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

[st.cronin]

"I offer a lifetime of experience."

Am I wrong, or doesn't Obama have more time as an elected official than Clinton?

[Raiders Army]

Obama wins Wyoming about 6-4.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Obama wins Wyoming about 6-4.

And that ratio is from the 8,753 of Wyoming's 59,000 registered democrats who participated in the caucus.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

"I offer a lifetime of experience."

Am I wrong, or doesn't Obama have more time as an elected official than Clinton?

He does. But she constantly cites her time as a First Lady as part of "working for change." It's a position she's gotten away with for the entire race, because no one wants to call her out and basically say "look, a free ticket to the White House doesn't somehow imply that the American people ever elected you on their behalf to do business for them save for your time in the US Senate.

But no one will say that. Instead, Hillary will continue to trumpet her experience.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

It's a position she's gotten away with for the entire race

I guess I wonder if she really has gotten away with it, or if an emphasis on experience is a bad miscalculation on her part. At the very least, it seems like something that could backfire on her in the general, given McCain's status. One can imagine him comparing his experience to her experience, and really scoring big.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

He does. But she constantly cites her time as a First Lady as part of "working for change." It's a position she's gotten away with for the entire race, because no one wants to call her out and basically say "look, a free ticket to the White House doesn't somehow imply that the American people ever elected you on their behalf to do business for them save for your time in the US Senate.

But no one will say that. Instead, Hillary will continue to trumpet her experience.

In that case, Monica Lewinsky has experience as well. Not to mention all the others out there...

[JPhillips]

Vic: You keep ignoring that Obama still has a higher popular vote total than Clinton.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Vic: You keep ignoring that Obama still has a higher popular vote total than Clinton.

Whether he considers himself a partisan or not, it seems to me that he just seems to hate caucuses more because Obama's organizations seems more suited to winning them. Their ground game is better and as a result, he's not having to do much to win them. He seems to imply they don't reflect the will of the people, but when have we ever had a Presidential race where that was a chief concern of anybody?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I guess I wonder if she really has gotten away with it, or if an emphasis on experience is a bad miscalculation on her part. At the very least, it seems like something that could backfire on her in the general, given McCain's status. One can imagine him comparing his experience to her experience, and really scoring big.

At this point, it's all too clear that she is hell bent on becoming President. She doesn't care who she has to take in her wake, she feels like America needs her and can only benefit from her. She won't take no for an answer and his team is trying hard -- though Samantha Power's remark in the UK the other day about Hillary being a monster shows you the signs that they are losing it -- to make sure she doesn't force him into a gaffe that mobilizes white women to come in droves to vote for her JUST to get a woman in the White House.

Because at this point, that's the one linchpin she has in all of this. And it almost forces him -- as I figure he would anyway -- to pick a woman at the bottom of his ticket, to assuage all of those women who swear that this is just another "Man" show and that Obama doesn't really believe that America is ready for a woman President.

I've heard more than once and I tend to agree that the issue isn't "we don't want a woman President. It's that we don't want THAT woman as President."

I will say, that I do appreciate her innate policy knowledge. She tries to wield it as some sort of advantage she has over him too. But McCain won't be afraid to say what none of the Dems will, which is "being First Lady isn't experience that qualifies you by itself to be President."

The GOP will say it, Limbaugh will say it and her experience argument will dissolve quickly and she'll simply need to play up the whole "a woman in the white house" argument more if she manages to win..er..steal the nomination.

[Big Fo]

I was so pissed when the Dolphins hired Tony Sporano this offseason. I mean we could've had Bill Belichick's ex-wife and all her experience from those Super Bowl wins. What a debacle.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

He does. But she constantly cites her time as a First Lady as part of "working for change." It's a position she's gotten away with for the entire race, because no one wants to call her out and basically say "look, a free ticket to the White House doesn't somehow imply that the American people ever elected you on their behalf to do business for them save for your time in the US Senate.

But no one will say that. Instead, Hillary will continue to trumpet her experience.

+1

[Raiders Army]

It would be great if Obama took Lewinsky or Flowers as his Veep.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Vic: You keep ignoring that Obama still has a higher popular vote total than Clinton.

Since when does "popular vote" have anything to do with presidential primaries, or general elections for that matter.

Additionally, the "popular vote" number that you're citing is a co-mingling of primary votes and caucus votes (and double dipping, in some cases), so I don't see the relevance of the number to begin with.

[JPhillips]

You're the one that keeps complaining that Obama's caucus wins don't mean anything because it's so few people. I'm just pointing out that he actually has a higher total of votes than Hillary.

As for Hillary, I was neutral until this week. I'm an Obama supporter, but I would have been happy either way. Now that's she's carrying water for McCain I'm through with her.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You're the one that keeps complaining that Obama's caucus wins don't mean anything because it's so few people. I'm just pointing out that he actually has a higher total of votes than Hillary.

Clinton has a slight delegate lead in the states that have had full primaries. I'm not sure of the "popular vote" total in those primary states, but it is probably close to even.

As I mentioned, in the end it doesn't make any difference. Those are the rules that were agreed upon. The rules also stated that 4/5 of the total delegates would be elected from the primary and caucus states, and that 1/5 of the total delegates would be comprised of elected democratic officials who are free to vote for whomever they want to.

[JPhillips]

Agreed.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Obama leads popular vote by a good margin.
Obama leads in elected delegates by an almost an insurmountable margin.
Obama has won 29-13 in states.

The superdelegates will not rally around a nominee that is on the short end of the 3 things mentioned above.

Obama has won the nomination . . . . barring some terrible unforeseen circumstance of either his or someone else's making.

Book it.

P.S. Just thought I would save everyone the trouble of further debate in this thread.

[Young Drachma]

Story

16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga crossed over and voted Democratic in primary

A staggering 16,000-plus Republicans in Cuyahoga County switched parties when they voted in last week's primary.

That includes 931 in Rocky River, 1,027 in Westlake and 1,142 in Strongsville. More than a third of the Republicans in Solon and Bay Village switched. Pepper Pike had the most dramatic change: just under half its Republicans became Democrats. And some of those who changed - it's difficult to say how many - could be in trouble with the law.

At least one member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections wants to investigate some Republicans who may have crossed party lines only to influence which Democrat would face presumed Republican nominee John McCain in November.

Those who crossed lines were supposed to sign a pledge card vowing allegiance to their new party.

In Cuyahoga County, dozens and dozens of Republicans scribbled addendums onto their pledges as new Democrats:

"For one day only."

"I don't believe in abortion."

A Plain Dealer review of thousands of records showed few of those who switched were challenged by poll workers.

Sandy McNair, a Democratic member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, said Friday that the manipulation of the system was troublesome.

"It's something that concerns me, that I think needs to be looked at further," McNair said. "This is not a structural thing by the Republican Party. If it's a problem at all, it's on an individual level."

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Obama leads popular vote by a good margin.
Obama leads in elected delegates by an almost an insurmountable margin.
Obama has won 29-13 in states.

The superdelegates will not rally around a nominee that is on the short end of the 3 things mentioned above.

Obama has won the nomination . . . . barring some terrible unforeseen circumstance of either his or someone else's making.

Book it.

P.S. Just thought I would save everyone the trouble of further debate in this thread.

Look above, I made the same point awhile ago. This thing is over. There is no way the superdelegates are going to rally around someone who is losing in the three things above without imploding the party.

On the positive side, Hillary has extended an olive branch to allow Obama to be her VP. This is incredibly nice of Hillary. I mean, she's getting her ass handed to her and she's willing to allow Obama to be her second in command. He's not fit to be prdesident, but he IS fit to be president if she dies. Nice Hllary.

This thing is over. Sorry, I should have written OVER.

[cuervo72]

Well, it's a pretty good ploy by her. And it's not just her dropping those hints, it's Bill too. It could sway voters who think this *is* her reaching out (not all will/can see through it). It could also make Obama look bad. If he doesn't accept her offer he's not playing along for the good of the party, if he doesn't say he'd do the same for her, ditto. He looks like the bad guy who isn't willing to bury the hatchet (one she put in his back in the first place...) or cooperate.

I don't know to what extent it will work, but it's getting some media coverage and I'm sure it will fool some.

[Young Drachma]

It's a smart move. They want appeal to all of those people that want the first woman President and they want to make them shame Obama into "waiting his turn." Act of desperation or not, it's pretty smart when your path to the nomination is all but blocked for good.

[TroyF]

If she were down 50? good call. With her down 100 even with pledged supers? Desperation. It's a bad move at a the wrong time. It makes her look conceited and desperate. She's done.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by TroyF

She's done.

We keep saying that (and I, personally, still beleive it), but the voters keep giving her reasons to say she is not done. Until she loses one of her hand-picked "important" races in a big way, I don't see her going away. And the longer she stays in, the better chance she has--just through sheer endurance.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

We keep saying that (and I, personally, still beleive it), but the voters keep giving her reasons to say she is not done. Until she loses one of her hand-picked "important" races in a big way, I don't see her going away. And the longer she stays in, the better chance she has--just through sheer endurance.

Yup. And the media laps it up like a dog drinks water in the summer. They just love to see a good train wreck.

[cartman]

I got a laugh out of this one:

"Saying Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko was a Beatle".

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

We keep saying that (and I, personally, still beleive it), but the voters keep giving her reasons to say she is not done. Until she loses one of her hand-picked "important" races in a big way, I don't see her going away. And the longer she stays in, the better chance she has--just through sheer endurance.

Then she's still done. If the super delegates give her the win, there is no way in hell a majority of the Obama voters move to her side. They have a nice moderate (R) to vote for on the other side.

So she's done. It's likely going to end in June or in August on the convention floor. If she gets the nod, she's still done.

[stevew]

someone tell the bitch to pack her shit and leave.

[Dutch]

If the super delegates give her the win...

I don't see the value of these super delegates. If they vote with the majority, they are worthless and if they vote against the majority they are starting a Democrat civil war.

Obama deserves the win. Period. This crap should be banned.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't see the value of these super delegates. If they vote with the majority, they are worthless and if they vote against the majority they are starting a Democrat civil war.

Obama deserves the win. Period. This crap should be banned.

The super delegates were established to ensure that 1/5 of the total delegates to the convention would be elected officials in the democratic party. There didn't seem to be any outrage at the time this was instituted, but that seems to have changed.

Getting rid of the super delegates in the future would eliminate this mess from happening again. Additionally, "winner take all" primaries would have prevented this from happening, but the democrats didn't want to go that route.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The super delegates were established to ensure that 1/5 of the total delegates to the convention would be elected officials in the democratic party. There didn't seem to be any outrage at the time this was instituted, but that seems to have changed.

Getting rid of the super delegates in the future would eliminate this mess from happening again. Additionally, "winner take all" primaries would have prevented this from happening, but the democrats didn't want to go that route.

Both VV and Dutch are right here.

Winner take all primaries would have almost ensured the race would be over now, Hillary would be winning it. Not only that, but the rules were agreed upon by all parties involved. Thing is, that doesn't stop people from bitching about it. Obama will throw a fit if the superdelegates decide it. Hillary will throw a fit if she loses because of her wins in the big states. MI and FL were also "rules" that everyone agreed to follow.

That's where VV is dead on.

Dutch? Exactly 100% correct by saying a superdelegate win for Hillary would fracture the party. I see no possible way Hillary could win if she went to the GE with a superdelegate victory.

The only way this ends well for the dems come November is if Hillary bows out right after the primaries are over. She won't do it. She'll try to get a backroom deal done. This won't end well. Oh, and she isn't getting the nomination.

[Vegas Vic]

Here's an excerpt from a National Review article that reiterates a point I've been making throughout this thread:

"Anti-Clinton liberal pundits are insisting that her campaign is still a lost cause, because of "the math," i.e., Obama will have more pledged delegates. That will supposedly force the super-delegates to go with Obama. But if the race is essentially a tie and Obama has won a lot of delegates in caucuses that are less representative than the primaries, why should super-delegates be bound by Obama's tiny lead in pledged delegates? It isn't written in the rules anywhere that that's what they have to do—in fact, the opposite. They can decide on whatever grounds they like."

Full Article

[albionmoonlight]

The Democratic primaries are a great reflection of the Democratic party (for good and for ill).

1.) Very, very, very fair. Proportional primaries. No winner take all. If 33% of a state likes candidate X, then they should have a voice.

2.) But, as much as we like the people, we can't actually trust them not to do something stupid for themselves. So we will make sure that we protect people from themselves (by creating superdelegates who can overide the will of the people).

3.) But, when it is time for the superdelegates to take a stand and actually use their power for the good of the party, they are all too scared to actually do anything, so they just refuse to act and hope that things will resolve themselves.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The Democratic primaries are a great reflection of the Democratic party (for good and for ill).

1.) Very, very, very fair. Proportional primaries. No winner take all. If 33% of a state likes candidate X, then they should have a voice.

How are the numerous democratic caucus states fair, where in some cases 99% of the registered democratic voters are disenfranchised?

[JPhillips]

Vic: I don't think anyone here is arguing that the Supers can't pick whomever they individually choose. The argument being made is that the Super's should mainly consider what's best for the Democratic Party heading into the general election, not their own individual preferences. The role of the Supers was supposed to be to protect the party by having a mechanism to consider the electability of potential candidates. In effect the Supers were supposed to do what's best for the party.

Where we stand now, which could change, makes it clear to me that the Supers should choose Obama for the benefit of the party. If the current percentages still hold in early June it would be political suicide to take the nomination from the person who has the most votes, the most delegates and the biggest coattails. I understand the theoretical argument that Clinton has more strength among constituencies the Dems need, but in the real world picking Clinton under the circumstances I described would almost guarantee a loss in November.

Certainly the Supers CAN do whatever they wish, but in the end their goal should be to position the party in the best way possible for the general election.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

How are the numerous democratic caucus states fair, where in some cases 99% of the registered democratic voters are disenfranchised?

Disenfranchised as a term has been thrown around entirely too much in this particular election season. Even more than in 2000 when it actually carried more water.

If people want to vote or participate in caucuses, they should show up. No one is standing with guns at the door telling them they can't participate. If they have to work or are too tired after work or don't feel like it or don't have the convictions to stand up to their Obama-loving neighbors, that's no one's fault but their own.

[cartman]

Just as a note, the Republicans hold caucuses as well.

[Kodos]

Joe Biden admits that, yes, he is not faring well in this poll, but he hopes to start a rally any moment now.

[JPhillips]

Even if you can find people who can't possibly make a caucus due to conditions beyond their control, no way it's anywhere near 99%. My guess is only ten percent or so truly can't causcus. The others choose not to.

It's also important to point out that both parties have multiple caucus states.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

How are the numerous democratic caucus states fair, where in some cases 99% of the registered democratic voters are disenfranchised?

I think that caucuses are more a matter of the states deciding to do them than the parties saying they must.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Here's an excerpt from a National Review article that reiterates a point I've been making throughout this thread:

"Anti-Clinton liberal pundits are insisting that her campaign is still a lost cause, because of "the math," i.e., Obama will have more pledged delegates. That will supposedly force the super-delegates to go with Obama. But if the race is essentially a tie and Obama has won a lot of delegates in caucuses that are less representative than the primaries, why should super-delegates be bound by Obama's tiny lead in pledged delegates? It isn't written in the rules anywhere that that's what they have to do—in fact, the opposite. They can decide on whatever grounds they like."

Full Article

You've brought up the point already in the thread. And I have agreed with you on it.

The problem is the voting public and what they think. The Supers can vote for whomever the hell they want. Seriously. They have the right, it's the dem's system.

This isn't a debate about what the dems should do or can do or what is fair. It's the reality of the situation. If Obama wins more states, popular votes and delegates and then gets left out, the Obama voters will be pissed off beyond belief. They will feel ripped off and a lot of them will not vote for the person they think stole their election. They'll either stay home or they'll go to McCain.

Some people dispute this and we'll just have to see how it would play out if Hillary gets elected this way.

My opinion is that:

1) Obama is going to get the nomination. The earlier it becomes official, the better chance he has to win the GE.

2) If Hillary does get the nomination through the superdelegate process, she may as well not even show up for the GE. I think she'd get crushed because she'd unify the GOP base as well as lose a large percentage of the Obama voters.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong. . .

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by cartman

Just as a note, the Republicans hold caucuses as well.

My opinion on caucuses has nothing to do with party. I think they're patently unfair, and in some cases they're not that much different than what we used to blast the former Soviet Union and some of the modern "banana republics" for.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

My opinion on caucuses has nothing to do with party. I think they're patently unfair, and in some cases they're not that much different than what we used to blast the former Soviet Union and some of the modern "banana republics" for.

Stuffing a ballot box is a hell of a lot easier than stuffing a caucus.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Stuffing a ballot box is a hell of a lot easier than stuffing a caucus.

What about compared to stuffing a bra?

[JPhillips]

I don't know about every state, but many have chosen caucuses because it's considerably cheaper than a primary. In most years the Washington or Nevada or Wyoming caucuses don't mean jack, so why should a state commit to the large expense of hundreds or thousands of voting places? Unless there's some sort of agreed upon funding mechanism I don't ever see a lot of these states choosing to conduct a primary.

Look at it this way, caucuses are examples of the government being good stewards of taxpayer dollars!

And there is no comparison between a small turnout and a predetermined outcome.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

OK, I'll likely end up voting for a Republican in the general election. With that said, Obama won big points with me yesterday for telling Hillary off after her suggestion that a joint ticket is a possibility. Any time someone takes a 'who the hell do you think you are' shot at one of the Clintons, it's going to be something that the Republican and independent voters notice.

[albionmoonlight]

Regardless of whether one likes Clinton or Obama, I think that most observers can agree that, at this point, a drag-out primary will hurt the Democrats. Also, most observers can agree that the risks of the campaign getting ugly are increasing with each passing day.

And, most importantly, most observers can agree that the primary now lacks an obvious exit point. The three times when it may have made sense for Clinton to leave (after New Hampshire, after Super Tuesday, after Ohio/Texas) have all passed. And one cannot see any such backbreaking races left on the calendar.

All of which means that the next few days present an opportunity for the superdelegates to do something for the good of the party. Specifically, they can, after Obama wins Mississippi, break for him en mass, and make the new party line: "He has the most votes, the most delegates, the most states, runs better against John McCain, has brought new energy (and money) into the party, and should have all of these things hold true through the end of the nomination process. He is our best candidate, and he has the support of the majority of the voters. Beating John McCain in the fall is the only goal that matters, and dragging our primary out for months while he campaigns and raises money will cripple us in November. Accordingly, we are exercising our judgment as delegates to end this process now and start focusing on the general. And we ask Senator Clinton to respect the wishes of the majority of the people and the party and allow us to focus on beating John McCain."

These superdelegates are, of course, elected officials and party insiders, so they will not do this. Caution is the order of the day. But, if the whole reason for your existence is to prevent chaos and do what is best for the party . . . should you not at least consider doing that?

Also, they could make a similar move for Senator Clinton, but that does not seem to be the way that the wind is blowing. It would be a harder sell.

[JPhillips]

I disagree a little. I'll agree that an August floor fight will be bad, but I don't think carrying this through the primaries in May will be a disaster and artificially ending it before all the remaining contests, IMO, poses a greater risk for a nasty intra-party squabble. If there is a clear nominee going into June there will still be plenty of time to raise money and prepare. The outside groups (527s) will be the primary campaigners over much of the summer anyway and they'll be focused on tearing down McCain as opposed to building up the Dem nominee.

[Cringer]

I suggest a Bill/Hillary vs. Barack/Michelle tagteam cage match on WWE's pay-per-view Wrestlemania.

[Cringer]

Dola- I am dead serious.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I disagree a little. I'll agree that an August floor fight will be bad, but I don't think carrying this through the primaries in May will be a disaster and artificially ending it before all the remaining contests, IMO, poses a greater risk for a nasty intra-party squabble. If there is a clear nominee going into June there will still be plenty of time to raise money and prepare. The outside groups (527s) will be the primary campaigners over much of the summer anyway and they'll be focused on tearing down McCain as opposed to building up the Dem nominee.

Some people agree that it would actually be beneficial for the candidates to build strong operations in Pennsylvania and North Carolina--one being a state that they need to hold on to in November, and one being a state that the GOP needs to hold on to in November. Personally, I think that the money is not best spent doing that, and that the risks of negative campaigns outweighs the positives of strong ground operations.

That said, I am very much a novice at this kind of stuff, so take anything I say with a healthy grain of salt.