Presidential Primaries

Which brings up one of the better questions of all, which I asked a long time ago, and it's not getting much play anywhere.

Neither candidate will have the required 2025 delegates. Period. It's ridiculous for anyone to declare victory or concede defeat because there is no outright or clear winner. This is not to confuse the "leader" with the "winner" because they are not necessarily the same thing.

If the "Democratic" party were to actually be (small d) democratic about it, the super delegates wouldn't vote on whatever criteria they likely will that has nothing to do with the will of the voter. The will of the voter is actually known in all but the last few states. Published all over the internet, in fact.

Massachusetts voted for Hillary. The superdelegates from that state should vote for Hillary. The sole criteria begin the will of the voters.

Another point being that there being no outright winner by delegate count, anything else is arbitrary. Why use plurality of delegates as the yard stick?

No matter what they do that isn't (small d) democratic, a whole lot of people are going feel the election was taken from their candidate or handed to the other. And rightly so. The whole situation just smells awful.



It isn't anything like an election when the people go out and vote and the winner is chosen by powerful people in the party machinery in smoke filled back rooms.

This is the same party that balled their eyes out when the Supreme Court voted (big d) Democratically to halt the recounts (that never showed Gore won in the end) - no different than the superdelegates choosing for the people. The same party that whined to no end that Gore won the popular vote so he should have been handed the presidency, even though that's not how we elect the president - but this time they'll ignore the popular vote?

Clue me in

I'm not a fan of Hillary at all. Can't stand the woman, and I feel like throwing an actual party (with booze and party favors) if she loses. I mean, this is my view of her:



Actually, she's more:

Evil.

 

Here's the Amazon page for Barone's Political Almanac:

http://www.amazon.com/Almanac-American-Pol...6/dp/0892341122

The product description:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>American politics has devolved into a grim battle between two approximately equal-size armies in a take-no-prisoners culture war. In 2000, those armies fought to a near-draw—out of more than 100 million ballots cast, the presidency of the United States hinged on a breathtakingly slim 537-vote margin in Florida. Four years later, despite the occurrence of a recession, two wars, and a devastating terrorist attack on American soil, the two adversaries remain fairly evenly divided.

In the wake of an acrimonious election where both political parties together spent roughly $4 billion on the federal elections, politicians, analysts, citizens, and scholars continue to turn to the book that George Will called the "Bible of American politics" to understand the American political landscape. The 2006 Almanac of American Politics remains the gold standard of accessible political information, relied upon by everyone involved, invested, or interested in American politics. As in previous editions, the 2006 Almanac includes profiles of every member of Congress and every governor; in-depth and completely up-to-date narrative profiles of all 50 states and 435 House districts, covering everything from economics to history to, of course, politics; and analyses of the 2004 presidential election, the 2004 congressional elections, and redistricting battles. Specific to this latest edition of the nation's leading political reference work is coverage of all special elections in the 108th Congress and the California gubernatorial recall; maps and district profiles of the newly redrawn Texas congressional districts; a state-by-state analysis of the 2004 presidential election; a national overview of the 2004 presidential election; and a statistical breakdown of the 2004 presidential vote by state and congressional district.

Full of maps, census data, and information on topics ranging from campaign
expenditures to voting records to interest group ratings, this latest edition of the Almanac of American Politics presents everything you need to know about current American politics in snappy prose framed by cogent analysis.</div>

And this review:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>r. Barone is not your typical political reporter, he is America's best political analyst. Like an accountant, Mr. Barone can point out specifically which voting precinct in which state impacted elections. While others gab, Mr. Barone pulls out stats to back up his presentations.

Additionally, Mr. Barone has been doing this type of work publically, since 1980. His Almanac of American Politics is not a one-off political hack-job. His work contains the stats we depend upon, and his credibility is unimpeachable.

Those who should not read his work are those who are not happy with the direction the American electorate has been moving during the past 25 years. Whether it has been liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, doesn't matter to Mr. Barone, as he has reported all elections matter-of-factly, not with a spin. As socialism and liberal extremism dies out with the fading of the Baby Boomer generation, Mr. Barone merely reports it's decline. Some oldies won't like that.

I have been watching and reading this man's work for over 25 years, and he is without doubt the most unimpartial political reporter, and the most knowledgeable. This Almanac is like a textbook, it is worth every dime you spend on it.</div>

 

Okay, I only read the first half of the article, through some stupid mistake. Thanks for calling me on it.

As per the spreadsheet:

The most ridiculous part is the expected turnout: we haven't been hitting anywhere above 50% in any of the contests.

Secondly, and less important are some of his state-by-states: There's no way in hell she wins by 40 and 30 in WV and KY. There just isn't. Montana and SD by 20. How is that, since the demographics favor Obama so much. Indiana by 20? I don't think I have seen one reliable poll that has her up that much.

Yeah, the real killer to his projections is the first bit, no way we hit 80% participation, in any of these races.

 

Post #301 above is now my most recent blog entry.

See the home page to find it, or click the blogs button at the top of the pages.

 

Number 23. Oh, yes, number 23.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vYCEnVmNkpE&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vYCEnVmNkpE&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

 

It ain't over till the ... er... Hillary sings.

 

Huge news story today. It looks like McCain is taking public funds. It'll be interesting to see how this affects the campaigns. I'm somewhat skeptical. It may show the frailty of the laws -- with all of his private support being sent to PACs that are not bound by the same relative sense of "dignity" of candidate-endorsed ads. Could turn this election ugly, in a hurry. We'll see. I wish I could be a fly on the wall of in the room where this decision was made.



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...-+National+news

_______________________________

McCain returns $3m in checks as he considers public funding
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size – + By Scott Helman and Sasha Issenberg
Globe Staff / April 4, 2008

In another sign that John McCain is moving toward accepting public financing this fall, the Republican's campaign is returning about $3 million in checks to contributors who have given money for his general election campaign, funds he could not use if he opts into the public system.
more stories like this

McCain's campaign, in letters to contributors, is asking supporters to write new checks to a special fund created to help the Arizona senator pay legal and accounting expenses related to compliance with the public funding system.

The move is largely procedural, and McCain's campaign said yesterday that it has not yet decided whether to accept public funding or to raise money on its own for the November presidential election. But the decision to return checks - which was made as the Democratic candidates announced raising $60 million combined in March, nearly as much as McCain had raised for the entire campaign through February - indicates that McCain is laying the groundwork for doing so.

"Senator McCain has made it clear that he expects to participate in the general election public financing system, and he hopes the Democratic nominee will do so as well," Brian Rogers, McCain spokesman, said in a statement. "The campaign reserves the right to change course, but these developments reflect our current plans."

Presidential candidates who opt into the public financing system receive taxpayer money to run their campaigns in exchange for agreeing to certain spending limits; they can raise money from private donors only for the "compliance fund," not to run their campaigns.

This year, a candidate who accepts the terms would be limited to about $84 million in spending.

Mark Salter, a senior McCain aide, said a decision on whether to accept the money was something they would deal with down the road.

"There's no reason to make that decision right now," he said. "We wouldn't get it until after the convention anyway."

 

It may not be that big a deal as it seems.

Campaign donations are of two kinds and the money has to be used for one of those two purposes: primary campaign funds and general election campaign funds.

Since the conventions are in late August or after, there's only about 8 weeks to use that latter kind of campaign funds. You have to look, strategically, at where the money would be used.

Consider that McCain has a number of "safe" states, so whatever money he has would be used to saturate the air waves in the states he can make a race out of things.

Another consideration would be that McCain-Feingold (probably unconstitutionally) limits free political speech during most of that period

 

I don't know what to make of these Obama supporters:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/040...e_Wilshire.html

Scuffle at the Wilshire

My colleague Jeffrey Ressner was at Hillary's fundraiser last night at the Wilshire Theater in Los Angeles, and captured the audio (.wma) of a really jarring scene: a woman dragged out in handcuffs, screaming that she was the only black supporter of Hillary there. (She wasn't.)

Secret Service, Ressner e-mails, declined to comment.

Clinton herself had some fairly strong stuff to say, particularly on Florida and Michigan: "If we don't figure out Michigan and Florida, our candidate will lack the legitimacy that we want," she told the crowd.

Also, a burqa joke:

"I was among the very first to speak out against the Taliban. ... I was invited by the Taliban to visit [but I declined]," she said. "Some days I may think I want to wear a burqa, but I don't want to do that."

At the end of the event, the music played to usher people out, but Hillary stopped the music and implored the crowd to donate. "I need your help. I'm being outspent," she said.

UPDATE: A Clinton volunteer at the Wilshire writes that he witnessed what happened before the woman was arrested:

"Not only did she attack another person at the event (she literally bit a woman, which drew blood and required bandages), she was screaming profanities and tried to urinate in the doorway to the theater! She was both verbally and physically confrontational to volunteers (I was one of them) and to the Secret Service, as well!"

 

Hey, that was a Hillary supporter, right?

 

^^^ You really think so?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0502348_pf.html

Many Superdelegates in No Hurry to Pick a Candidate

By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, April 6, 2008; A08

Former Montana senator John Melcher said he hadn't felt any urgency to take sides in the race between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama until late last month, when Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called on superdelegates to make up their minds by July 1.

"So after two days of that, I agreed with him that maybe I should, so I did," said Melcher, who announced Wednesday that he will support Obama, based on the candidate's early opposition to the Iraq war.

Though Melcher and a handful of high-profile Democrats have recently chosen sides in the presidential nominating contest, few others of the party's uncommitted superdelegates appear likely to budge before Pennsylvania's primary on April 22 -- and many have indicated that they will wait until the primaries end in June before picking a candidate.

Many of the 320 or so party leaders and elected officials who have yet to commit cite a number of reasons: They can't choose between two good candidates, they don't want to interfere with the will of voters, and they think the extended contest will strengthen the party.

"There are a lot of things going on underneath this boiling cauldron between the candidates that will be good for us long term," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), an uncommitted superdelegate, noting the 26,000 new Democrats who registered in Cuyahoga County before the Ohio primary. "I'm not in a hurry to do this."

But other high-ranking Democrats are in a hurry, fearing that the prolonged nomination battle will hurt the party's chances in November against Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee, and in congressional contests.

"What you're seeing now is creating divisions that may be hard to heal," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "We'd be in a much better position if we would focus the public's attention [on McCain]. Instead, we're focused on the differences between our two candidates, and it's going to end up hurting our eventual nominee.

"I just don't want to see our congressional candidates become collateral damage," he added. "If the energy and excitement is not sustained, that could create problems."

Most recent superdelegate commitments have gone to Obama (Ill.), who is steadily eroding the lead that Clinton (N.Y.) has held from the outset of the race. But Obama's gains have not come as quickly as many had anticipated after he followed his strong showing in Super Tuesday contests on Feb. 5 with 11 wins in a row.

From early December through early March, 144 superdelegates declared for Obama, according to a tally maintained by the Associated Press. He has added 14 superdelegates since March 5, for a total of 221, compared with a gain of nine for Clinton, bringing her count to 251, according to the AP.

Clinton supporters say the slow pace of commitments is because of concerns, after Obama's March 4 losses in Texas and Ohio, about whether he can win in November -- doubts they have aggressively sought to stir in their private lobbying efforts.

"If you can't win it in the primary, how are you going to win it in November? That's our pitch," said Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), a Clinton backer.

Of the 14 superdelegates who committed to Obama in March, most said they came to their decisions independently, rather than in response to cajoling by Obama or his surrogates.

Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (Pa.), for instance, was largely left alone by the candidates, who figured the cautious freshman would remain neutral at least until the end of the primaries. But during a family vacation over Easter, Casey decided to support Obama because of his change-oriented message, a decision Casey conveyed in a surprise phone call to the candidate on Easter night.

Casey's popularity with working-class Catholics is likely to boost Obama's chances in Pennsylvania, where Clinton leads by a sizable margin in most public opinion polls. Casey plays down Obama's odds of winning the state, but he believes that whatever the outcome, the contest will improve Democrats' position in the crucial battleground state this fall.

"Even if we lose Pennsylvania and it's a fairly wide margin, assuming he can still be nominated, it will help him a lot in the fall," Casey said of Obama. "If he didn't have this contest here, a state that is so big and so diverse, he would have to show up here in August with nothing."

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), who endorsed Obama last week, said that both candidates "knew where I was headed" but that she put off her decision because she wanted to remain publicly neutral. She changed her mind when she concluded that the race was dragging on for too long.

Rep. Brad Miller (N.C.), on the other hand, said he is holding out despite relentless courting by supporters of both candidates, including an aggressive Obama outreach on Capitol Hill. "They obviously have a whip system, or a buddy system, and obviously a couple people have taken me as a buddy," he said.

Both candidates are eager to enlist Miller before his state's primary in May. Clinton called in late March, and Obama tried to reach him Wednesday, leaving a message while the congressman was attending a House hearing. "He's got my cellphone number," said Miller, who intends to wait at least until after Pennsylvania's vote to make a decision.

Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.) also remains uncommitted, almost two months after his state voted overwhelmingly for Obama. He said Obama and Clinton supporters in the Senate still politely check in with him "to see if there's anything more they can do." Their pitches are strikingly similar, he said: Both sides contend that their candidate is the most electable and has generated the most enthusiasm among voters. "It's just the candidate's name that is different," Cardin said.

Rep. Artur Davis (Ala.), a leading Obama supporter in the House, predicted that many lawmakers will wait to make a decision until after the Pennsylvania primary, including House Democrats from North Carolina and from Indiana, which both vote on May 6. And he expects many more to hold off until just after the final primaries, in South Dakota and Montana, on June 3.

But if Obama maintains his leads in the popular vote and in pledged delegates by then, that would trigger a flood of endorsements that would bring a quick close to the race. "As a practical matter, I believe this race will be over by Friday, June 6," Davis said.

While many Democrats worry that the extended nomination battle could wound the eventual candidate, others believe it could prove to be a blessing. In virtually every state that has voted, Democrats have turned out in record numbers. More than 230,000 new party members signed up in Pennsylvania alone. And Obama and Clinton are building grass-roots organizations that can be readily reactivated in the general election.

 

My take is that the longer the Dems' race goes, the more the media focuses on the two candidates and mostly ignores McCain. McCain needs PR (free advertising in the form of news stories) to make up for lack of fund raising ability, IMO.

I do see McCain as being a very strong candidate, with his age being the only real negative he's up against.

Then there's this:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...enor-condo.html

Dan Senor: Condoleezza Rice Is Pursuing the VP Spot
April 06, 2008 11:48 AM

ABCNews’ Mary Bruce Reports: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is actively courting the vice presidential nomination, Republican strategist Dan Senor said.

“Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this,” Senor said this morning on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

According to Senor, Rice has been cozying up to the Republican elite.

“There's this ritual in Washington: The Americans for Tax Reform, which is headed by Grover Norquist, he holds a weekly meeting of conservative leaders -- about 100, 150 people, sort of inside, chattering, class types,” Senor said. “They all typically get briefings from political conservative leaders. Ten days ago, they had an interesting visit -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- the first time a secretary of state has visited the Wednesday meeting.”

Senor explained that Rice’s history in public office would make her a prime candidate, especially in light of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain’s emphasis on experience throughout his campaign.

“What the McCain campaign has to consider is whether or not they want to pick a total outsider, a fresh face, someone a lot younger than him, a governor who people aren't that familiar with," Senor said. "The challenge they're realizing is that they'll have to have to spend 30 to 45 days, which they won't have at that point, educating the American public about who this person is.

“The other category is someone who people instantly say, the second they see that announcement, 'I get it, that person could be president tomorrow,'" Senor added. "Condi Rice is an option.”

(590 comments)</div>

Black. Woman. Kinda like Obama and Hillary rolled up into one.

It'd be huge for the republicans to nominate a woman for so high an elected office. Yet, it would ultimately mean that McCain is truly staking his entire election on winning in Iraq, and Rice isn't especially a strong economic mind (something that would encourage voters is a sense that he'd be good for both the war and the economy).

Against any other candidate but Obama, I think she'd peel off a LOT of black voters and she'd certainly have some impact on the gender gap that's plagued the republicans each election the past several cycles.

What If? What if Cheney retired a year ago and Rice had become the VP? She'd most likely be the Republican nominee right now, winning with ease, IMO.

Something that people don't talk much about is the remarkable thing that Bush has done - in this sense.... He chose a VP who was certain not to run for president after the 8 years are up, assuring no incumbent VP would be on the ticket. Open races in both parties. He sure seems to be quite fond of and respectful of Rice, and he could have influenced her chances (probably unfairly, I'd say as a Libertarian). But he didn't.

 

I see there's a bunch of nutcases over at KOS gloating over the death of Charlton Heston.

Geez, you can disagree with a guy or even not even like him, but it's a whole 'nother thing to rejoice at his death. I have little respect for Jimmy Carter, but I at least acknowledge that he, like anyone else, is a mixed bag of some good to go with what I see as bad. When he goes, I won't be rejoicing, tho I did rejoice when he was defeated in his bid for 2nd term.

It's my belief that when people really want to control government because they're sure they know what laws to enact to control the half the people they don't agree with, it's not a good thing. The underlying nastiness and downright hateful and hurtful stuff I've seen coming from places like KOS is why I'm driven away from their candidates and their WWW sites and news networks.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 8 2008, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I see there's a bunch of nutcases over at KOS gloating over the death of Charlton Heston.

Geez, you can disagree with a guy or even not even like him, but it's a whole 'nother thing to rejoice at his death. I have little respect for Jimmy Carter, but I at least acknowledge that he, like anyone else, is a mixed bag of some good to go with what I see as bad. When he goes, I won't be rejoicing, tho I did rejoice when he was defeated in his bid for 2nd term.

It's my belief that when people really want to control government because they're sure they know what laws to enact to control the half the people they don't agree with, it's not a good thing. The underlying nastiness and downright hateful and hurtful stuff I've seen coming from places like KOS is why I'm driven away from their candidates and their WWW sites and news networks.</div>

I've learned to just ignore the fanatics there, just like I ignore the fanatics on sports sites -- though I do agree, not very pretty. (Pax's Sux's, etc.)

I don't think Condi has a chance to be VP because of her close ties to the administration. McCain is going to have difficulty enough trying to cast himself as not affiliated with GB II once the Democratic primary cool's down. It's kind of unfortunate: Bush had the two highest appointed black officials in the history of US politics, and he has ruined both of their careers, at least for the near future.

What do you think of Bob Barr? I'm not high on the idea of third party candidates, to be honest, though I can certainly understand the thought process of those who are. I'm more of the belief that either party has enough latitude in their platforms to accommodate new ideas, and that third party candidates are almost taking an easy route to attention. Though, I do expect him to get some votes this election cycle. How close do you think the memory of Ross Perot is in voters minds? I think enough lefties remember the Gore -- Green Party debacle to keep votes from going to Nader.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Apr 8 2008, 05:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 8 2008, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I see there's a bunch of nutcases over at KOS gloating over the death of Charlton Heston.

Geez, you can disagree with a guy or even not even like him, but it's a whole 'nother thing to rejoice at his death. I have little respect for Jimmy Carter, but I at least acknowledge that he, like anyone else, is a mixed bag of some good to go with what I see as bad. When he goes, I won't be rejoicing, tho I did rejoice when he was defeated in his bid for 2nd term.

It's my belief that when people really want to control government because they're sure they know what laws to enact to control the half the people they don't agree with, it's not a good thing. The underlying nastiness and downright hateful and hurtful stuff I've seen coming from places like KOS is why I'm driven away from their candidates and their WWW sites and news networks.</div>

I've learned to just ignore the fanatics there, just like I ignore the fanatics on sports sites -- though I do agree, not very pretty. (Pax's Sux's, etc.)

I don't think Condi has a chance to be VP because of her close ties to the administration. McCain is going to have difficulty enough trying to cast himself as not affiliated with GB II once the Democratic primary cool's down. It's kind of unfortunate: Bush had the two highest appointed black officials in the history of US politics, and he has ruined both of their careers, at least for the near future.
</div>

Not so sure McCain/Condi has as big a problem as it seems at first glance. The GWBII thing is going to make those suckers at KOS slap each other on the backs and yuk it up, but that's truly seeing the tree instead of the forest.

The GWBII propaganda campaign isn't going to do anything for Republican voters, and it doesn't matter about Democrats. That leaves the independents where McCain has always had strength. McCain's made it clear he's running on the idea of winning in Iraq and Condy only helps that notion. Instead of seeing the GWBII thing as affecting the voters, you might consider that losing in Iraq or tucking tail and running away or surrender may resonate even more in the opposite direction.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>What do you think of Bob Barr? I'm not high on the idea of third party candidates, to be honest, though I can certainly understand the thought process of those who are. I'm more of the belief that either party has enough latitude in their platforms to accommodate new ideas, and that third party candidates are almost taking an easy route to attention. Though, I do expect him to get some votes this election cycle. How close do you think the memory of Ross Perot is in voters minds? I think enough lefties remember the Gore -- Green Party debacle to keep votes from going to Nader.</div>

Not sure about Nader's effect this time around. Will he have ballot access in enough places? Are there people with real principles who'd vote for him because he's the ideal lefty to serve as president, period? On the other hand, Nader-light (that'd be Edwards) didn't get very far, but he did garner considerable delegates (> 200, right?).

Barr? Interesting fellow, but I'd really have to think hard about voting for him (I have voted Libertarian since 1988). He's closer to an actual "true" conservative than most politicians... no make that most PEOPLE... out there. Yet he's been a schizo. In office, he was as neo-con as you can get. When he was a lame duck and shortly after, it's like he discovered the Libertarian principles part of conservatism. Maybe he's seen the light