

I wish you were right, but there are plenty of feminists, just as an example, who've made it pretty clear in what they've written and what they say on TV that they view Obama as a man that's stopping their dream from coming through. And a lot of the time they don't try to argue that it's because Hillary's a better candidate.

So yeah, they are doing what Rimbo is suggesting.

So a few noisy professional ideologues represent all women? That'd be a bit like interpreting all evangelicals through James Dobson.

The underlying point I think Rimbo's getting at, in less inflammatory terms than I'm about to use, and which I disagree with, is that women vote for Hillary because they're shrill harpies who think men are out to get them and blacks vote for Obama because they think everyone's a racist; end of story, nothing else to it.

It's like that CNN story where black women are supposed to be torn about who they'll support, yet you never see a story about how white males are torn between expressing their "identity" by voting for Al Gore or George Bush.

Tom McNamara

03-08-2008, 06:06 PM

So a few noisy professional ideologues represent all women? That'd be a bit like interpreting all evangelicals through James Dobson.

Noisy professional ideologues have been representing different segments of America for decades. Do they each represent the total sum of their respective segments? No, and I don't think that argument is being made, either. You don't need to win every vote to get elected; as long as you hold a majority or even plurality of sentiment...

Why am I explaining this to you? You're just being obtuse.

Jason McCullough

03-08-2008, 09:45 PM

I'm being obtuse because I don't agree with Rollory that "the democrats are practicing victim politics?"

Rimbo

03-08-2008, 10:29 PM

Jason, in the past you've been more than happy to explain to me how the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are not merely shrill outcasts in the mass melting pot of Conservatives, but are in fact leaders and spokesmen for all of the right. So telling us now that a few ideologues don't represent all women seems... false. Plus, I have my own anecdotal evidence of friends and family members who support Hillary; one of them, my 93-year-old grandmother, is a lifelong, hardcore Conservative, who voted for Hillary because she'd like to see one female president before she dies.

I agree with bigdruid that Obama represents a big step in the direction away from that; a big reason he has such support from the black community right now is the fact he isn't asking blacks to vote for him because of his skin color and because he appeals to folks across the board. He does still benefit from those victim politics; I saw a quote as recently as yesterday from an 83-year-old PA primary voter saying that he was going to vote for Obama in the hopes that there'd be a black president in his lifetime.

You'll note that these statements are a far cry from your straw man description of what I said, however. Folks don't vote out of fear. They may lash out against the result later on if it isn't to their liking, but that's an entirely different thing.

Funkula

03-08-2008, 11:36 PM

Sarkus

03-09-2008, 12:03 AM

So a few noisy professional ideologues represent all women? That'd be a bit like interpreting all evangelicals through James Dobson.

The underlying point I think Rimbo's getting at, in less inflammatory terms than I'm about to use, and which I disagree with, is that women vote for Hillary because they're shrill harpies who think men are out to get them and blacks vote for Obama because they think everyone's a racist; end of story, nothing else to it.

To be clear I don't think the majority of women who are voting for Hillary are voting for her just because she's a woman nor do I think women vote as some sort of group. Clearly they don't, as the number of women who consistently vote Republican shows.

Instead, I'm looking at Rimbo and Rollory's arguments from the point of view that there is a block of women who are active Democrats and for those women the feminist movement has emerged as a voice, much in the same way certain ministers have become a voice of the black community. And I do get the strong feeling that some of them are going to be jaded if Hillary isn't the nominee because of what they will see as a lost opportunity for a woman to become president.

Rimbo

03-09-2008, 12:20 AM

Because political affiliations and genitals are similar. Both are conscious choices made in adulthood. Or is it that they're both fixed by pure genetics at conception? I can never remember which.

I'm not really sure how your point is relevant to the discussion, or how it relates to the point I was making.

Edit 2: Aww, crap, now I see it. Very sloppy of me! To be clear, while he used the term "all women" and I parroted it, I really only meant that particular large bloc who are all voting for Hillary because they see it as breaking down a barrier for women.

Yes, we're talking about gender politics, not gender itself; plenty of women don't embrace the modern definition of feminism, and many men do. The point of my statement to McCullough is that he can't make the "a few ideologues" argument here and yet point to the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter as exemplary in other arguments.

The fact I'm pointing this out to McCullough doesn't mean I agree that it's "just a couple of ideologues," either. Just that it's ridiculous to hear that particular defense coming from him.

Anders Hallin

03-09-2008, 01:16 AM

Jason, in the past you've been more than happy to explain to me how the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are not merely shrill outcasts in the mass melting pot of Conservatives, but are in fact leaders and spokesmen for all of the right.
But I can point to several outlets that are more visible than, say, the NOW NY press release denouncing women voting Obama. In fact, I think all the feminist blogs I read seem to support Obama at this point, and these aren't exactly the least visible in the movement.

Jason used James Dobson as an example, or you could also use Pat Buchanan as an example. An older set of leaders that you can always go to to have a swing at an opinion. Unlike Coulter and Limbaugh however, they do not have a weekly or daily role in "mainstream" right-wing media.

Now, are some feminists feeling a bit resentful? Yes, but few of them have ever been Clinton-fans, since she's a centrist who will, like most Democrats, throw them under the bus at first opportunity, and has done so already. Are they more likely to vote for Obama than you? Yes, yes they are.

Rimbo

03-09-2008, 03:22 AM

Are they more likely to vote for Obama than you? Yes, yes they are.

Eh? I already voted for Obama, thus the probability of me voting for him is already maxed out. :)

Anders Hallin

03-09-2008, 04:05 AM

Eh? I already voted for Obama, thus the probability of me voting for him is already maxed out. :)
No, I mean in the general, when I am expecting to shoot myself in reaction to fair-weather supporters feeling all upset by politics and disillusioned with Obama for bullshit reasons.

quatoria

03-09-2008, 08:41 AM

I'd actually consider this one of the major strengths of a constitutional monarchy - I would certainly consider Queen Elizabeth more of a foreign policy expert than, say, George W.

I'd consider my left fucking sock to be more of a foreign policy expert than George W. So far, my sock has an unblemished record of not starting ridiculous wars, and it certainly hasn't made me an international laughingstock. Good ol' sock.

Ben Sones

03-09-2008, 08:51 AM

I'd consider voting for sock, at this point. What does its domestic policy look like?

bigdruid

03-09-2008, 09:13 AM

But I can point to several outlets that are more visible than, say, the NOW NY press release denouncing women voting Obama. In fact, I think all the feminist blogs I read seem to support Obama at this point, and these aren't exactly the least visible in the movement.

Um, wow, this is the first I'd heard of that press release (http://www.nownys.com/pr_2008/pr_012808.html). That's why you shouldn't have access to the fax machine when you're drunk and angry.

Anders Hallin

03-09-2008, 09:51 AM

Um, wow, this is the first I'd heard of that press release (http://www.nownys.com/pr_2008/pr_012808.html). That's why you shouldn't have access to the fax machine when you're drunk and angry.
I posted an entire thread about it!

JeffL

03-09-2008, 10:07 AM

So this morning's news shows, and the speaker for Clinton stated that:

1. Caucuses aren't fair, so they should not be considered in who wins the nomination;
2. If Hillary wins Ohio, Texas, Florida (he maintains that Hillary absolutely won Florida,) and PA, then she should be the nominee and if she wins those states it the superdelegates should ignore any other results.
3. That her win in MI, with so many "uncommitted" votes, was very significant, because the hardest election to win is against uncommitted votes.
4. and more BS.

Daeschel, speaking for Obama's campaign, stated that if Clinton's campaign felt that way, that no other states count, why even have the votes? And that he thought the record number of people who came out in all the caucuses would be really unhappy to hear that Clinton felt their votes should be ignored.

Also this morning: Obama's campaign predicted early how all the states would vote, and they've been extremely accurate. If things go expected, Obama will end up with a lead in the elected delegates (duh) and will need about 35% of the currently uncommitted superdelegates to win.

What else... oh, Levin from MI doesn't think a fair do-over can be done in Michigan, and Bill Bradley really railed on Bill and Hillary for refusing to allow people to see who funded their presidential library, and he connected that with Clinton keeping the papers on his last days giving out pardons secret. The comment was that they're saying Obama has potential surprising bad things that would come out in the general election, but if all of these get pulled out it would be extremely damaging to Clinton. I've done zero research into this so don't know what the real deal is.

Actually, a pretty boring set of interviews, panels, etc. this morning.

Lum

03-09-2008, 10:58 AM

1. Caucuses aren't fair, so they should not be considered in who wins the nomination;
2. If Hillary wins Ohio, Texas, Florida (he maintains that Hillary absolutely won Florida,) and PA, then she should be the nominee and if she wins those states it the superdelegates should ignore any other results.
3. That her win in MI, with so many "uncommitted" votes, was very significant, because the hardest election to win is against uncommitted votes.
4. and more BS.

5. Eurasia has ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.

If Hillary Clinton manages to somehow take the nomination, the Republicans will steamroller her in the general. I am stunned that this is even somehow possible given the past 8 years.

Jason McCullough

03-09-2008, 12:09 PM

The point of my statement to McCullough is that he can't make the "a few ideologues" argument here and yet point to the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter as exemplary in other arguments.

Few women or feminists could name the leaders of NOW, much less agree with them on controversial stuff like this. By contrast, lots of conservatives agree with Limbaugh. Not sure on Coulter.

Instead, I'm looking at Rimbo and Rollory's arguments from the point of view that there is a block of women who are active Democrats and for those women the feminist movement has emerged as a voice, much in the same way certain ministers have become a voice of the black community. And I do get the strong feeling that some of them are going to be jaded if Hillary isn't the nominee because of what they will see as a lost opportunity for a woman to become president.

They'll get over it, just like every other losing primary candidate's supporters. Jesse Jackson losing didn't destroy the black voting coalition in the Democratic party. Everyone way overestimates how much impact this stuff has in the long-term.

It'd be one thing if the party/all the men unified to lock out the woman, or all the non-black people in the party unified to lock out the black man, but we're not really seeing anything along those lines. It's just standard coalition politics, not a knock-down dragdown. As a point of comparision, in 1968 you really did have the party locking out the anti-war candidate who had way more popular support.

I agree with bigdruid that Obama represents a big step in the direction away from that; a big reason he has such support from the black community right now is the fact he isn't asking blacks to vote for him because of his skin color and because he appeals to folks across the board.

What's your evidence that this isn't just you projecting your preferences on the public?

Rimbo

03-09-2008, 01:10 PM

Few women or feminists could name the leaders of NOW, much less agree with them on controversial stuff like this. By contrast, lots of conservatives agree with Limbaugh. Not sure on Coulter.

Many women are voting for Clinton because they themselves want to see a woman president, not because the NOW or any one else says they should. Many African-Americans are voting for Obama because they want to see an African-American president. In both cases, the leader commanding them to do so is the mirror.

The Democrats have taken advantage of this sort of thing for half a century, and this year, with two viable candidates of two separate protected classes, it has split the party. Not only is the party split, it is split along racial and gender lines. Black women are asking themselves whether their loyalty lies to their gender or to their race; this is a stupid question, but it has become vital because it's the game the Democratic Party has long played.

This split is a nightmare for the Democratic Party because it's pitting two groups against each other within the party, and one of them, must be the loser.

Sure, most of the losing side will get over it... after a couple of years.

(Incidentally, the NOW organization itself is the marketed entity that represents that viewpoint. Limbaugh himself is the marketed entity for his viewpoint, although "Rush Limbaugh" is actually an entire organization, the Excellence In Broadcasting company. A more accurate comparison would be "NOW leaders" to "EIB staffers.")

Rimbo

03-09-2008, 01:12 PM

What's your evidence that this isn't just you projecting your preferences on the public?

Uhm... it was information in a couple of articles I read a couple of months back. I'm too lazy to go look it up; I've read so many articles, it would be hard to find that particular needle in that particular haystack. You might've read the same article and just skipped right over it.

Jason McCullough

03-09-2008, 02:09 PM

Sarkus

03-09-2008, 02:25 PM

Again, I don't see women voting for Hillary because they're a women is no different than southern white men voting for Bush because he's a southern white man. Will evangelicals be disillusioned with the GOP because Huckabee didn't win?

No, but there is a question about how actively the evangelicals will turn out for McCain. And imagine how they'd feel if McCain/Huckabee had been a much tighter race. Or if Huckabee supporters felt they were somehow screwed over by something outside their control.

Personally, I don't think Obama will lose many of Hillary's supporters if he wins. I do think Hillary will lose some supporters of Obama if she wins, particularly those who are excited because they see Obama as "something new." That doesn't mean she can't win them back, but it will require her to run a different kind of race in the general election, and even then she's still viewed as being "establishment."

Anders Hallin

03-09-2008, 05:40 PM

Black women are asking themselves whether their loyalty lies to their gender or to their race; this is a stupid question, but it has become vital because it's the game the Democratic Party has long played.
This is bullshit. Seriously. I'm pretty sure a majority of women, blacks and intersections of the two are asking themselves "which of the candidates do I like?" This is what every voter does in every election. It's why candidates start running around in cowboy hats, with footballs, in uniform or what have you. A 60-40 split and less in female votes does not really support the idea that this is a new and scary kind of politics. Now, white men voting 100% for white male candidates? SUSPICIOUS!
And that this is something unique for the Democratic party? Oh, please.

Tom McNamara

03-09-2008, 06:27 PM

Either way, these people are screwed by the media. If black women vote for Obama in droves, then they're voting along racial lines. If they go for Clinton, it becomes a gender issue. If they split, then they're "voting their conscience." The problem is that these talking heads can't seem to appreciate that some people have valid reasons for preferring a candidate, regardless of skin color or gender.

Identity politics generates much better ratings than debating the issues and approaches of the two candidates. Why? Because those two elements have been known quantities for months. With Clinton, we've known how she operates for years. They keep on dodging the obvious flaw of campaigning on "experience," because what should matter is leadership.

If "experience" is the most important element, then we should discard this whole silly election and appoint Robert Byrd, right? I mean, he's been a U.S. Senator since Clinton hit puberty. He was legislating bills before Obama was even born.

So why isn't he running? Because his experience is controversial, to put it lightly. But when anyone tries to point out Hillary's past controversies, her people complain that she's being made a victim of Roveian politics. Yes, Hillary is a victim now. Will she be a fighter next week, or perhaps a foreign policy insider?

I look at how the Clinton campaign shifts around and disseminates nasty rumors, and it's like they don't have any respect for the intellect of the voters. No one is allowed to look at an issue that hasn't yet been "shaped" by her operatives. I don't know about you, but I'm going to remember names like Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, and Maggie Williams for a long time.

Rimbo

03-09-2008, 06:40 PM

This is bullshit. Seriously. I'm pretty sure a majority of women, blacks and intersections of the two are asking themselves "which of the candidates do I like?" This is what every voter does in every election. It's why candidates start running around in cowboy hats, with footballs, in uniform or what have you. A 60-40 split and less in female votes does not really support the idea that this is a new and scary kind of politics. Now, white men voting 100% for white male candidates? SUSPICIOUS!
And that this is something unique for the Democratic party? Oh, please.

You know, I wish this were true. I think that slowly, over time, it's becoming true, and that the folks who play this game are getting old and dying off, being replaced by younger generations that are less and less concerned about skin color and gender. I also believe strongly that this is what Obama's really all about -- even though he's definitely benefitting from it.

But I'll believe it when I stop seeing articles in the MSM every day pushing this angle with every primary and caucus. I'll believe it when I see a state where the demographics don't have such a clear divide between one group voting for one candidate and the other group voting for the other. Most of us here are white males; we're the swing voters in this contest, because we've always been the outcasts in this kind of politics. That's the reason why "white males all voting for white males" seems a ludicrous assertion now -- it's because we're the "bad guys" in this game, the ones who owe women and minorities for all the crimes of the past.

When I see little difference between the demographics for one candidate or another, I'll believe it.

Rimbo

03-10-2008, 02:44 PM

*ahem* (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1276804&postcount=108)

Jason McCullough

03-10-2008, 03:24 PM

I don't think the opinions of a QT3 white guy is evidence about the opinions of black men or women. I'm assuming McNamara isn't a African-American name. :)

JeffL

03-10-2008, 03:35 PM

I don't think the opinions of a QT3 white guy is evidence about the opinions of black men or women. I'm assuming McNamara isn't a African-American name. :)

What is the actual argument here? That blacks don't overwhelmingly vote for Obama, and women significantly favor Hillary, because he's black and she's a woman? Is anyone arguing that the vote breakdowns would be the same if he and she were white men, or both black, or both women?

Skipper

03-11-2008, 07:07 PM

CNN is calling Obama winning Mississippi. In other news, apparently Mississippi is extremely racially biased: 91% of African-Americans voted Obama, 72% of whites voted Hillary.

That is all. We now return you to another week of "He said, she said."

Jason McCullough

03-11-2008, 08:36 PM

I was responding to Rimbo's theory that the protected class of the loser will be disgusted and disaffected.

Matthew Gallant

03-12-2008, 12:57 AM

Back to March 4th: Obama officially wins Texas, winning by 9 delegates in the caucus over Clinton's 4 delegate win in the primary. Her 14 delegate advantage from Ohio and RI gets cut to 9 by that, and is further cut down to 6 by Vermont.

Yes, Clinton's campaign was apparently saved by gaining a whole 6 delegates of ground on Obama, when he's ahead by over 120. Interesting perspective, media! Except that tiny gain has been erased already-- 2 of it in Wyoming and the rest (and more) in Mississippi, where he should gain 7.

Anders Hallin

03-12-2008, 02:14 AM

You know, I wish this were true. I think that slowly, over time, it's becoming true, and that the folks who play this game are getting old and dying off, being replaced by younger generations that are less and less concerned about skin color and gender. I also believe strongly that this is what Obama's really all about -- even though he's definitely benefitting from it.
The post-racial/post-gender world, in any short-term (that is, next 100 years or so) is an illusion, and ignoring that is more likely to actually cause discriminatory situations.

But I'll believe it when I stop seeing articles in the MSM every day pushing this angle with every primary and caucus. I'll believe it when I see a state where the demographics don't have such a clear divide between one group voting for one candidate and the other group voting for the other. Most of us here are white males; we're the swing voters in this contest, because we've always been the outcasts in this kind of politics. That's the reason why "white males all voting for white males" seems a ludicrous assertion now -- it's because we're the "bad guys" in this game, the ones who owe women and minorities for all the crimes of the past.
How have white men been the outcasts in this sort of politics? How can you believe that the Democrats are the only ones "playing the game"? You really think that the fact that all candidates before have been white men makes it so that white men are unaffected by identity politics. Identity politics, in my argument, is something that affects everyone, it's just ignored until the "wrong people" (according to the prime indicators of gender and race) were made candidates, and now it's hilariously assumed that women and blacks, who have been voting for white men all their lives, are somehow incapable of distinguishing policy from "identity."
They are just as capable as white men of doing so. In fact, they're more, based on research that show that whites are more likely to disapprove of black representatives than the other way around.
Also, did you miss the fact that proving your credentials as a white male has been an important factor of elections? Here's a reminder: http://feministing.com/archives/008034.html