Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[JPhillips]

You can't put the caucus system and the FL/MI issue in the same basket. The key is, what were the agreed upon rules? Both Obama and Clinton agreed to abide by the decision of the DNC to withhold those delegates because of conflicts with the primary schedule. Clinton and the pols from MI and FL don't have a right to change the rules that were agreed to by the Dem candidates.

The super delegates were also agreed to by both candidates, so I don't really think any decision would be "unfair" The key for me is who is the strongest general election candidate. At this point it seems that Obama is stronger than Clinton. If that changes, so be it, but I would not want the super delegates to put the weaker of the two candidates on the general election ballot.

If you want to start a big change in voting in the U.S. I'm all for it. We need extended early voting, mandatory time off for voting, mail-in voting, etc. to open the process to as many people as possible. Both at the primary and general election level things are completely screwed up.

[cartman]

I'm confused about your statements, VV, regarding outrage over the super delegates. I'm just not seeing a whole lot of that in this thread. It seems you are arguing a point that people aren't making.

As for Michigan and Florida, they decided to not follow their agreed upon rules, and they knew the potential consequences of their decision. That is why their delegates are not eligible as it stands now to be recognized at the convention. There was almost no campaigning done in those two states, and most candidates didn't even bother to go through the motions to get themselves on the ballot there, when it was known way in advance that the delegates wouldn't count. There's no disenfranchising going on there. People knew going in that their votes for delegates wouldn't be considered valid by the party. If the voters of that state are upset, it should be at their state bosses, who made the decision.

[Greyroofoo]

...or the Democratic party and their asinine rules

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'm confused about your statements, VV, regarding outrage over the super delegates. I'm just not seeing a whole lot of that in this thread. It seems you are arguing a point that people aren't making.

Your point is well taken, and I suppose it was more of a rhetorical question as it pertains to the posters in this thread. However, there seems to be a growing outrage within the democratic party (mostly from Obama's supporters) over the role of the super delegates, yet they seem to be just fine with the "banana republic" caucus system that they have immensely profited from.

In the states that have had primaries, where all registered democrats were free to vote, Clinton has 1052 elected delegates to Obama's 1049. It's somewhat ironic that Obama's huge advantage with African-American voters hasn't given him the overall delegate lead, but rather it's the lopsided scores he's racked up in the caucus states, where as I mentioned are sometimes representative of only 1% of the registered voters.

[TroyF]

I am not outraged in the least by the super delegate process. I think the super delegates should do their job. Pick the person they think will win in November.

That said, if you think the Obama supporters are just going to meekly zip their lips and follow Hillary to the general election if they have a 5 to 10% lead in the regular delegates, you are kidding yourself.

That's the point I'm trying to make. The die hard Obama voters are going to feel betrayed by the democratic party if it goes that way. (and that is the ONLY way Hillary can win. Again, I don't give a damn about MI and FL, hell add a state or two more to that if you want, Hillary is not going to catch Obama in the regular delegates, she's not beating him 65-35 in every state the rest of the way, that's a pipe dream that isn't happening)

By contrast the Hillary supporters can do like VV did. Point out the advantage in the caucases and point out the victories in the big states, as well as the critical states for the election like Ohio.

It keeps coming down to the same thing: The loser's support base is not going blindly to the winners support base. Quite the opposite, they have a nice liberal leaning (R) waiting to grab their votes. The die hard Republicans? A percentage will go for Obama simply because they are sucked in by his speeches and the promise of change. Are any of them going over if Hillary is the nominee? Hell no.

It's nice that we can have a civil discussion about the issues and all hold our hands up in the air and say "that's the rules, Hillary won this thing fair and square with the super delegates" I don't think that's what the general population is going to be saying. I'll be honest here, if that happens it wouldn't shock me if there were riots outside of The Pepsi Center in late August.

Before anyone slams me, I'm not saying that in terms of race. Obama has the support of most of the young voters. He dominates that age bracket. Some of these people think he could put on a cape and fly if he wanted to. (I know most people here know somebody like that, don't lie) If they feel Hillary won with the backroom dealing of superdelegates? I don't think it ends well. I also don't think the GE ends well for the dems.

I've stated it repeatedly here and there is nothing to do now but watch how it turns out, but I can say I think if:

1) this goes to the floor
2) Hillary wins by super delegates (the only way she can)

That the dems have a 0.000001% chance in the GE. I think she'll get slaughtered.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Quite the opposite, they have a nice liberal leaning (R) waiting to grab their votes. The die hard Republicans? A percentage will go for Obama simply because they are sucked in by his speeches and the promise of change. Are any of them going over if Hillary is the nominee? Hell no.

I think you're extrapolating a bit too much from the democratic primaries when it comes to Obama's potential defectors from republican voters. He has been somewhat shielded during the early primaries by his great eloquence and ability to avoid specifics pertaining to his voting record and stand on the issues. This won't be the case during the general election. The American electorate tends to be center/right, and Obama's voting record isn't going to play very well in the battleground states (where he has to win those center/right voters to have any chance). The same goes for Clinton if she somehow manages to get the nomination.

Say what you want to about Bill Clinton, but he actually had a track record as a centrist before he was elected president. Hillary and Obama's voting records in the senate are virtually identical to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. I don't think some of you guys realize what a huge deal this is going to be during the general election campaign.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by TroyF

In the 3AM ad and the press conferences around it she stated that both her and McCain had the experience to answer the phone and he didn't. She actually stated that the republican running was better prepared for that eventuality than Obama. You don't think that's nasty or bitter?

I'm pulling for Obama, but I don't see that ad as nasty or bitter.

But I like the jokes from it better. Like when she picks up the phone, and the person at the other end says, "Can I speak to Bill?" or is she all that good when it takes 7 rings before she answers it.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Yes, Hilary is going after Obama. That's going to happen. I don't think she's doing it in a nasty or ugly way. As others have said, she asking real questions that Obama needs to be comfortable answering. She's not swiftboatting him, or talking about an affair he's had.

The Rezko thing could be huge. Is the trial supposed to play out before the convention?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Say what you want to about Bill Clinton, but he actually had a track record as a centrist before he was elected president. Hillary and Obama's voting records in the senate are virtually identical to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. I don't think some of you guys realize what a huge deal this is going to be during the general election campaign.

"Senator McCain, you supported the surge...."

Good night, game over. Thanks for playing.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Say what you want to about Bill Clinton, but he actually had a track record as a centrist before he was elected president. Hillary and Obama's voting records in the senate are virtually identical to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. I don't think some of you guys realize what a huge deal this is going to be during the general election campaign.

As an aside, I like how
A) every Democrat that you can pick out "has a voting record identical to (implied Superliberal dig) Ted Kennedy
B) Because John Kerry ran in 2004, he is now always the second one in that statement
C) In general, everyone in both parties, save about 10, have "nearly identical records" since everyone votes with their parties, but you never hear "But X is a dirty Conservative just like Sam Brownback" or anything like that

SI

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I think you're extrapolating a bit too much from the democratic primaries when it comes to Obama's potential defectors from republican voters. He has been somewhat shielded during the early primaries by his great eloquence and ability to avoid specifics pertaining to his voting record and stand on the issues. This won't be the case during the general election. The American electorate tends to be center/right, and Obama's voting record isn't going to play very well in the battleground states (where he has to win those center/right voters to have any chance). The same goes for Clinton if she somehow manages to get the nomination.

Say what you want to about Bill Clinton, but he actually had a track record as a centrist before he was elected president. Hillary and Obama's voting records in the senate are virtually identical to Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. I don't think some of you guys realize what a huge deal this is going to be during the general election campaign.

I do know how big of a deal it's going to be. Which is why I'm saying the dems need all of their resources (money) and all of their intrastructure (people on the ground running) and all of their parties key dynamics (Latinos, women, african americans) fully backing the candidate they choose.

It's the entire basis for what I've been saying here. This fight is going to get uglier and it's going to split the party in two. It's also going to allow McCain to store money in the coffers and get his intrastructure lined up long before the dems will be even thinking about that. The dems are already in a tough race. They can't afford what is happening right now and the longer it plays out the worse it gets.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

"Senator McCain, you want to stay in Iraq for a hundred years...."

Good night, game over. Thanks for playing.

Fixed.

[cartman]

Also lost in the discussion about the Florida and Michigan primaries is that it wasn't only the Democrats that meted out punishment. The Republicans also are going to penalize each state half their delegates for the same early primary decision.

[JPhillips]

Troy: Money and infrastructure won't play into this. The Dem candidate will have plenty of money and the infrastructure in the swing states in particular is already much stronger than 2004 due to these primaries. Look at the turnout for these primaries. The candidates have done a great job of building the party and Dean's 50 state strategy has been paying dividends.

I guarantee that if this primary is determined before the convention the party will be fine. Even if it goes to the floor the idea that the party will irreparably split is as silly as thinking McCain will destroy the Republicans. People will scream and shout for a while and then things will go back to normal.

Vic: Polls don't match up with what you're saying. Look at the latest Kansas poll where McCain still wins, but Obama takes a huge chunk of the independents, more tan making up for the slightly lower percentage of Dems he gets compared to Clinton. A lot of state right now are showing similar numbers. If Obama is the nominee McCain loses more independents than he gains Democrats.

[albionmoonlight]

Clinton will go negative. A negative campaign hurts Obama much more than it hurts her. And negative campaigns work. (I know that you personally never fall for them. But they still work. Funny that.)

Will he still win? Probably. But not definitely. And in any event it is good practice for him. Clinton is pulling out all the tricks that the GOP will against him: claiming media bias until people start to beleive it; using surrogates to sling the dirtiest mud; repeating hard-to-dispute claims (she has more relevant experience than he does) over and over and over until people accept them as axiomatic.

Better Obama figure out how to deal with these things now than while he is running in the general.

And, of course, if he really does wilt under the pressure, then Clinton can still become the nominee. And we will all look back longingly at 2004 when the election was not so soul-draining and polarizing.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--in case it is not clear the "you personally" refers to any reader of the post above. I'm not picking on any one person.

[Jas_lov]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/20...delegates.html

Rep. Lacy Clay, Obama's MO Co-chairman, says Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided superdelegates later this week.

New ABC/Wash. Post GE Poll:

Hillary 50 McCain 47

Obama 53 McCain 42

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

http://politicalwire.com/archives/20...delegates.html

Rep. Lacy Clay, Obama's MO Co-chairman, says Obama will gain the support of 50 undecided superdelegates later this week.

New ABC/Wash. Post GE Poll:

Hillary 50 McCain 47

Obama 53 McCain 42

If he really does have 50 waiting in the wings, they should wait and announce after Mississippi/Wyoming. That would make those states seem more important.

Clinton has done a wonderful job of declaring which states matter and which ones don't. "Of course, we all knew that Obama was going to win Wyoming and Mississippi. So that's not relevant. We need to keep the eye on the battle that matters--Pennsylvania."

Her dismissal of states where Obama is strong is picked up eagerly by the media and pundits, not because they want her to win, but because a competive race is more compelling than an anticipated blowout. Football writers spill a lot more ink over Flordia/UGA than they do over Florida/Deleware State. The size of a blowout win is much less interesting than the result of a close game.

So, I think that Obama needs to provide people with reasons to care about his blowout wins.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Vic: Polls don't match up with what you're saying.

I don't pay much attention to the general election polls until late in the summer. In the spring, they aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. I've learned that over my voting career; otherwise, I'd be reminiscing over President Mondale, President Dukakis, President Perot, President Dole, President Gore and President Kerry.

The polls will look markedly different in September than they do now.

[CamEdwards]

Besides VV's points about polls not really mattering that much this early out, there's another reason to take that WaPo poll with a gigantic grain of salt.

From The Campaign Spot (http://campaignspot.nationalreview.c...EyZDEyZjlhNjA=)

Fifteen percent of the sample is not registered to vote. Also note that the sample is 55 percent Democrat, 36 percent Republican, 7 percent Independent.

[JPhillips]

There's more polls than that WaPo one that show Obama makes up any losses in Dems with big pickups in Independents. While the polls don't guarantee anything, they certainly do put to bed the idea that McCain is guaranteed to win. There's no way to argue that with any data. It's just a way for supporters of McCain to cheerlead.

[CamEdwards]

I don't think too many serious political analysts would guarantee a win by any of the three candidates at this point. And frankly, how the mainstream media has viewed Obama will almost certainly change between now and November. I think we're already starting to see some of the frustration of Chicago-area reporters re: the Rezko connection. If Obama decides to pull too many "C'mon guys, I answered like eight questions" press conferences with national reporters, the honeymoon period will be over fairly quickly.

[JPhillips]

dola

The raw numbers don't mean much, but I bet the McCain folks do see a worrying trend.

2/1 M 46 O 49 with a 53/37 Dem - Rep split
3/2 M 40 O 52 with a 55/36 split

The split is also interesting if you dig into the numbers. The party identification is 40/28 with 28 percent independents. When independents are forced to choose the split goes to 55/36. So the question is whether this is some sort of media bias or a danger sign for Republicans that as it stands independents break heavily to the Democrats?

[JPhillips]

Cam: I agree Obama's response needs work. He simply got killed in the last 72 hours before OH/TX. As someone on CNN said, he showed he can take a bunch, but he hasn't shown he can throw one. The Rezko thing I don't think will be a big issue come November. I'm more worried about his inability to handle Clinton's experience charges and the the Canada/NAFTA flap.

McCain, though, has a very similar problem. His response to the revelations about Hagee and his performance next to Bush were pretty bad. The general may turn into a contest over who can finally figure out how to go on the offensive.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I don't think some of you guys realize what a huge deal this is going to be during the general election campaign.

Despite your hammering this point over and over, I'm not persuaded that it isn't basically already factored into most everyone's perception of a general election.
Pretty much no matter who the Democrat nominee is or could be, there will be some analysis, or something, by someone, at some point, that says that he or she is a filthy left-leaning liberal. And that report will be used by countless GOP pundits and pollsters and operatives during the campaign in all forms and fashions. That just seems like a given.

I happen to agree with you that the current polls vastly understate the likelihood of a McCain victory come November. But I disagree that this is essentially because there's some huge shoe left to be dropped on a matter like this. Republicans play to the middle by calling Democrats liberals. That's just how the game is played, it has basically dissolved into the fabric of a general campaign, it won't take anyone by surprise.

[JPhillips]

I'd take QS a step further. The crazy liberal charge needs some sort of evidence to stick. That's where Obama's inexperience in the Senate plays in his favor. He doesn't have the long voting record that kills most Senator candidates because of the ease of which it can be distorted. It was easy to beat up Kerry because of his long record of Senate votes. Obama doesn't have that baggage and the votes he does have are pretty innocuous as the Senate has been at an almost standstill for most of his term.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Despite your hammering this point over and over, I'm not persuaded that it isn't basically already factored into most everyone's perception of a general election.

I respectfully disagree.

In the early general election polls, many of those polled don't know anything about the candidates' voting records or their stand on the issues. This has been the case in almost every modern presidential election, and it seems to be the case in 2008. I guess we'll see when we compare the post Labor Day polls to the current polls.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

By the sound of your friends, it sounds as if their minds are made up and the primary process means very little to them. The Democratic primary lasting six or ten weeks longer does not appear as if it will have much of an impact on them. In the end, I suspect the Republican or Democrat candidate that can get the most of these type of folks that are deciding whether it is better to sit it out or hold their nose while voting for someone who is not their ideal candidate but most closely matches their opinions on key issues will probably be our next president. If your friends literally hate Hillary or absolutely think Obama is not qualified to be president, whatever happens in the primary over the next month or two is not likely to have much of an affect on them.

I think you are "handing" the bid to Obama a little bit prematurely (even though I think he will eventually win--both delegate-wise and superdelegate-wise). I get the impression that you do not like the concept of the superdelegates and how they may be swayed and/or won over by the candidates, which I can understand. The race is still very, very close. Still, the DNC set up the (flawed?) system and, if Hillary remains close, why wouldn't she try to appeal to the superdelegates to get them to swing it to her? She obviously thinks she is the best candidate for the job, has been leading/organizing thousands of loyal supporters for nearly a year to try to reach the presidency, and is trying to win the nomination. It would be extremely gracious of her to concede at this point, but there is still some life in her campaign, so I don't mind her continuing on at this point. Again, in the end, I think too many of the superdelegates will be held accountable and, more importantly, I don't think there is any indication that enough super delegates would side with Hillary over Obama (I would suspect it will be pretty close to 50-50 if a deal is not brokered before the convention).

I think Hillary's ads were effective because they raised a legitimate point AND because they coincided with her very effective criticism of the media giving Obama a free pass, which lead the media to consider her point and act (overact?) upon it. The PAC ads in the general election are going to be 100x more cutting and negative than the most negative criticisms we have seen in the Democratic primary. As I mentioned, I think it is going to be good for Obama's campaign for him to take a few shots now to harden him, as well as getting some of his warts out now, rather than closer to election day when they may be impactful. I also think it will force him to sharpen his message on some of the areas where his views are not well known and/or still undefined.

I can understand your vantage point, but I think you are assuming the worst-case scenario much too early. I definitely agree that, should Hillary somehow get a tremendously unbalanced amount of the super delegates to swing things to her after Obama has won a majority of the states and their delegates, then the Democratic party will suffer major damage--most notably disenfranchising a lot of African-American voters that have traditionally been very loyal to the party (which would change the face of the party significantly). But, I honestly think too many of the superdelegates will be held accountable and that their voting will likely reflect that of the actual voters (where it will be very close to 50-50).

I wanted to quote this in its entirety because I think it is articulate and, in my opinion, very accurate.

If I may add something regarding superdelegates -- the pressure on Clinton's declared superdelegates prior to last Tuesday to switch to Obama was enormous. The pressure to switch the other way was non-existant. If TroyF's doomsday scenario comes to pass, where Obama wins a majority of pledged delegates but has not secured enough superdelegates to win, what I witnessed in the last couple weeks will be modest compared to what Clinton's and undecided SDs will face from their constituencies. Even exceptional politicians like the Clintons will be hard pressed to make headway against that.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd take QS a step further. The crazy liberal charge needs some sort of evidence to stick. That's where Obama's inexperience in the Senate plays in his favor. He doesn't have the long voting record that kills most Senator candidates because of the ease of which it can be distorted. It was easy to beat up Kerry because of his long record of Senate votes. Obama doesn't have that baggage and the votes he does have are pretty innocuous as the Senate has been at an almost standstill for most of his term.

Ah, another place where I'd disagree. Obama's a product of Chicagoland politics, which as we've seen can pose some problems because of who you associate with. Rezko's gotten some attention. Obama's connection with Bill Ayers has been largely brushed off, but frankly, so has much of Ayers' background.

If I'm John McCain, at some point I take a look at all of the nanny-state measures that Chicago has passed over the past few years. Foie-gras bans, bans on free newspapers, smoking bans, bans on trans-fats, bans on street performers, (not to mention the ban on handguns that's been in place since 1982).

As a state senator, did Barack Obama have much to do with these? Nope. But as a resident of Chicago, what did he have to say? Did he complain? Did he talk to his Alderman buddies? What did he have to say about these invasive policies enacted by the city?

Now it could be that most Americans will look at these things and shrug their shoulders. But I'm guessing there are a lot of moderate Democrats and Republicans who see these as paper-cut infringements on rights and will be bothered by the fact that this is the political culture that bred Obama.

And then there are the votes Obama cast in the State Senate as well. Heck, there he faces two problems. Not only did he cast votes on issues, there were a number of times where Obama voted "present" instead of taking a side, including on issues like more jail time for criminals who shoot a gun near a school.

Certainly there are more votes in McCain's past than in Obama's. But McCain might be helped a bit by his "maverick" persona. I mean, McCain has been cast as the guy that many conservatives don't particularly like. He hasn't always voted the conservative position. Obama's persona, on the other hand, is one of pope-like infallibility. The voters already know McCain's a politician. It's Obama that they're treating like a religious figure, and when they are exposed to votes or positions that they disagree with, I'd argue their disappointment is going to me much greater than the disappointment they'll feel when they disagree with McCain.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

As an aside, I like how
A) every Democrat that you can pick out "has a voting record identical to (implied Superliberal dig) Ted Kennedy

No, they couldn't pin that on Bill Clinton, because he actually had a track record as a centrist governor in Arkansas, with tax cuts and welfare reform. They wouldn't have been able to pin the "Ted Kennedy" label on Bill Richardson this year, but he never got out of single digits in the democratic primary.

[Young Drachma]

Wow, I'm amazed at the fact that the Clintons and Obama are descending upon Wyoming a week after I leave the state. Too funny. It won't matter, obviously. Wyoming is blood red. But hey...the state never gets any positive spin, so I suppose it'll be a day in the light for Wyomingites. All 10 Democrats o' them.

[CamEdwards]

You left Wyoming, DC? Where'd you move to?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by realclearpolitics.com

US News' Ken Walsh asked Hillary Clinton about the possibility of "do overs" in Michigan and Florida. Clinton responded:

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

Oh my.

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

"Senator McCain, you supported the surge...."

Good night, game over. Thanks for playing.

Except that opinion on the war is changing back. Not the decision to go to war, which is still very unpopular, but whether to pull out or not. It's now basically a dead heat between pull out and stay in. While in reality the reduction in violence IMO has little to do with the surge, politically the surge is getting credit for a success.

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I happen to agree with you that the current polls vastly understate the likelihood of a McCain victory come November.

Even including the flawed WaPo poll where it was 60% Democratic, McCain is in a dead heat with Clinton at worst in the polls right now. Obama holds about a 5% lead on average. I don't think the polls are down playing the possibility of McCain winning as much as the pundits are.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

In the early general election polls, many of those polled don't know anything about the candidates' voting records or their stand on the issues.

And the sort of shitslinging we have every reason to expect will occur during the general election will actually make people more informed about actual voting records or actual positions? Again, I also disagree with you here in the sense that there will suddenly be a newly well-informed electorate showing up at the polls come November.

I do not disagree with you, by the way, about this being a close election. I recently bought shares of a GOP win at 36 cents on the dollar, and felt like I was stealing money.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Wow, I'm amazed at the fact that the Clintons and Obama are descending upon Wyoming a week after I leave the state. Too funny. It won't matter, obviously. Wyoming is blood red. But hey...the state never gets any positive spin, so I suppose it'll be a day in the light for Wyomingites. All 10 Democrats o' them.

Not to mention it's another caucus state.

Another example of democracy in action, where probably less than 10,000 of Wyoming's 59,000 registered democrats will determine the delegate allocation, and the winner will proudly proclaim, "See, I can run well in a red state."

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Not to mention it's another caucus state.

Another example of democracy in action, where probably less than 10,000 of Wyoming's 59,000 registered democrats will determine the delegate allocation, and the winner will proudly proclaim, "See, I can run well in a red state."

This isn't a new system. It's been this way for a while now. Yes, Obama seems to be benefitting from it. But in terms of absurdities, it's hardly the most major of the American electoral process. If parties wanted to make prospective candidates wrestle a steer and call that the nomination process, that would be there business. Parties can conduct their private matters however they choose.

Unless you're a lifelong Democrat on the front lines and feel as if somehow this process offends you majorly, because your voice isn't being heard (and I can't see how, since these are the rules that have been in place for some time now) your gripe isn't well taken here.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You left Wyoming, DC? Where'd you move to?

I started a new job in Illinois this week.

Hillary is conducting a town hall meeting in Cheyenne tomorrow where I used to work. The multipurpose room there holds about 1,600 people and the gym holds about 800. I'm curious mostly to hear the questions and to find out if the sense is the people they have in the audience were planted as has been accused in the past. I'll be able to find that out directly.

UW is hosting Obama tomorrow night in Laramie. I do love how they had to mention at the end of their little note telling people he'll be there that "this is not an endorsement by UW". Probably because the alumni have been calling in like crazy to complain about all of these Dems showing up to true-Red Wyoming.

I think that's pretty funny.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Oh my.[/indent]Except that opinion on the war is changing back. Not the decision to go to war, which is still very unpopular, but whether to pull out or not. It's now basically a dead heat between pull out and stay in. While in reality the reduction in violence IMO has little to do with the surge, politically the surge is getting credit for a success.
Even including the flawed WaPo poll where it was 60% Democratic, McCain is in a dead heat with Clinton at worst in the polls right now. Obama holds about a 5% lead on average. I don't think the polls are down playing the possibility of McCain winning as much as the pundits are.

Wording matters a lot in those polls on Iraq. If the decision is leave ASAP or stay until Iraq is stabilized you get a close to even split like the Pew poll in late February.

If you have leave now, leave within a year and stay as long as it takes over sixty percent is in the leave now or within a year groups like the LATimes/Bloomberg poll in late January.

If you just have approve/disapprove the split against is 2-1 like the CBS poll in late February.

As for the WaPo poll the actual split is 40/28/28. It gets to 55/36when independents are forced to choose, but that's what happens when independents prefer one party to another. Right now you won't find anything close to an even split if independents are forced to choose. Regardless, the 60% number is bogus.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Wording matters a lot in those polls on Iraq. If the decision is leave ASAP or stay until Iraq is stabilized you get a close to even split like the Pew poll in late February.

If you have leave now, leave within a year and stay as long as it takes over sixty percent is in the leave now or within a year groups like the LATimes/Bloomberg poll in late January.

If you just have approve/disapprove the split against is 2-1 like the CBS poll in late February.

As for the WaPo poll the actual split is 40/28/28. It gets to 55/36when independents are forced to choose, but that's what happens when independents prefer one party to another. Right now you won't find anything close to an even split if independents are forced to choose. Regardless, the 60% number is bogus.

I disregard the independents, so you have 40/68% are Democrats... which is 58.8 to 41.1%. That's a really wide split for a supposedly non-partisan poll. But if you want to argue that 59/41 or 55/36 isn't 60%, sure.

The polling the wording clearly matters, but regardless which poll you're using there has been a trend back to support for American troops in Iraq. And given that al-Sadr just agreed to extend his cease-fire for another 6 months, violence should stay low through at least September. It's not the slam-dunk issue in favor of the Democrats it was last year.

[Vegas Vic]

I think it’s kind of funny watching Florida republican governor Charlie Crist suddenly getting proactive and feigning indignation over the Florida delegates getting shut out of the convention, when after all, he was responsible for getting the primary moved up in the first place.

Of course, he knows that stirring this up now will prolong the chaos in the democratic party and help McCain.

[Big Fo]

Yeah it's disingenuous but the wise thing for Crist to do. Obama should offer to have his supporters fund a caucus.

[JPhillips]

Bishop: You can't disregard independents and then claim bias. On Iraq, you're right that it isn't the issue it was a year ago, but people still don't want a permanent presence in Iraq.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

This isn't a new system. It's been this way for a while now. Yes, Obama seems to be benefitting from it. But in terms of absurdities, it's hardly the most major of the American electoral process. If parties wanted to make prospective candidates wrestle a steer and call that the nomination process, that would be there business. Parties can conduct their private matters however they choose.

Unless you're a lifelong Democrat on the front lines and feel as if somehow this process offends you majorly, because your voice isn't being heard (and I can't see how, since these are the rules that have been in place for some time now) your gripe isn't well taken here.

I think Obama still has a 600,000 lead in the overall popular vote as well. (at least the last numbers I looked at show this)

It's not likely at all that Obama catches Hillary in the overall vote. It's essentially over in her catching him with the delegate vote. (hxxp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/162042/3056/80/468751)

From what I'm seeing, I think it is going to be at a minimum of a 125 delegate lead for Obama before the uncommited supers come in. There are currently about 330 super delegates who are uncommited.

I'm sorry, I just don't see how the math is going to work for her here. She'd have to get virtually all of the uncommited supers or steal a bunch of Obama's pledged ones. That'll do just what I said it would, it'd split the party in two and McCain would walk in with little trouble. But it isn't happening. Obama will get the nomination. The only questions left for me are:

1) How long does Hillary fight this
2) How nasty does she get doing it
3) Depending on how long this goes, how will Hillary's voters vote in the GE
4) Will Obama stick out an olive branch and offer her the VP and give her an out before she makes herself look completely psychotic.

[bronconick]

All she's going to do now is fling shit at him and hope enough of it sticks that he's unelectable by Denver and the superdelegates go to her because they have no other option. It's almost crazy because I'd wager that she has more skeletons in the closet.

It'll be interesting to see a) How effective it is, b) how well Obama fights back and c) how long she's allowed to go before the party shuts it down, or even if they do.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Yeah it's disingenuous but the wise thing for Crist to do. Obama should offer to have his supporters fund a caucus.

I think you're on to something there.

Round up 20,000 Floridians to caucus and legitimize their state delegation, thus ending the controversy. It must be a caucus, though, as letting all registered Florida democrats vote in a primary would give Clinton an unfair advantage.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I think you're on to something there.

Round up 20,000 Floridians to caucus and legitimize their state delegation, thus ending the controversy. It must be a caucus, though, as letting all registered Florida democrats vote in a primary would give Clinton an unfair advantage.

Not sure what the laws are in Florida, but in Texas, if a party gets more than 20% of the vote in the previous gubernatorial or presidential election (among a couple of other qualifiers), that party must hold a primary for the next presidential election.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I think you're on to something there.

Round up 20,000 Floridians to caucus and legitimize their state delegation, thus ending the controversy. It must be a caucus, though, as letting all registered Florida democrats vote in a primary would give Clinton an unfair advantage.

I don't think Obama has to worry a lot no matter what happens in FL or MI. I think his best bet is to come out and say there should be a revote in the two states. Hillary isn't going to gain a ton of delegates in those two. Essentially, blowouts are what matters now. Obama could lose the popular vote by 10 to 12 points in both FL and MI, and it still wouldn't put that much of a dent in his delegate lead.

I think the biggest danger for him is to fight it hard and act like he doesn't want those two states to have a revote. He's not going to make that mistake. Revote FL and MI, let Hillary gain 10 delegates. Whoop de do. It isn't going to make a difference at this point.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by bronconick

All she's going to do now is fling shit at him and hope enough of it sticks that he's unelectable by Denver and the superdelegates go to her because they have no other option. It's almost crazy because I'd wager that she has more skeletons in the closet.

Yep. Hillary is going to drag this out for months delaying the inevitable. She's a monster.

[JPhillips]

The bigger problem with a revote is who pays. The DNC should fight like hell to avoid throwing thirty or forty million dollars away a few months before the general.

[Buccaneer]

Those that support Obama and his campaign really should hope that they take back the upper hand. In the past week including today, they have let the Clintons dominate expectations for both camps; from how we should viwe results to the unimportance of Wyoming et al to how the Democratic ticket should look like. Obama's inexperience in dealing with these is really showing.