|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
What is the legal limit for donations? Or does it vary depending on a certain criteria?
An individual may contribute to each candidate or candidate committee per election a maximum of $2300. There are other criteria with higher limits.
Did any of my fellow Washingtoniums see Obama, Clinton or McCain today, during their whistle-stops here? Obama drew ~20,000 to the Key arena in Seattle (thousands more stood outside in the rain, listening to his speach over loudspeakers as the arena was filled to capacity), Clinton drew ~5,000 to the University of Puget Sound (Tacoma) and McCain considerably less as he appeared in a conference room at a downtown Seattle hotel. Huckabee's wife spoke to a group and the media in Bellevue. The numbers tell it all.
I'll be attending the local Democratic caucus tomorrow, to make my voice heard (croak!) and two committee fund-raising dinners next week. Our Dem Governor (supporting Obama) will speak at one.
[ 09. February 2008, 03:22: Message edited by: Gort ]
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joyeux
Ship's Lady of Laughter
# 3851
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Comper's Child
I'm feeling as though I'm peering through the looking-glass.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick
With conservatives like that, who needs liberals?
Are you suggesting Hillary's hitting the sauce?
Or somebody has quite a brew and isn't sharing with all the rest of us. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) Greedy creeps, all of 'em!
--------------------
Float?...Do science too
Posts: 4318 | From: over th... no, there! | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Did any of my fellow Washingtoniums see Obama, Clinton or McCain today, during their whistle-stops here? Obama drew ~20,000 to the Key arena in Seattle (thousands more stood outside in the rain, listening to his speach over loudspeakers as the arena was filled to capacity), Clinton drew ~5,000 to the University of Puget Sound (Tacoma) and McCain considerably less as he appeared in a conference room at a downtown Seattle hotel. Huckabee's wife spoke to a group and the media in Bellevue. The numbers tell it all.
I hear this notion that Obama's (or the Dems') big crowds "tell it all" or the like over and over again. Yet Obama always massively outdraws Hillary at rallies, and during Super Tuesday she got a few more votes than he did all-told (pretty much of a dead heat.)
I think the Dems are kidding themselves if they think that this election is a sure thing. Crowds just don't reliably translate into votes -- they may reflect interest in an unknown or "star power" of a candidate. But Brittany Spears would draw a crowd, too -- and I simply refuse to believe that we are so depraved as a people that we would ever elect her POTUS. Nonetheless, my sneaking suspicion is that McCain will beat either one of the Dems -- I think that, in the privacy of the voting booth, we're a lot less evolved than we act in the light of day. Maybe McCain could run on the slogan "In your heart, you know he's right!"
--Tom Clune
ETA: For you young whippersnappers, that was Barry Goldwater's campaign slogan when he ran against Lyndon Johnson.
[ 09. February 2008, 12:35: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I think the Dems are kidding themselves if they think that this election is a sure thing.
I've read nothing that indicates that Dems think this. If the party bigwigs have any sense at all (hah!), they'll resolve the question of the Florida and Michigan delegates sooner rather than later and avoid the showdown at the convention that will take place if Obama and Clinton are close in the delegate count. I like the idea of the party making the Florida and Michigan Democrats hold caucuses. Noting of course that my preferred candidate does well in caucuses. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
Yeah, now that the race is "interesting" past Super Duper Tuesday, those two might want another go-round ![[Biased]](wink.gif) .
(Practically, it would be next to impossible, but it's a cool idea.)
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
This just in from the New York Times.
Major points are that federal government employment rose faster than private sector in the last year; that federal gov't employment actually fell under Clinton; that private sector employment rose at over 2% (6 years out of 8) under Clinton (Bush at around 0.53% at the moment); that manufacturing has shown the greatest rate of decline under this Bush; and that the only president with a worse employment rate was (surprise!) GHW Bush.
Will this affect the overall process of the election?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
No. Bush isn't running and no Republican candidate (even in the extremely unlikely event that Huckabee pulls off a miracle) is likely to claim him. Nor is having for a husband a former president who did better than the worst ever going to draw anyone in.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I think the Dems are kidding themselves if they think that this election is a sure thing.
I've read nothing that indicates that Dems think this. If the party bigwigs have any sense at all (hah!), they'll resolve the question of the Florida and Michigan delegates sooner rather than later and avoid the showdown at the convention that will take place if Obama and Clinton are close in the delegate count. I like the idea of the party making the Florida and Michigan Democrats hold caucuses. Noting of course that my preferred candidate does well in caucuses.
The Party does not want a repeat of the 1964 convention and the seating problem with the Mississippi rival delegations especially as this will not be a year of landslides.
[ 09. February 2008, 17:07: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Did any of my fellow Washingtoniums see Obama, Clinton or McCain today, during their whistle-stops here? Obama drew ~20,000 to the Key arena in Seattle (thousands more stood outside in the rain, listening to his speach over loudspeakers as the arena was filled to capacity), Clinton drew ~5,000 to the University of Puget Sound (Tacoma) and McCain considerably less as he appeared in a conference room at a downtown Seattle hotel. Huckabee's wife spoke to a group and the media in Bellevue. The numbers tell it all.
Maybe McCain could run on the slogan "In your heart, you know he's right!"
--Tom Clune
ETA: For you young whippersnappers, that was Barry Goldwater's campaign slogan when he ran against Lyndon Johnson.
Didn't work so well for Barry. Indeed, a parody of this slogan at the time was "In your heart, you know he's right? Yes. Extreme Right"
I think McCain will be be terribly harried by the naysayers on his right who could very well stay home because McCain isn't "pure" enough. That is a real problem and good news for the Dems.
[ 09. February 2008, 17:11: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
... Maybe McCain could run on the slogan "In your heart, you know he's right!"
--Tom Clune
ETA: For you young whippersnappers, that was Barry Goldwater's campaign slogan when he ran against Lyndon Johnson.
Speaking of whippersnappers, five times as many 18-25yr olds are reportedly showing up at Dem rallies than in '04. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Well, I'm off to the caucus (4 hrs early). Gotta make sure I get a seat. Looks like turnout will break records. We've got 78 Dem delegates to assign and for the first time I can remember, it looks like Washington will have an effect on the outcome. woot!
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
I think McCain will be be terribly harried by the naysayers on his right who could very well stay home because McCain isn't "pure" enough. That is a real problem and good news for the Dems.
Perhaps. I think it depends on the Democratic nominee. Bush got a huge turnout for the base (I think I heard that 95% of Republican registered members voted rather than staying home) as well as a goodly number of independents with his 'compassionate conservatism' schtick - and barely gets in. McCain doesn't elicit that kind of excitement among the Republican base, so has to replace it with independent voters.
If he's going against Obama, then he's probably in bad shape. On the other hand, if he's competing against Hilary, not only will he do better with independents, but Republican party members are more likely to turn out for him.
[ 09. February 2008, 18:38: Message edited by: Choirboy ]
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
beza
Shipmate
# 10581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Maybe McCain could run on the slogan "In your heart, you know he's right!"
--Tom Clune
ETA: For you young whippersnappers, that was Barry Goldwater's campaign slogan when he ran against Lyndon Johnson.
Didn't work so well for Barry. Indeed, a parody of this slogan at the time was "In your heart, you know he's right? Yes. Extreme Right"
There was another parody: "In your guts, you know he's nuts."
Posts: 510 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
And yet it was Barry who later said that the religious right had ruined the Republican Party. In his later years he was much more of a libertarian. Notwithstanding his scary rhetoric in 1964, he probably never was as irresponsible as the LBJ campaign understandably painted him. I'm a dyed in the wool Democrat, but I do think that Goldwater was ultimately the better part of his party, as was the much maligned Nelson Rockerfeller (prior to his his Nixon escapade, for which I don't think he was really prepared). Similarly, I think McCain would be a lot better figure if he didn't feel a need to kowtow to a degree to the religious right, a faction that he has historically depreciated, perhaps apart from his studious opposition to legal abortion (a complex issue and I don't want to automatically suppose that his position on that is politically cynical).
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
My local Washington Democratic precinct caucus had good attendance today. Some of the old timers mentioned it was the largest group in memory. It was certainly exciting to experience the debate process with an enthusiastic crowd! When volunteers were solicited for speeches, I had to open my big yap and wax lyrical. As a result, I was elected one of four Obama delegates to the county convention in April! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) (Hillary got two)
Yikes! I've sold my soul to the political machine!
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frustrated Farmer
Shipmate
# 10782
|
Posted
Mrs. Farmer went off to her caucus this morning. She came home and reported that they had hundreds more people attend than had been planned for. She also reported that all sorts of rather conservative religious folks were there to support Mr. Huckabee. The news reports later today said that Mr. Huckabee won all of the delegates that were up for grabs.
Is there someplace on the ballot that I can mark "None of the above"? ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
I used to know some of the answers, then they changed the questions.
Posts: 588 | From: Kansas, USA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
My local Washington Democratic precinct caucus had good attendance today. Some of the old timers mentioned it was the largest group in memory. It was certainly exciting to experience the debate process with an enthusiastic crowd! When volunteers were solicited for speeches, I had to open my big yap and wax lyrical. As a result, I was elected one of four Obama delegates to the county convention in April! (Hillary got two)
Yikes! I've sold my soul to the political machine!
COngratulations! No, you haven't sold out. Remember who is the Establishment candidate
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
The Washington Post is reporting that Obama is winning in Nebraska (69% to 31% with 2/3 of the votes counted*) and is winning in Washington state.
*Does this put paid to the notion that white people won't vote in large numbers for a black man? I've never been to Nebraska, but I'm guessing it's pretty white.
[ 10. February 2008, 00:45: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
COngratulations! No, you haven't sold out. Remember who is the Establishment candidate
I've been thinking about that. With things this tight, we could run in to a situation where Obama wins the delegates chosen by voters, but Clinton goes over the top when the 'Super Delegates" are added in.
For those on the other side of the pond or elsewhere keeping score, most of the delegates to the Democratic party convention are awarded based on the voting. The exact algorithm varies state by state - some states are winner-take-all, and some have a proportional allocation scheme. But another wrinkle is that a number of states have a system where they award the vast bulk of their delegates by the voting (proportionally distributed or otherwise) but reserve a small proportion of additional delegates who are usually local party leaders, sometimes including e.g. members of the U.S. Senate, or just party bosses. These are likely to go for Clinton in larger numbers than Obama.
If that occurs, it could seriously undermine the Democrats unity and consequently hurt their chances in the general election.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
COngratulations! No, you haven't sold out. Remember who is the Establishment candidate
I've been thinking about that. With things this tight, we could run in to a situation where Obama wins the delegates chosen by voters, but Clinton goes over the top when the 'Super Delegates" are added in.
\
The superdelegates (or party hacks ![[Smile]](smile.gif) have to then think really hard which candidate is electable against John McCain. I don't see it with Hillary and I daresay the superdelegates are watching where the wind is blowing.
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
COngratulations! No, you haven't sold out. Remember who is the Establishment candidate
I've been thinking about that. With things this tight, we could run in to a situation where Obama wins the delegates chosen by voters, but Clinton goes over the top when the 'Super Delegates" are added in.
\
The superdelegates (or party hacks have to then think really hard which candidate is electable against John McCain. I don't see it with Hillary and I daresay the superdelegates are watching where the wind is blowing.
I don't trust the party hacks' judgement on the issue of electability. (I don't trust the party hacks' judgement on just about anything, but that's another issue, I suppose.) And if Obama gets more delegates chosen by voters but Clinton wins because of super-delegates, I will be seriously pissed off. And I doubt I'll be alone.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Would it help anyones assessment by mentioning I spoke to several Republican defectors today who said they had jumped ship because of disillusion with their former party? They were particularly upset with McCain (a watered-down version of Bush) and unanimous in supporting Obama.
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Obama sweeps!
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Who knew he was into curling?
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
Regarding the super delegates; I think the AP and the New York times have polling data of the super delegates at this point and they break roughly 2 to 1 for Clinton. Now of course that's a poll, and that's now rather than at convention, etc. But these kinds of folks have a long relationship with the Clintons from Bill's years, and ties to the Democratic Leadership Council; and Obama is new to the national level. These folks owe the Clinton's more favors than they owe Obama, I'd bet. One of the benefits of 'experience' I guess.
I will be delighted to be proven wrong.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Obama sweeps!
I loved this line:
quote:
Obama's winning margins ranged from substantial to crushing.
The pundits have been predicting that the primaries and especially the caucuses in the next two weeks or so will go heavily for Obama; that should get him about even or a little ahead going in to the March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas. I imagine Maryland going for Clinton but Obama possibly doing very well in Virginia to offset that. Both are primaries, but Maryland's is 'closed' so only Democrats can vote; Virginia's is open, so independents (or even Republicans) might vote in the Democratic primary for Obama.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
I imagine Maryland going for Clinton
It's a closed primary, yes, but Maryland has a large black population (30%) and a bunch of rich white liberals. And Obama is polling well ahead of Clinton (FWIW).
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
According to the BBC website Clinton is still ahead in the delegates race. Is this the case? I'm not sure how up to date the Beeb is on the race, but either way it sure is a close run thing just now. Makes for exciting reading even this far away!
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
But another wrinkle is that a number of states have a system where they award the vast bulk of their delegates by the voting (proportionally distributed or otherwise) but reserve a small proportion of additional delegates who are usually local party leaders, sometimes including e.g. members of the U.S. Senate, or just party bosses. These are likely to go for Clinton in larger numbers than Obama.
Are these the 'super delegates' that people are referring to? Or are they someone else? Are the super delegates included in the 2000+ that have to be won over to secure the nomination or are they in addition?
[ 10. February 2008, 10:22: Message edited by: Littlelady ]
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
If it goes to the wire, there seem to be two genuinely possible bad results for the Democrats at the Convention:
(1) Obama wins by a whisker on the floor of the Convention but Clinton would have won if Michigan and Florida had been counted.
(2) Clinton wins on state delegations, but Obama gets in through super-delegates.
Either of those risks a replay of the hanging chad debacle within the party, alienating activists who supported the losing candidate, and generating vast amounts of bad publicity the winning candidate does not need in the run-up to the General Election.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
At this point, I can't see Obama winning. The superdelegates are establishment figures that are tending to side with Clinton. Obama needs to sweep on Tuesday. As RuthW mentioned, the combination of African-Americans and rich educated liberals makes Maryland a good place for Obama. Washington D.C. is predominantly African-American. Virginia may be a bit more difficult to win but it has the same characteristics as Maryland (you could probably say the same for North Carolina). However, after that, Obama's got probably got Mississippi. What else?
I'm guessing Clinton wins Maine today. She's guranteed to win Texas as well. This gives her the three largest states. Ohio is a good state for Clinton. So is Pennsylvania. Obama has to win more big states to win the nomination. My suggestion is going back to Chicago, getting a tour bus, and taking a slow drive to Philadelphia. Along the way, he needs to spend a good deal of time talking about NAFTA and subsequent free trade agreements and what they've done to the economies of those states. McCain lost Michigan when he said those manufactoring jobs weren't coming back. Then, he needs to remind them of who signed NAFTA. Clinton can't claim to be experienced because she was First Lady for 8 years and not accept responsibility for the negative aspects of her husband's administration as well as the positive.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
At this point, I can't see Obama winning. The superdelegates are establishment figures that are tending to side with Clinton. Obama needs to sweep on Tuesday. As RuthW mentioned, the combination of African-Americans and rich educated liberals makes Maryland a good place for Obama. Washington D.C. is predominantly African-American. Virginia may be a bit more difficult to win but it has the same characteristics as Maryland (you could probably say the same for North Carolina). However, after that, Obama's got probably got Mississippi. What else?
Have you seen the polls in Texas recently?? Clinton has gone from a 20 point lead to 10 and closing and also, it is a month away. Obama has won states that CLinton had big leads in just a few months ago and more importantly, the upcoming ones are not winner take all. I see the race as wide open.
Again, the big question for the superdelegate "hacks" is the looming one of electability. That will not go away.
[ 10. February 2008, 18:11: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If it goes to the wire, there seem to be two genuinely possible bad results for the Democrats at the Convention:
...
(2) Clinton wins on state delegations, but Obama gets in through super-delegates.
It'd be the other way around -- Clinton is the one with all the ties to party insiders and she's ahead in the super-delegate count.
quote:
Either of those risks a replay of the hanging chad debacle within the party, alienating activists who supported the losing candidate, and generating vast amounts of bad publicity the winning candidate does not need in the run-up to the General Election.
I could not agree more.
quote:
Originally posted by Matins:
I'm guessing Clinton wins Maine today.
Nope, it's Obama, and it's not even close -- 58% to 40%.
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
According to the BBC website Clinton is still ahead in the delegates race. Is this the case?
CNN says Obama is now ahead in delegates chosen by voters -- 986 to 924 -- but Clinton has more super-delegates by their count -- 224 to 135 so she's ahead overall.
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady: quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
But another wrinkle is that a number of states have a system where they award the vast bulk of their delegates by the voting (proportionally distributed or otherwise) but reserve a small proportion of additional delegates who are usually local party leaders, sometimes including e.g. members of the U.S. Senate, or just party bosses. These are likely to go for Clinton in larger numbers than Obama.
Are these the 'super delegates' that people are referring to? Or are they someone else? Are the super delegates included in the 2000+ that have to be won over to secure the nomination or are they in addition?
Yes to both questions. If the count of delegates chosen by voters weren't so close, it wouldn't matter; a blow-out victory is nearly always better for the party and then we wouldn't be hearing much about the super-delegates. Wikipedia has good explanation.
[ 11. February 2008, 00:20: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joyeux
Ship's Lady of Laughter
# 3851
|
Posted
Matins - While I haven't seen the latests polls for here in Texas, the general Democrat atmosphere in my (large, metropolitan) area is either split between the two, or slightly leaning toward Obama. Mostly, at the moment, the Dems are glad that the Texas primary is going to be important for the first time in... who knows how long!
FWIW, the only Democrat that would have been "guaranteed" to win Texas was Bob Bullock, except he seemed to only want to stay in Texas.
--------------------
Float?...Do science too
Posts: 4318 | From: over th... no, there! | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
CBS is reporting that "In the delegate chase, Obama has pulled ahead of Clinton, even when the support of uncommitted super delegates is figured in. According to CBS News estimates, Obama holds a razor-thin lead with 1,134 delegates overall to 1,131 for Clinton."
Wow. I also saw the Big Mo (Momentum) on Page 1 of the LA Times directed at Obama. The press actually makes the candidate, or so I hear. They start declaring momentum, and then it happens. I hope Hillary pulls out of this slump! ....and I can't believe I just actually said that.....
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
There's a difference between a bad call on an election, and the consistent repeated droning of the entire news circus that so-and-so has got momentum. Or so-and-so swept. Etc. Etc.
I heard a discussion on an NPR podcast about how the media elects the candidates now. I found the arguments compelling, certainly from my lifelong watching of politics and the media....
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Has anyone an idea why Obama has this "momentum? From my 3,000 mile away, non-American perspective he appears to have won a few caucuses and primaries he was expected to win. Nothing newsworthy is happening at the moment so something has to be made up, to keep the (inflated puff)ball rolling.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
There are about 800 so-called super delegates; what we know so far is the current opinion of about 350 of them according to polls conducted by the Associated Press - meaning almost 500 didn't respond to the polls. And the current opinions of the 350 don't really count - it will be their vote at convention (if necessary, and it's looking like it may be) that are the only thing that matters.
It seems unlikely to me that Obama can lose based on delegates awarded by popular vote but come through due to super delegates. Those folks probably owe Bill Clinton more favors than they owe Obama. But the reverse could happen, which would lead to an incredible uproar.
Can't say much about the Michigan/Florida angle. Things would be different if everyone were allowed to campaign, etc. Any attempt to seat such delegates would reflect very poorly on the Clintons - even more poorly than winning due to super delegates.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Has anyone an idea why Obama has this "momentum? From my 3,000 mile away, non-American perspective he appears to have won a few caucuses and primaries he was expected to win. Nothing newsworthy is happening at the moment so something has to be made up, to keep the (inflated puff)ball rolling.
I think it's a bit of an illusion and a bit of substance. His prior success has made Democrats consider him a viable candidate; Edwards dropping out has probably meant many of his supporters in states now having primaries/caucuses have lined up behind Obama. The Clintons have also dropped the ball recently with statements that have alienated the African American vote, which was originally more split between the two candidates. Clinton has been polling better with Latinos (or Hispanics, as the census calls them), but this advantage may also be slipping a bit.
The illusion part is that this part of the primary 'schedule' could have been judged to be favorable to Obama from the outset: there are more caucuses, which Obama seems to do better in, etc. So Clinton runs up some successes early on and there is an appearance of a momentum shift because she runs in to the tougher part of the calendar (for her).
I'm expecting split decisions between Maryland and Virginia, leaving things pretty much as they are until March 4 when Ohio and Texas weigh in. It may not end there, but there should be a more clear picture of who is in the lead at that point. Pennsylvania will come in April, and perhaps finish things off (unless Florida and/or Michigan schedule caucuses to replace their primaries; it would make sense to do these in April as the calendar is virtually empty).
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Has anyone an idea why Obama has this "momentum? From my 3,000 mile away, non-American perspective he appears to have won a few caucuses and primaries he was expected to win. Nothing newsworthy is happening at the moment so something has to be made up, to keep the (inflated puff)ball rolling.
I think that his coming in from behind (according to the projections), headlines like this, and the fact that he is on a streak of wins indicates "momentum". May not be much of one to some eyes, granted, but it is enough to get headlines like that apparently.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Has anyone an idea why Obama has this "momentum? From my 3,000 mile away, non-American perspective he appears to have won a few caucuses and primaries he was expected to win. Nothing newsworthy is happening at the moment so something has to be made up, to keep the (inflated puff)ball rolling.
I think that his coming in from behind (according to the projections),
And keep in mind that because of having the national name recognition and the political connections, Clinton was the presumed frontrunner through all of 2007, that is, until the voting started.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Thanks all. When Choirboy, Madgeo and RuthW line up, it must be either conclusive or the issue isn't worth a row of beans. Thanks again.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
Ruth - thanks for the link. It explained things well and my fog has now cleared on the issue of super-delegates. They sound like a hangover from the previous system?
On Obama taking Maine - wasn't that supposed to be a Clinton stronghold? Or am I imagining that?
It'll be interesting to see how Obama scores in the Potomac Primaries. I hope the momentum keeps moving in his favour!
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
Littlelady, the superdelegates do indeed seem to be the modern heirs of the old "smoke-filled room" system. Mind you, I don't think it is always a bad thing to have the pros in on the action as long as they're not completely dominating the proceedings.
I think Obama will do quite well in the Potomac primaries - not sure how the polls in Virginia are running, but I'd be surprised if he doesn't win big in the District and he seems to be polling quite well in Maryland (as per above).
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
basso
Ship’s Crypt Keeper
# 4228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
Ruth - thanks for the link. It explained things well and my fog has now cleared on the issue of super-delegates. They sound like a hangover from the previous system?
To restore the previous system, actually.
According to the NY Times
quote:
Superdelegates, created in 1982, were intended to restore some of the power over the nomination process to party insiders, tempering the zeal of party activists. About 15 to 20 percent of the delegates at Democratic conventions are superdelegates.
Gotta keep the rank and file under control, right?
Posts: 4358 | From: Bay Area, Calif | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Keeping the rank and file under control? Somewhat, though I think the party may also realize that if they break completely with the rank and file, they're going to probably weaken their chances in the general election.
Clinton may have deals to call in with various superdelegates, but it's also likely that these deals may not count as much with the electorate, depending on how close this election is.
These kinds of things tend to pull in multiple directions.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
If it works right, it's more like checks and balances.
My not being averse to letting the pros at least have a say in the process comes from the legislative side - all those crappy ballot initiatives with people whipped up to a frenzy with carefully-crafted ad campaigns. Not like the Sacramento Fun House has a way better record these days, but please allow me my caution based on past experience .
(Mind you, if I'd grown up in Boston or Chicago or New Orleans instead of where I did, I'm sure my perspective would be WAY different.)
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
