The Turning Point?
Jeff Alworth
For the better part of two weeks, Dems have settled down to the idea that our primary would go the distance. Barack Obama racked up expected wins in the post-Feb 5 primaries, and we have continued to argue superdelegates and deadlock, assuming a Clinton rally. But tonight provides evidence that the tide may have turned. Barack Obama again won three expected victories tonight, despite what seemed like pretty inflated expectations. But even those inflated expectations understated the point. Obama won the three primaries by 51%, 29%, and 25%.
No biggie? Consider these facts. Obama outperformed even the most favorable polls in DC (+15%), Virginia (+7%), and Maryland (+2%). Even more impressively, Obama won by large margins among groups Clinton has formerly dominated. Exit polls in Virginia showed Obama winning among:
women: +21%
those with no college degree: +26%
those earning less than $50k: +26%
Latinos: +8%
whites: +5%
those aged 45-59: +23%
those over 60 years old: +12%
(Maryland's exits were similar.) I have been a skittish Obama supporter for weeks now, thinking that at any moment his campaign was on the brink of implosion. But even I have to look at the facts and admit it looks like something's changed. Is it time to revise the narrative and talk about an outright Obama win? Tonight begs the question.
Your thoughts?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:30 p.m.
Feb 12, '08
I've been very impressed with Obama's last 8 wins. His wins today were absolutely outstanding. Keeping Hillary down to less than 25% in DC was a shock, I must say. I thought he would win all the races today, but even I didn't think he'd win by as much as he did.
Big congrats to the Obama campaign. I can't wait to see how the races between now and March 4 go. I wish I could afford to fly to Texas - I'd visit family and work the area for Obama.
Feb 12, '08
Finally perhaps we see the pendulum swinging back. Look at the fabulous win by Donna Edwards...we'll rid ourselves of the pseudo democrats one by one. Look at the massive turnout the Democratic Party has had in every single primary. Hillary, second to Obama, still has garnered more votes than McCain in every instance. There's no way they could steal another one with all of these new voters showing up. Dare we hope that we might get our country and the Constitution back?
:)
9:39 p.m.
Feb 12, '08
And all the sideshow about "supah" delegates goes poof!
(Unfortunately, so does the significance of our primary.)
Feb 12, '08
Steve, if you want this year's convention to do something about the superdelegate rules, Oregon's primary will show who gets to elect our state's delegates but also national members of Rules, Credentials, and Platform committees.
I just typed "Barack Obama Jim Webb" into a search engine and found a video of a Sept. 2006 rally for Webb. The man has great speaking style even when he isn't running for president!
9:45 p.m.
Feb 12, '08
Don't count on it Steven. Obama holds a narrow lead in terms of overall delegates, and is building a lead in terms of fundraising, but Clinton still has a commanding lead in terms of the "supah" delegates, and the bobble heads claim that she will be tough to beat in delegate rich Texas and Ohio.
On the plus side, I understand that Obama opened up something like 10 field offices in Texas, s that race may be closer than the experts think.
Feb 12, '08
I just typed "Barack Obama Jim Webb" into a search engine and found a video of a Sept. 2006 rally for Webb. The man has great speaking style even when he isn't running for president!
Jim Webb abandoned his Constitutional duty today by voting for amnesty for the phone cos. Nope.
I nominate the brilliant, macho, and ruggedly handsome General Tony McPeak.
(or my other favorite...Brian Schweitzer)
9:53 p.m.
Feb 12, '08
Obama is still going to need Oregon. to negate the Clinton-algined SD's, he needs to hold an overall lead by the time the final primaries have ended. at that point, most of the SD's will go with the candidate the voters have selected. in a lot of cases, they'll go with the way their states voted. it'll still be close, but by simply keeping the campaign going and winning in the normal way, Obama can block the effect of the SD's by demonstrating that the will of primary/caucus voters was his campaign. not even the most arrogant SD is going to be stupid enough to overturn the popular vote.
Feb 12, '08
methinks that with turnout like what we've seen, they'll be greeted with torches and pitchforks if they go against the will of the people. this wave can't be stopped. (says the former Edwards supporter)
Feb 12, '08
sorry to be incoherent. I thought LT was suggesting Webb for VP, something I've seen a lot on the net. Also, the superdelegates will be met with great anger if they don't go with what the people decided in the primaries. I'm no longer a concern troll over that one.
All in all a mixed day. The Senate wants to give away the Constitution once and for all, but the people may not let it happen. Good evening.
Feb 12, '08
Adam Nagourney at the New York Times has a very similar analysis on line.
Feb 12, '08
Is it time to revise the narrative and talk about an outright Obama win?
Obama cannot outright win before the convention unless Clinton drops out -- or unless the superdelegates move en masse to support him. It is possible she will drop out if she loses both Ohio and Texas, but not before then. And if she battles Obama to a draw on March 4th, she'll likely stay in until Pennsylvania.
The big fear is that she goes harshly negative. MSNBC was saying tonight that her only hope is to persuade voters that Obama isn't ready to be President. But of course, that's a suicide bomb as it would greatly weaken Obama for the general. I suspect there is serious debate in her camp about just how hard they want to push. Someone's been floating the idea of Senate Majority Leader as a consolation prize, which is intriguing.
As for superdelegates, I don't want to restart the debate with Steve, but the concern has never been that they would do the wrong thing, it's that they could do the wrong thing. Even if Obama cleans up, the power of superdelegates to overturn the popular vote needs to be stripped.
10:25 p.m.
Feb 12, '08
The story I was reading tonight talked about that Clinton's superdelegates are getting antsy and looking at abandoning ship - some now, some later. But from the tone of the article, I would definitely say her SD total is extremely soft and even melting.
10:50 p.m.
Feb 12, '08
Clinton must be getting pressure from all sides to quit, especially with the polls still showing Obama beating McCain by several points and she only tying at best. That's what everyone is watching at this point. If Romney or Huckabee had taken it she might have a chance, but I think most people understand her chances against McCain would be tight.
I hope she doesn't take any position in the new administration though and stays in the senate where she could also go on to make meaningful change, if not history.
Feb 12, '08
I wasn't suggesting Webb for VP. If Obama is the nominee he needs to look back to 1940. When businessman Willkie got the GOP nomination that year, his VP choice was an experienced US Senator to balance out experience rather than geography.
For those of you who don't know, that is why so many things in Oregon are named after Charles McNary. McNary Dam because he helped FDR pass public power, McNary HS in Salem (and other surrounding locations named after McNary) because as best anyone can tell it is roughly where the old McNary farm was, and other things because of his 2 main claims to fame: VP nomination (which he did out of a sense of duty--would rather be in the Senate) longevity in office (had he not died in office, Hatfield would never have beaten his record for longevity as a Senator from Oregon).
11:05 p.m.
Feb 12, '08
If Chuck Todd is right (and this is actually what he said), Clinton will need around 63% of the Texas and Ohio votes to have even the first chance. And that was a lot earlier in the evening, before all of THIS.
Guess he can only win in the South, northeast, midwest, breadbasket, west coast, mountain west and midatlantic--and only among white men, women, Latinos, and mmmm...maybe 80%-90% of an African American community that looks like they're going to flood the polls in November if Obama is the nominee. If only he could appeal to the REAL electorate! :)
Feb 12, '08
The best question to ask isn't, "Who would be most politically advantageous in 2008," but, "Who else do I want to be president?" -- whether that's in 2016 or earlier. I don't know if Obama really needs balance. His campaign is decidedly not about demographic calculus. Maybe what would be best for this country is a double-dose of whatever Obama's serving up.
11:21 p.m.
Feb 12, '08
Miles: As for superdelegates, I don't want to restart the debate with Steve, but the concern has never been that they would do the wrong thing, it's that they could do the wrong thing.
Way to not reopen a debate, Miles. LOL!
But it's late, so I'll take a pass, other than to admit that oligarchical control is always a potential danger in representative systems. It's just that direct systems are sometimes no better, and usually much worse in close elections. I guarantee you that if you get rid of the "supahs" accountable to PCPs and/or the voters, one day there will be an election in which the utterly unaccountable Supreme Court selects our nominee - like they already once did the President.
So pick your poison. I like the cherry flavor we have now.
Feb 12, '08
I want the person who will win. "It's the Supreme Court, stupid."
Feb 12, '08
Er, that's re: the VP, of course.
Feb 12, '08
So now WHY is it that we need to nominate a moderate for Hooley's seat?
11:28 p.m.
Feb 12, '08
Shoot, NBC has it at 1128-1009 for Obama, superdelegates included (but not MI and FL I presume). If he wins WI and HI, look for him to have around a 150-delegate lead by TX and OH. That's an amazingly high bar for Clinton, IMO.
11:41 p.m.
Feb 12, '08
Amen, backbeat.
The election will still be decided by the superdelegates. If some of those who have endorsed Clinton "melt" over to Obama, they're still deciding it.
Neither Clinton nor Obama can reach 2025 (or 2024 if Miles is right) without a considerable number of superdelegates.
The only immediate issue about superdelegates is whether or not they will ratify the winner of the primaries/caucuses. That's what we need them to do in order to avoid division of the party.
The wider the delegate margin is in the p/c race, the more likely that ratification, which would be the best outcome. So if Jeff's cautious prediction is right, it should reduce the risk of a superdelegate problem.
These comments purely about 2008, not the system.
11:41 p.m.
Feb 12, '08
I suspect there is serious debate in her camp about just how hard they want to push. Someone's been floating the idea of Senate Majority Leader as a consolation prize, which is intriguing.
That would be amazing.
Feb 13, '08
Tonight Obama gave a speech like he was running for President in a general election
It was impressive to see him call out John McCain in a way that was effective yet civil.
If Obama can win Texas he should have a clear lead in pledge delegates going to the convention. Lets just pray the Clinton ego won't rip our party apart their.
Feb 13, '08
Senate majority leader to the Jr. Senator from NY? Don't get me wrong because I hold Sen. Clinton in high regard but this is a joke. Harry Reid's going to be majority leader until he doesn't want to be. I remember hearing the same thing about Sen. Kerry after he lost the election in 2004. Obama's train is reaching the top of the mountain. If Hillary doesn't win Ohio and Texas Obama's train is headed downhill fast. If she wins both there will be a stalemate. I'm fairly certain I've got both my parents, uncle and aunt in Obama's corner in Texas. I'm 29...I barely remember the Reagan years and my brain was mush when Carter was in office. I can't wait to see someone other than a Bush or Clinton in office. Change is where its at.
2:58 a.m.
Feb 13, '08
Chris -
The ones who are talking about potentially going to Obama said they were looking at doing it because that's the way the country was leaning. That Obama was the candidate who is looking to get the largest amount of non-super votes.
That isn't deciding the election, that's going along with the majority of pledged delegates.
I'm still working on my family back in Texas to convince them to vote for Obama.
Feb 13, '08
Updated Delegate Counts Here are the latest delegate counts from the television networks and the Associated Press: (NBC doesn't include the supers....) NBC: Obama 1,078, Clinton 969 CBS: Obama 1,242, Clinton 1,175 ABC: Obama 1,232, Clinton 1,205 CNN: Obama 1,215, Clinton 1,190 AP: Obama 1,223, Clinton 1,198
Feb 13, '08
Howard Fineman,noted talking head, says that Hillary has no chance of winning with pledged delegates at this point. But... if she's within a couple of dozen she will try to put herself over the top with supers.... a dismal prospect. She may be relying on people like Darlene Hooley, who remarked on Monday on OPB call-in show that she it didn't matter how the vote in Oregon or elsewhere went, her first loyalty was to HRC, and not Oregon or Dem. voters. She said she is sticking with HRC only and unless she is "released", as if she doesn't have a choice. (I guess that's what happens when you spend 12 years as an insider.) I'm thinking Obama is "going to make that scenario not viable, but it's a sad state of affairs that HRC and Darlene Hooley would trash any legitimacy of the Dem. nominee and the prospects in the nat. election by resorting to a nominee who doesn't have the most elected delegates.
Here's the discussion and link to TPM and Josh Marshall on this topic:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/178293.php
"Howard's End 02.12.08 -- 11:12PM By Josh Marshall
Howard Fineman just did a brief segment on MSNBC gaming out the delegate count and where it's likely to end up when the last primaries and caucuses are over. He said he based his comments on conversations with people in both campaigns. And the gist of it was that both sides agree that it's highly unlikely that Clinton can end up with more pledged delegates than Barack Obama. And the issue now is how close she can keep the margin.
If she can keep it within a couple dozen delegates, he argued, it would be credible to try to make up the margin with super delegates. On the other hand, if Obama's ahead by 100 or 200, the pressure against trying to make up the margin with non-elected delegates would just be too great.
Now, Fineman is something of a paragon of the mainstream media. So his comments probably raise some suspicion among some readers. But this is a pretty straightforward mathematical question. Doesn't really matter what Fineman or either campaigns say. Folks paying close attention are as likely to accurately predict the outcomes as the folks in the campaign. So is this true? Is a pledged delegate win for Clinton no longer a realistic possibility?"
Feb 13, '08
"BIAS ALERT"
As one who has been promoting Barack's candidacy here in Oregon from the beginning, I see his momentum continuing all the way to the convention. This will not be decided by the super delegates, the voters will not allow it.
The number of cynics, Barack-doubters, "can't doers", and "despair peddlers" are dwindling. People are starting to take a step back, to look at the moment in history we are in after the last seven years, and realizing that Barack is the uniquely the right candidate at the right time.
Call it destiny, karma, or simply a logical reaction to the Bush era, this movement is bigger than any of us and it is an exciting time to be an American again.
8:41 a.m.
Feb 13, '08
I think Matthew will ultimately be proven right.
"You don't need a wewthervane to know which way the wind blows..."
Feb 13, '08
Here's an interesting article on the wavering "supers". Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004179017_apondeadlineclinton12.html
Fascinating quote attributed to Bill Clinton, apparently leaked by Bill Richardson:
"Some are folks who owe the Clintons a favor but still feel betrayed or taken for granted. Could that be why Bill Richardson, a former U.N. secretary and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, refused to endorse her even after an angry call from the former president? "What," Bill Clinton reportedly asked Richardson, "isn't two Cabinet posts enough?"
Another quote from the article: "And some just want something new. They appreciate the fact that Clinton was a successful president and his wife was an able partner, but they never loved the couple as much as they feared them."
Perhaps as they sense the political tides shifting, they fear of the Clintons will have less sway.
9:02 a.m.
Feb 13, '08
Obama cannot outright win before the convention unless Clinton drops out -- or unless the superdelegates move en masse to support him.
Exactly, and that's what has happened in most previous primaries--a de facto winner arises because of an emerging consensus that he (always "he" historically) will win the nomination. You only need 1600 and something to get the win if the supers rally around. No one in the party wants this to go to the supers, so there is a scenario in which the leading candidate, while statistically not the winner, becomes the party's choice.
I'm wondering if we're nearing that point. Hillary's staking it all on Ohio and TX, so we should know after that.
Feb 13, '08
In some news outlet, I saw a comment along the lines of how it was necessary now to "remove the asterisk from beside Obama's name". Yet we still have silly stuff about the allegedly cultish aspects of Obama's campaign, including in this BBC report written by a leading US pollster.
Feb 13, '08
My husband pointed out that Obama spent years as a grassroots community organizer. As time goes on, his leadership and organizational skills become more apparent.
One pundit said that as Obama's wins continue, look for the super delegates to move "like birds on a wire" to Obama's side. He didn't believe the super delegates will go contrary to the voter's wishes and destroy the party's future.
I am concerned that one of Clinton's people said they'd go all the way to the convention and that Obama better watch out for a "war" when they get there. That won't help the party.
If Obama continues to dominate next week's elections, I'm hoping Clinton will withdraw with the same dignity and class she showed in the past.
If the Clinton camp tries to make this a war of attrition, the only winners will be the Republicans.
Feb 13, '08
If the Clinton camp tries to make this a war of attrition, the only winners will be the Republicans.
If they do that, they will hurt the party and the country and there will not be a single doubt as to why. My hope is that their desire to remain a fond memory to some, and for Hillary Clinton to remain in power in the Senate, they will think better of it.
Feb 13, '08
The Audacity of Gloom- the McCain Republican Platform: Enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs
<hr/>On a lighter note, Hey, I scored in the top ten of the pundit predictions for Super Tues.. and I'm not even a pundit! http://www.politicsandtechnology.com/2008/02/2008-presidenti.html
10:48 a.m.
Feb 13, '08
Definitely feels like the tide has turned, yes. Clinton will be lucky to win a state from here out.
So, we're seeing McCain and the national Republicans start to attack Obama, on (1) lacking specifics; (2) lacking experience; (3) Obama's being ranked this year as the nation's most liberal Senator by the National Journal.
Frankly, those attacks don't seem to be all that strong. Are they waiting patiently until Obama wraps it up to take out the real ammunition, suckering us into this nomination?
11:02 a.m.
Feb 13, '08
Are they waiting patiently until Obama wraps it up to take out the real ammunition, suckering us into this nomination?
Oh, please! You mean they're using double-super-secret reverse twist psychology?!? Sounds like someone's been watching too much "Princess Bride." I'm voting for the best candidate; the Rs will try to trash whoever wins--don't psych yourself out, Evan!
11:07 a.m.
Feb 13, '08
What ammunition?
Personally, I think Hillary has run a much stronger campaign than McCain ever will. He's never run against a strong candidate. In AZ he's only ever faced token opposition, won the GOP nomination largely by default, and can't even unite his own party.
Lack of "experience" in bringing the nation to it's current condition? If that's what the GOP chooses to campaign on, they might as well wave Obama For President signs.
Feb 13, '08
Thanks, Bill R, for the link to the McCain spoof video. Even better is the parallel video over an Obama speech. I guarantee you that you can't watch this with a dry eye: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yq0tMYPDJQ&feature=related
Watch 'em both. Now.
11:39 a.m.
Feb 13, '08
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me. ;)
I checked in with the Iowa Markets this morning, and Obama's up 73-27 or so.
So yes, he may not win outright by the numbers, but I think Clinton ends her campaign by the start of April.
11:53 a.m.
Feb 13, '08
With continued top staff reshuffling, out-of-pocket money being spent, and decreasing support, it's looking like Hillary, barring some bizarre miracle, is out.
I'll be very interested to see who Obama courts as his running mate. It seems like Hillary has a much more obvious short-list (Bayh, Rendell, et al.), but Obama seems a little tougher to call.
And apparently the Bloomberg-Hagel independent ticket is off, for all intents and purposes. Too bad....with McCain as the nominee, I think a lot of Republicans would have been on board with that. But I guess they'll just be internally fractured this election cycle....
Feb 13, '08
Rassmussen reports is starting to do state by state match-ups between Obama and McCain and Clinton and McCain. It shows the greater strength Obama has with swing voters. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/ for example:
Colorado: Obama 46% McCain 39%
McCain 49% Clinton 35%
New Hampshire: Obama 49% McCain 36%
Clinton 43% McCain 41%
<hr/>On the Obama "Yes we can video", love it.. it's really become widespread around the net. Good artistic merit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yq0tMYPDJQ&feature=related or http://www.dipdive.com/
Feb 13, '08
As one who supported Edwards for so long I always said that I would support whoever the Democratic candidate ended up being. But I always had my fingers crossed when it came to Clinton. Today I can uncross my fingers.
Feb 13, '08
We were watching the political fireworks last night and kept asking ourselves:
Who is going to stand against the corporate takeover of our democracy?
Who is going to stand against nuclear power?
Who is going to stand for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney?
Who is going to stand for cutting the bloated, wasteful, ever-expanding military budget?
Who is going to stand for a Palestine free from U.S./Israeli military domination?
Who is going to stand for an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime?
Who is going to stand for the repeal of the anti-union Taft Hartley law?
Who is going to stand up to health insurance industry and for a single-payer, Medicare for all, Canadian-style health care system?
We watched closely last night, and didn’t notice anyone standing for any of this.
3:17 p.m.
Feb 13, '08
That's because you're watching the Democratic party, Ralph, not PeaceAndFreedom.
Feb 13, '08
Straight talk McCain flip-flops on torture.
Feb 13, '08
Chill out Ralph & Steve. Obama may not be the reincarnation of Karl Marx, but his liberal record is solid, he's quite popular and has a realistic chance of being our next president. Besides, if it's truly peace & freedom you're after, you'd have been backing Ron Paul. ;)
7:59 p.m.
Feb 13, '08
TJ -- I may not need a wewthervane, but I sure want one to go with my purity elf. Know of any good deals?
Jenni -- If a bunch of delegates who could put Hillary over the top decide to put Obama over the top, they're deciding the election. If they decide to do it because Obama is leading the best reflection the system allows of the popular preference, they'll be deciding for the right reason and doing the right thing, but they're still deciding the election.
Same of course if faced with the increasingly unlikely prospect of the other way around.
And, of course, they'd be vindicating Steve M.'s confidence in them as good people.
Here's hoping.
Matthew S, Obama ain't God or a god and if people like you give him a big head to think he is it will be bad one way, and if you blow up people's expectations to a level he can't meet, it will be bad in another way.
Apotheosis for no candidate! How's that for a bumper sticker?
Feb 13, '08
Chris, it is quite a stretch and exageration to suggest I gave Obama anything close to deity status. He's as human as the rest of us, heck ask Michelle!
One of my points though is that we are watching the forces of history at play here and there ain't no stoppin' it!
Feb 13, '08
Meanwhile, back to delegates since HRC and her people now say they are taking it to the convention and relying on the supers. To hell with the voter elected delegates... They said today there is no distinction between the supers and the pledged. But.......
But this is the real situation:
"The Real Magic Number is 1,627 (www.obamaiswinning.com ) 1,627 is fifty percent plus one of the 3,253 democratically selected delegates to the Democratic nominating convention.
Once a candidate has 1,627 of these "pledged" delegates, he or she will win the nomination -- unless the judgment of voters is overturned by the 796 superdelegates. That's why 1,627 is the real magic number. With 1,627 delegates, a candidate is guaranteed a democratic majority, and the only way his or her opponent can win is by subverting democracy.
This presents a big challenge for Hillary Clinton. We're already two-thirds through the primary and caucus calendar, and she would have to win at least 57% of the remaining delegates to hit 1,627. Meanwhile, even though Barack Obama only needs to win 47%, he's winning contest after contest with huge 60+% majorities."
Feb 13, '08
Obama is the black version of Chauncey Gardner in the movie "Being There". Listen to what he "says".
How can so may people ignore the fact that they are being duped by this guy and don't know it?
Feb 14, '08
HRC has decided on a scorched earth policy to get the nomination. The Dem. party's future and the Gen. Election be damned! It's all about the super-delegates, not the primaries and caucuses. Question is, will the Dem. party insiders go along with this???
This from the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/clinton_counts.html
Clinton counts on superdelegates Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor February 13, 2008 04:26 PM
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.
The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.
But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.
And this from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14delegates.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
"With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules."
Feb 14, '08
Democracy for America has a petition drive to stop the attempt by HRC to steal the nomination through party insiders. Now is the time, now that the Clintonites have stated publicly that is their aim.
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/votersdecide
8:59 a.m.
Feb 14, '08
Ain't gonna happen, Bill. Those mysterious alien "party insiders" you're do worried about have another name: Deaniacs - the grassroots Democrats who stormed the County and State to get themselves elected into the DNC to put People Powered Howard into the position of DNC chair.
They're all being nice right now, letting the public have their vote. I, for one, would like to pretend that my ballot actually matters. But when push comes to shove, do you honestly think they're going to let those kind of shenanigans slide? In a word, no.
9:30 a.m.
Feb 14, '08
Those mysterious alien "party insiders" you're do worried about have another name: Deaniacs - the grassroots Democrats who stormed the County and State to get themselves elected into the DNC to put People Powered Howard into the position of DNC chair.
and Steve's point is the heart of the matter. The system may need tweaking (I think it does), but like Steve said, a lot of the Insiders are.......well.....us.
Thom Hartman was on this yesterday as well. It's really hard for me to imagine any sort of thwarting of the will of the voters, given the crews that have pushed their way into state party leadership all over the country, following the '04 election.
I'm pretty confident that their votes will reflect those of the Dem voters in ther states.
Feb 14, '08
Steve said: "Ain't gonna happen, Bill. Those mysterious alien "party insiders" you're do worried about have another name: Deaniacs - the grassroots Democrats who stormed the County and State to get themselves elected into the DNC to put People Powered Howard into the position of DNC chair.
They're all being nice right now, letting the public have their vote. I, for one, would like to pretend that my ballot actually matters. But when push comes to shove, do you honestly think they're going to let those kind of shenanigans slide? In a word, no."
<hr/>Thanks for the word of reassurance. You have more faith than I do. My passage into political life was the 1968 convention. I am inclined to think the Deaniacs have their hearts in the right place, but I also know that the Clintonites control the credentials committee and Terry McAuliffe's crowd haven't gone away entirely. I also know what Darlene Hooley said on Monday about her first loyalty being to Hillary Clinton and that she would not change her vote unless released. HRC is on record now as having a scorched earth policy, her people said yesterday they are going to win it all with supers and to hell with the primary season. Their ambition knows no bounds and they play hardball. They are ready to see everything go down in flames to get Hillary the nomination. And as long as they have devotees like Darlene Hooley, they will succeed.
Feb 14, '08
They are ready to see everything go down in flames to get Hillary the nomination.
Do you honestly believe that if Hillary Clinton loses the March 5 primaries that she won't withdraw? Even James Caraville, longtime Clinton friend and advisor stated yesterday that if she doesn't win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas she should withdraw.
I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is so blinded by ambition she'd rather see the party get torn apart then lose the nomination. I believe that Barack Obama feels the same, but I doubt he'll be losing many more states.
Feb 14, '08
SC-"I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is so blinded by ambition she'd rather see the party get torn apart then lose the nomination."
<hr/>Everything I've seen about Hillary this primary season tells me she is so blinded by ambition and hubris that she thinks if she gets the nomination she can win everyone over. They are on the record in today's Boston Globe and NY Times saying they will not concede even if they have fewer delegates than Obama. Obama is going to have more delegates even if he comes in second in Texas, Ohio, and Penn. Today Move-ON has joined Dem. for America in putting together a nationwide petition to have the supers stand down or at least a pledge they will ratify the decision of the voters, that is, the person with the most elected delegates gets the nomination.
In the meantime the perception of the Dem. Party is getting trashed. The comments on CNN-Headline says "Super Delegates will Decide Nomination- Democrats are Fearful that Results will be Overturned" are filled with vitriol toward the Dem. party. And I've seen a lot of comments from Dems saying they aren't giving a dime to the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC, until they get assurance that the fix isn't in. The party is really getting hurt by this and down ballot candidates are going to be hurt by it. It needs to be resolved now, especially after the statements put out by the Clintons, and by supers like Darlene Hooley.
12:31 p.m.
Feb 14, '08
MoveOn.org is collecting signature for a petition to the Democratic Party on superdelegates. They plan to publish it in USA Today when they get 200,000 signatures.
The petition's full text is:
"The Democratic Party must be democratic. The superdelegates should let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people's choice."
Again, here's the link to the petition.
Feb 14, '08
Hi Bill,
If Darlene Hooley puts loyalty to a person over what's best for the country & the party, then I'm glad she's leaving government office.
It's more false bravado than hubris that the Clinton camp is expressing their determination to have a "war" at the convention. You heard similar things from Richardson, Edwards, Romney before they withdrew from the races. The Clinton camp still has hope and they don't want to admit defeat nor should they until after March 5.
If the Clinton camp is defeated on March 5 and they continue to posture, then you'll be right and I'll be wrong in thinking that they'll back out. Time will tell.
But before the Clinton campaign makes that decision, they should remember the 1968 Chicago Democratic convention and I believe that most super delegates would not back them up (despite fools like Hooley)
Feb 14, '08
Hooley is one delegate from her Congressional District, I don't have CD5's numbers handy but there are a lot more than her and they will be apportioned by vote percentage. Hooley is one of the State's delegates, one. She also was elected to office repeatedly, as a Democrat, so she gets ONE delegate vote. This system was put into place to keep conventions from gettting deadlocked or stuck with a nominee who'd gotten into trouble. Not bad aims. The DNC state officers were elected, and not elected by some power hungry elite. Representative democracy is what we do, it's a little late to start complaining. This is a media fueled firestorm, these are responsible people elected for a reason.
Feb 14, '08
Obama right now looks like the black poodle at the "best of show" who just won a bow on his head for the "best tail wagger". I am appalled by the comment by Bill Clinton's ex campaign manager, he endorses Obama because "the polls show he will win". He will win based on what? Are we riding this wave of change, because McCain and the conservatives having nothing on Obama and Hillary is just not well liked? I hope not!
Visit http://haveopinion.blogspot.com for more opinions on this matter.
2:45 p.m.
Feb 14, '08
Obama will win Wisconsin; Clinton has all but pulled out.
The race will be decided in OH and TX. These remain Clinton strongholds, because of the Hispanic vote in TX and strong party organization, unions, and working class voters in OH. Obama will not have his tremendous African American vote to tide him over if Clinton manages to hold onto white working class voters (yes, I know the breakdowns in VA and MD, but VA and MD are not OH).
I wouldn't jump the gun on this yet. It is going to be a very rough two weeks in the Clinton campaign, and with the money that Obama is raising, he is going to be taking on Clinton in every single redoubt.
Still, two Clinton wins on March 4th could leave Pennsylvania next in line.
Feb 14, '08
Opinionated, I listened to the interview and the ex-campaign manager had many reasons for his endorsement of Barack.
And in other news:
Well it looks like superdelegates who previously committed to Hillary are starting to switch to Barack Obama. One officially switched today and it looks like more are on the way.
6:46 p.m.
Feb 14, '08
Looks like I will be on that OPB call in program tomorrow from 9-10am saying elitist and outrageous things about superdelegates. Feel free to call in and make me look like an idiot.
Just make sure and identify yourself as a BlueOregon wacko. ;-)
7:22 p.m.
Feb 14, '08
When I saw that John Lewis had said he would cast his superdelegate vote for Obama, and was considering whether to change his endorsement, I thought, OK, this is it.
John Lewis is a major hero of mine (and lots of other people of course) and I was honored to spend some time with him at a small Democratic event in Portland a few years ago. I was pleased to see that the Clinton campaign responded in a measured way.
I'm still on the fence here, but if Hillary Clinton had bashed John Lewis, I think that would have pushed me off.
Feb 14, '08
Stephanie, you beat me too the punch. When I posted my previous post, the Lewis switch had not been made. But now it has been confirmed. Time's "The Page" website is calling this an earthquake. I couldn't agree more.
The PR on this slow avalanche is now going to be huge in favor of Obama. And in the delegate count, I now count 3 super delegates that switched today. 2 others dropped off Hillary
9:53 a.m.
Feb 15, '08
Paul's doing a fantastic job--and mentioning BlueO! A bit of balance in a somewhat overheated conversation about superdelegates.
12:54 p.m.
Feb 15, '08
Dude! The funny part was when the "roving reporter" said "Paul G. on Blue Oregon said ..."
I leaned over to the interviewer and gave her a note "Hey I am Paul G"
Ha ha! It was a good show but I told OPB that they did not give it enough time. They took far too few calls. Earl was Earl--he spoke for a long time and the interviewer had a hard time reining him in. I think a whole show devoted just to Earl and Meredith, two superdelegates, would have been good, then a second show on the history and rationale (or lack of).
Not enough engagement with the callers in my opinion.
But yes, we pimped BO multiple times.
Disclosure: Kari did not buy me a beer before my appearance and did not design my website.
Feb 15, '08
Some background on the issue. I don't like the way the delegate numbers continue to grow as a percentage of the total and think they should return to a smaller percentage.
From A History of the 'Super Delegates' in the Democratic Party by Elaine Kamarck, Feb 14, 2008
Speaking on their behalf, Technical Advisory Committee Member Susan Estrich of Massachusetts argued that creating a new category of delegates who were not subject to the fair reflection and candidate right of approval rules would create a new status of delegate which she referred to as super-delegates. These delegates, argued Estrich, would be overwhelmingly white and male. Even were they balanced by an equal number of women in the total delegation there would still be the problem of equal power. The super-delegates because of their greater flexibility in the choice of a nominee, would have greater power than the female delegates committed to presidential candidates. (Unintended Consequences, by Susan Estrich, Memorandum to the Hunt Commission, September 9, 1981.)
The issue was finally resolved through a compromise created by Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro. The Ferraro Proposal reduced the total number of un-pledged delegates to 566 or 14% of the Convention, but it left selection of the Congressional delegates in the hands of the House and Senate Democratic Caucuses. (See, Bringing Back the Parties, by David Price, Congressional Quarterly Press, 1984)
Feb 15, '08
It was a disappointing show on OPB. Earl and Meredith were simply invested in defending their their own particular "ownership" of the party and neither really addressed the issue of legitimacy of process. What makes an action "democratic" is process not some kind of worked out result. What lends legitimacy is democratic process. Earl's defense of his Obama vote is just as lame as Hooley's defense of her Clinton vote. And Meredith's claim that she is "elected" was ludicrous by other party members and therefore entitled to choose our presidential nominee was particularly offensive.
If I were a younger person looking at this outfit, I would say, "no way", these people don't want me, they want to preserve their little domains. It doesn't portend well for a new generation of Obamites identifying with the Democratic party, a party that can't even act democratic in its nomination process or welcoming of activists. I guess that's the "business as usual" problem that keeps things from happening. It occurred to me that maybe the whole bricks and mortar institutional politics we're used to is on its way out, and networks of activists who can flex around candidates and issues may be the future. And in the world of business, religion, and culture flexible and changing networks of activists bring about innovation and progress. This may be what part of the struggle is about in the Obama vs. Clintons, 21st cent. vs. 1990s consciousness.
Feb 16, '08
The response to Ralph that issues supported by the U.S. political center are "Marxist" or "Peace and Freedom" are one more indication of how far to the right you Democrats have gone. McCain and Lieberman are just a stone's throw from your own hegemonists, and maybe that's why they were prized as running mates by your "progressive" candidates.
"...elected officials who are superdelegates have received at least $890,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions over the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics." (from: http://www.alternet.org/election08/77106/?page=entire)
<hr/>