Presidential Primaries

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 9 2008, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Any official results from the Virgin islands? The channels I'm watching aren't reporting anything.</div>

I know. What's the deal? It's as if Tim Duncan doesn't even matter. He's one three rings. THREE RINGS!!!

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18277678/

What role for Democratic 'super-delegates'?
Governors, senators, state chairs, and even Bill Clinton get automatic vote
By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
updated 3:58 a.m. PT, Thurs., April. 26, 2007

WASHINGTON - It’s called the Democratic Party, but one aspect of the party’s nominating process is at odds with grass-roots democracy.

Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.

The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean.

The Republicans do not have a similar super-delegate system.

These super-delegates don’t have superhuman powers, but unlike rank-and-file Democrats, they do automatically get to cast a vote at the convention to decide who the party’s nominee will be.

Although dubbed “unpledged” in Democratic Party lingo, the super-delegates are free to come out before their state’s primary and pledge to support one of the presidential contenders.

On Tuesday Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski announced she was supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton and three weeks ago, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine declared that he's also backing her. These aren't mere endorsements; these are actual votes putting Clinton two steps closer to the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Why the 'super-delegate' system?
Why did the party adopt this partly undemocratic system?

Super-delegates were supposed to supply some Establishment stability to the nominating process.

Before 1972, party elders, such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Charlie Buckley, the boss of The Bronx who helped John Kennedy clinch the 1960 nomination, wielded inordinate power.

But in early 1970’s, the party’s rules were reformed to open the process to grass-roots activists, women, and ethnic minorities.

Sen. George McGovern, the leading anti-Vietnam war liberal, won the 1972 nomination. McGovern turned out to be a disaster as a presidential candidate, winning only one state and the District of Columbia.

So without reverting to the days of party bosses like Buckley, the Democrats decided to guarantee that elected officials would have a bigger voice in the nomination.

On the ballot with the candidate
“There was a belief that they would not want candidates who were dramatically out of sync with the rest of the party — particularly if these were people who were going to have to run on the same ticket with them,” says Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer, who has written extensively on the nomination process.

There were, Mayer says, two motives in giving elected officials a big voice in the nomination.

“One was not to get (ideologically) extreme candidates; the other was to avoid the Jimmy Carter phenomenon — where you had a guy who was not very experienced and not very well regarded by most of his fellow governors, but nevertheless managed to win the party’s nomination,” Mayer said.

“It’s a very important system because you have people who have a serious, serious stake in the outcome participating in the convention,” said Democratic National Committee member Elaine Kamarck, who teaches at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

Serving as 'safety valve'
Kamarck sees the super-delegates as a “sort of safety valve” so that, for instance, “if the convention’s platform committee is adopting something that would be really detrimental in the general election,” the party leaders can take steps to prevent that from happening.

But “it is very difficult to argue” that the super-delegate system “has consequences, unintended or intended,” said Mayer.

The only year when they may have an impact was in 1984, he said. The loyalty of Democratic elected officials probably helped Walter Mondale survive an unexpectedly strong challenge from Sen. Gary Hart who had beaten Mondale in New Hampshire and other primaries.

“The super-delegates clearly gave him his majority and helped him wrap up the nomination earlier,” Mayer said.

Evidence of momentum
Building the appearance of momentum and inevitability is why Clinton and her rivals will gradually be unveiling their endorsements by super-delegates.

Howard Dean's momentum appeared unstoppable in the first weeks of 2004. Super-delegate Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said emotionally a few days before his state's caucuses, "In my entire adult lifetime, I have never seen anyone broaden our party and bring people in and excite young people... like Governor Howard Dean." It was powerful testimony from a hard-nosed politician.

Dean had amassed the most super-delegates before the Iowa caucuses. But many had buyer's remorse and some abandoned him once he finished a weak third in Iowa.

Democratic powerbroker (and super-delegate) Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, who had thrown his union behind Dean in November 2003, announced two weeks after Dean's loss in New Hampshire that he was abandoning him.

Dean loses super-delegates
In the two weeks following the Iowa caucuses, 36 of 132 Dean's super-delegates peeled away from him; while John Kerry's tally jumped from 74 to 102.

Other super-delegates who had delayed endorsing jumped on Kerry's bandwagon.

In next year's contest, could a candidate amass a stockpile of super-delegates, survive disappointing showings in early primaries, and go on to win the nomination? That seems unlikely.

“Do the super-delegates have the capacity to resist the choice of the overwhelming majority of primary voters and caucus participants? The answer, I think, is a clear ‘No,’” said Mayer.

Nevertheless, there’s a romantic streak in some political junkies who fantasize about a scenario in which the nomination could still be in doubt at the end of the primary season.

That hasn't happened in either party in 30 years.

In that scenario, perhaps party heavyweights would line up votes at the convention to swing the nomination to one of the contenders, or to a dark horse.

© 2007 MSNBC Interactive

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 9 2008, 10:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ Feb 9 2008, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think Obama will win Texas, but lose Ohio. He will win Texas commandingly if Ron Paul suspends his campaign, which its looking more likely that he does, since he is being contested for his seat in Congress, and he is now going to shift his focus on getting reelected there.</div>

Clinton will win Texas. She is way in front of Obama in both low-income voters and Latinos.
</div>

I'm actually thinking that Obama is now the front runner in Texas. State election rules are something else. It turns out that Texas uses a modified caucus/primary system. They hold a primary during the day, and allocate 75% of their delegates that way. And, then at 7:00 at night, they hold a caucus to allocate the remaining 25%. So, you can count on 25% of the delegates to swing hard in Obama's favor. Hillary's constituency has proven less mobilized for caucuses, and I can't imagine that they will take the time to both vote in the primary and then show up at night for a caucus.

As per the Latino vote, Hillary hasn't been successful across the board. She certainly did well in California, but that was because she was able to tap into a highly effective grassroots Hispanic network there. This race has showed the power of local endorsements. It's much better to win the endorsement of a mayor, who has a local political machine, or a governor, who has the power to make appointments, than a federal representative or senator. Hilary got nods in California from both Antonio R. Villaraigosa, the Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles, and Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco. It's really not much of a surprise that she routed Obama in California. Especially since many voters in California cast their votes early before Edwards dropped out, and since Obama's staffers were spread out around the country by all of the Super Tuesday races.

Fast forward to Texas, I'm not certain that Obama shouldn't be considered the front runner -- and perhaps by a comfortable margin. We shall see.

I'm really interested in Ohio. Clinton has won both the endorsement of the Governor and the mayor of Cleveland. I made a mistake earlier when I called it a closed election: Independents and Republicans will be able to vote. She would have to be considered the front runner as of now. But I read in the Plain Dealer, which recently endorsed Obama, that he is literally bringing a bus full of (I assume paid) supporters from the Louisville area. Obama's finances are coming to bear, and he may be able to make a strong showing even without local support. Furthermore, 20% of Ohio's registered democrats are African American.

What I am hope hope hoping for is for the highly unlikely scenario that Obama runs the table on March 4. I would have to guess that Vermont and Rhode Island are leaning Clinton. But again, it's hard to tell. Hillary had the support of the Mayor Menino Boston political machine in Massachusetts, which carried a lot of sway. Rhode Island and Vermont may actually be closer than one would predict. This is totally getting the horse before the cart, but if Obama were to win all four, I think there would be a reasonably strong possibility that Hillary would pull out of the race. (Thus, ending my election addiction and making me a very happy person.)

If you look at the upcoming primaries, and I am going to go ahead and jinx things right now, Maine, tomorrow, is a caucus, so Obama is favored by the slimiest of margins. Obama has a relatively commanding lead in Virginia, Maryland and DC on Tuesday, although the Governor of Maryland has backed Clinton. If he wins all four, like many predict, the next races are on February 14 in Wisconsin, where he should do well given the proximity to Illinois, and the Hawaii caucus where he will beat Clinton by about the same margin he did in the Virgin Islands. From what I've heard, Obama is considered the adoptive son of Hawaii.

So if Clinton doesn't win in any of the March 4 primaries she will have gone a month without a victory, with no immediate relief in sight. Wyoming follows on the March 8, which will probably swing Obama like the states that surround it: NE, CO, ID, UT, KS, ND. Mississippi, and its large population of African American voters, is the next on March 11. Which leaves Pennsylvania on April 22 -- almost three months after Super Tuesday -- as Clintons first obvious victory. That's too long to go without a win.

Again, I don't expect Obama to win all four races on March 4. I have significant doubts he is going to win tomorrow. But if everything falls in line like it realistically could, this race could be over in three weeks. Thank god.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ Feb 10 2008, 10:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>As far as exacts on the people endorsing Obama from Wisconsin.

Gov. Jim Doyle
Rep. David Obey
Rep. Gwen Moore
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett
Wisconsin St. Senator Bob Jauch
15 Assemblymen
Former Wisconsin Attorney General Peggy Luatschensger
Service Employees International Union Wisconsin
Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

The polls in December had him down only 6, which means he's probably up by like 14 now. I think Obama will win Wisconsin, with 60% of the vote at least. Edwards was pretty well liked here, and Clinton never was too popular here. We like Obama.</div>

The last poll I've seen was from Feb 7: Hillary up 50 to 41. It's listed on electoralvote.com, but without the company. It wasn't from Survey USA though, which has proven to be the only reliable survey company this election season.

I wouldn't be surprised by those numbers though. Hillary has shown time and again to be an upset candidate, rearing back to life as soon as you think she's coming to the end. I'm hoping Obama gets a bump after this weekend which he can carry through Wisconsin.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ Feb 10 2008, 10:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar</div>

I hadn't heard about Jordan and Barkley. I looked on Obama's site and you're correct. Jordan hasn't endorsed a candidate previously, has he?

You can also add Bruce Bowen to the list. I just watched a clip from San Antonio and Bowen was the one, of all people, introducing him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Feb 12 2008, 10:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So economically I don't see Hillary as a definite return to any good old days economically (and in fact some of her proposals seem mind-bogglingly silly as an economist), but I at least see why people could think that. But since I don't, the poor role models they've been in most every other regard strike me as the deciding reason.</div>

Like the 60 day moratorium on foreclosures? I saw that and was like, say what? Maybe she could finally kill Countrywide, bring Bank of America down and create a resulting run on the national banks -- single handedly pushing us into the dustbowl of a great depression. I don't think that's outside of the realm of possibility. You just know that was the product of some political advisor who was thinking, yeah, but the people will love it.

What pushed me over the edge on Hillary was the way she brought up Fox news on Super Tuesday. http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/05...-debate-invite/

You may wonder, why Hillary would be in the market for accepting a political debate on Super Tuesday. Candidates have much better things to do on the biggest day of their political lives. On Fox News no less? Doesn't make much sense. The only reason that I could put together is that she wanted to raise the Obama studying at a madrassa story again. For those of you who aren't addicted to this election, Obama has refused to do any interviews on Fox because they ran this revolting story that he studied at a radical muslim school in his youth for two days, without doing any fact checking. (Of course this turned out to be false.) Hillary was trying to grab the news cycle with questions about whether Obama will accept given his dispute with Fox -- Just put Obama's name next to madrassa 1000 times. Luckily, this story didn't gain traction.

Hillary is one revolting dirty bitch. And that goes for Bill too.

I wouldn't think twice about voting elephant if she's the nominee.

As far as this election, I'm scaling back my expectations a whole lot. Obama is losing in Ohio by 17% according to Survey USA, a nearly impossible amount to close on an incumbent, and Hillary has the backing of all of the local political machines. I can't see Pennsylvania turning out much different. Barring some miracle in Texas, Obama has his back against the wall.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Feb 12 2008, 05:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And what if Obama wins his states by even bigger margins?

The campaign has closed in on Hillary every day, I bet she'll win those states but by smaller margins.</div>

Obama's going to need to beat Hillary, not pull into the convention at a dead heat. This is unfortunately how the nomination process is designed in the Democratic party. I hope you're right about the smaller margins, but if you want that to happen then we all better open up our wallets and start making calls for Obama's national phone bank. Obama may have the national momentum, Hillary has all of the momentum where it actually matters.