Obama can now achieve the needed 2024 delegate total and the race can end!!!
This is not possible for Clinton, and may not be for her even at the end of the race.
For those that are not number-delegate-nerds, I'll go through it.
Pledged delegate score is now:
Obama = 1494
Clinton = 1334
(give or take a few...)
Given that Obama also has at least 230 super delegates that have promised to vote for him, this puts his total delegates at over 1724.
Assuming that the remaining 'unclaimed' super delegates want to end the race (hint hint), they can now put Obama over the top without changing the vote of any of the super delegates that have pledged to Clinton.
There are about 305 or so super delegates that have not come out and supported either Obama or Clinton. This is enough to put him over the top and end the contest.
Why don't they move?
Obviously they are not interested in saving the Democratic Party.
Obviously they are not interested in defeating John McCain in the fall.
This should be the focus of the internal debate within Democratic circles.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
More Magic Numbers for Obama
Just to continue the delegate battle debate, there are a few other magic numbers that we should consider as the race continues.
From a previous post, we repeat the first two, in order of difficulty:
1) 2024 pledged delegates - the number required to prevent superdelegates from overturning the win.
2) 1627 pledged delegates - the number required to prevent superdelegates from overturning the democratic results. This number will likely be achieved by the Obama campaign after Puerto Rico.
Now, there are a few more magic numbers that are important, assuming that we take the numbers of superdelegates from both campaigns as a starting point. This gives us Clinton with 242, and Obama with 210. Now, assuming that these delegates are solid, and this will become more true as the race progresses and gets more heated, we get two more numbers.
1.5) 1814 pledged delegates - the number required so that Obama only needs to hold his existing 210 superdelegates. This is likely not going to be achieved by the end of the race on June 3.
3) 1537 pledged delegates - the number required so that Obama only needs to get half of the remaining unassigned superdelegates. Obama will likely achieve this during the May primaries after Pennsylvania. These primaries, in order, are Guam then Indiana and North Carolina, then West Virginia then Kentucky and Oregon. If the campaign sets up the appropriate expectations in the press, it could be all over after North Carolina. North Carolina will likely put Obama over this number.
4) 1471 pledged delegates - the number required for Obama to go over the top without poaching Clintons existing 242 superdelegates. In other words, if Obama convinces all the rest of the superdelegates to vote for him and none of Clintons superdelegates move, he would have access to 553 superdelegates to put him over the top. It is possible that Obama could achieve this after Pennsylvania.
5) 1229 pledged delegates - the number required by either campaign to achieve 2024 by getting a unanimous decision by ALL the superdelegates. Both campaigns are already there. Both campaigns, ironically, went over the top on this number after the March 4th primaries. Since neither campaign can PREVENT the other campaign from achieving this number, there is no reason for either side to withdraw. In fact, it is a moot point because if one of the campaigns had enough to prevent the other side from getting this, they would be at 2025 anyway. The wonders of math.
Now, lets look at the timing of this thing.
Obama will likely achieve threshold 4) after Pennsylvania, but Clinton will not be able to say the same thing until after Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th. This give Obama almost a month to rub in the point that she can not win without my superdelegates, but I can win without hers. Clinton presently needs only 1439 for her threshold 4).
Now, after a few weeks of this, Obama will likely go over threshold 3) before Clinton crosses her threshold 4). This will be major bragging rights. Clinton will not be able to win without poaching his super delegates, but Obama can win with only HALF of the remaining superdelegates. This will be the period where Clinton will likely be forced to withdraw if there has not been a major change in the campaign landscape.
This crossover will likely be achieved for Obama after North Carolina.
So, this blogger so predicts, that the Clinton campaign will be forced to withdraw from the fight in the second week in May. This is assuming that Obama does not win Pennsylvania on April 22nd.
I guess the larger point of this blog is that the Democratic Party unwittingly created a complicated series of thresholds by adding in these crazy wild card superdelegates. Since we can not predict how they will behave at the convention, the only hard number that matters is 2024. The trouble is, that since the total number of pledged delegates is 3253 this is A LOT HARDER TO GET!!!
Basically, any candidate must get over 62% of all the pledged delegates in order to lock away the nomination before the convention. This can be compared to the Republican case where they only need to get 50%. This creates a smoother campaign, and a much easier process at the convention.
Wow.
Think of this in a historical context (and this is all from the wiki, by the way).
The first National Democratic convention was held in 1832. That is when they created the DISASTROUS 2/3 rule for the nomination process. Candidates had to get over 66% of the delegates, so it became really really hard to WIN the nomination, but really really easy to STOP someone from getting the nomination.
This rule was waved in the 1835 and 1840 conventions because it everyone realized that it was STUPID, and was brought back in 1844 by opponents of Van Buren, so that they could STOP HIM. So, the roots of this rule go way back in stopping the democratic will of Democratic party voters.
The crazy Democrats kept this stupid rule for the next hundred years. It was used, for example, to deadlock the 1924 convention and produce a compromise candidate that no one liked and lost huge to the Republicans that year. Starting to ring a bell?
They finally drop the 2/3 craziness in 1936 during the re-nomination of Roosevelt. Hmmm, seems to me that the Democrats won a lot of elections after that...
So, it seems, bad ideas die hard. The sneaky Democrats brought the rule back in another form after the chaos of the Seventees. Good job there. You really won a lot of general elections since then, losers. By creating these "superdelegates", that can not be pinned down until the convention, they force the prospective nominees to get over 62% of the elected delegates or essentially go to the convention hat in hand, begging for the good graces of the superdelegates to bestow legitimacy on the nominee.
What a crazy and self destructive system. In fact, it is a system that seems only good for the situation that we see before us now. The Democrats essentially have a winner, but the stupid convention rules create a system where his opponent will not drop out (because neither side can secure 62%), and he can not unite the party. This almost guarantees a weaker general election candidate, and a more likely loss in the general to the Republicans. Good one, guys.
DID A REPUBLICAN SPY WRITE YOUR CONVENTION RULES???
I'm even going to go one step further in making fun of the Democratic Party.
Lets consider the possibility that the Democrats made all their states winner take all. Would that solve their problem? No. Both sides would STILL not have 2024 EVEN THEN!!!
Obama would have only 1309, and Clinton would have a large lead at 1834. But the point is that even after winning all those big states, AND making them give ALL their delegates to Clinton with winner take all rules, she would still not be over the 2024 threshold. The Democrats have screwed themselves with these dumb superdelegates.
Big Time!
They almost guarantee a weak general election candidate if there is any contention in the primaries at all.
I reiterate a point from a previous post. If the Democrats can not unite behind Obama and win the general election, they should disband as a political party. At least Obama would have a chance of winning the nomination of the party that rises up to replace them.
From a previous post, we repeat the first two, in order of difficulty:
1) 2024 pledged delegates - the number required to prevent superdelegates from overturning the win.
2) 1627 pledged delegates - the number required to prevent superdelegates from overturning the democratic results. This number will likely be achieved by the Obama campaign after Puerto Rico.
Now, there are a few more magic numbers that are important, assuming that we take the numbers of superdelegates from both campaigns as a starting point. This gives us Clinton with 242, and Obama with 210. Now, assuming that these delegates are solid, and this will become more true as the race progresses and gets more heated, we get two more numbers.
1.5) 1814 pledged delegates - the number required so that Obama only needs to hold his existing 210 superdelegates. This is likely not going to be achieved by the end of the race on June 3.
3) 1537 pledged delegates - the number required so that Obama only needs to get half of the remaining unassigned superdelegates. Obama will likely achieve this during the May primaries after Pennsylvania. These primaries, in order, are Guam then Indiana and North Carolina, then West Virginia then Kentucky and Oregon. If the campaign sets up the appropriate expectations in the press, it could be all over after North Carolina. North Carolina will likely put Obama over this number.
4) 1471 pledged delegates - the number required for Obama to go over the top without poaching Clintons existing 242 superdelegates. In other words, if Obama convinces all the rest of the superdelegates to vote for him and none of Clintons superdelegates move, he would have access to 553 superdelegates to put him over the top. It is possible that Obama could achieve this after Pennsylvania.
5) 1229 pledged delegates - the number required by either campaign to achieve 2024 by getting a unanimous decision by ALL the superdelegates. Both campaigns are already there. Both campaigns, ironically, went over the top on this number after the March 4th primaries. Since neither campaign can PREVENT the other campaign from achieving this number, there is no reason for either side to withdraw. In fact, it is a moot point because if one of the campaigns had enough to prevent the other side from getting this, they would be at 2025 anyway. The wonders of math.
Now, lets look at the timing of this thing.
Obama will likely achieve threshold 4) after Pennsylvania, but Clinton will not be able to say the same thing until after Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th. This give Obama almost a month to rub in the point that she can not win without my superdelegates, but I can win without hers. Clinton presently needs only 1439 for her threshold 4).
Now, after a few weeks of this, Obama will likely go over threshold 3) before Clinton crosses her threshold 4). This will be major bragging rights. Clinton will not be able to win without poaching his super delegates, but Obama can win with only HALF of the remaining superdelegates. This will be the period where Clinton will likely be forced to withdraw if there has not been a major change in the campaign landscape.
This crossover will likely be achieved for Obama after North Carolina.
So, this blogger so predicts, that the Clinton campaign will be forced to withdraw from the fight in the second week in May. This is assuming that Obama does not win Pennsylvania on April 22nd.
I guess the larger point of this blog is that the Democratic Party unwittingly created a complicated series of thresholds by adding in these crazy wild card superdelegates. Since we can not predict how they will behave at the convention, the only hard number that matters is 2024. The trouble is, that since the total number of pledged delegates is 3253 this is A LOT HARDER TO GET!!!
Basically, any candidate must get over 62% of all the pledged delegates in order to lock away the nomination before the convention. This can be compared to the Republican case where they only need to get 50%. This creates a smoother campaign, and a much easier process at the convention.
Wow.
Think of this in a historical context (and this is all from the wiki, by the way).
The first National Democratic convention was held in 1832. That is when they created the DISASTROUS 2/3 rule for the nomination process. Candidates had to get over 66% of the delegates, so it became really really hard to WIN the nomination, but really really easy to STOP someone from getting the nomination.
This rule was waved in the 1835 and 1840 conventions because it everyone realized that it was STUPID, and was brought back in 1844 by opponents of Van Buren, so that they could STOP HIM. So, the roots of this rule go way back in stopping the democratic will of Democratic party voters.
The crazy Democrats kept this stupid rule for the next hundred years. It was used, for example, to deadlock the 1924 convention and produce a compromise candidate that no one liked and lost huge to the Republicans that year. Starting to ring a bell?
They finally drop the 2/3 craziness in 1936 during the re-nomination of Roosevelt. Hmmm, seems to me that the Democrats won a lot of elections after that...
So, it seems, bad ideas die hard. The sneaky Democrats brought the rule back in another form after the chaos of the Seventees. Good job there. You really won a lot of general elections since then, losers. By creating these "superdelegates", that can not be pinned down until the convention, they force the prospective nominees to get over 62% of the elected delegates or essentially go to the convention hat in hand, begging for the good graces of the superdelegates to bestow legitimacy on the nominee.
What a crazy and self destructive system. In fact, it is a system that seems only good for the situation that we see before us now. The Democrats essentially have a winner, but the stupid convention rules create a system where his opponent will not drop out (because neither side can secure 62%), and he can not unite the party. This almost guarantees a weaker general election candidate, and a more likely loss in the general to the Republicans. Good one, guys.
DID A REPUBLICAN SPY WRITE YOUR CONVENTION RULES???
I'm even going to go one step further in making fun of the Democratic Party.
Lets consider the possibility that the Democrats made all their states winner take all. Would that solve their problem? No. Both sides would STILL not have 2024 EVEN THEN!!!
Obama would have only 1309, and Clinton would have a large lead at 1834. But the point is that even after winning all those big states, AND making them give ALL their delegates to Clinton with winner take all rules, she would still not be over the 2024 threshold. The Democrats have screwed themselves with these dumb superdelegates.
Big Time!
They almost guarantee a weak general election candidate if there is any contention in the primaries at all.
I reiterate a point from a previous post. If the Democrats can not unite behind Obama and win the general election, they should disband as a political party. At least Obama would have a chance of winning the nomination of the party that rises up to replace them.
Real Obama Momentum
I created this chart to show how overwhelming the Obama momentum has been since Super Tuesday.
The percentage of the remaining delegates that the Clinton Campaign must win has gone inexorably up since Super Tuesday. Here is the chart...
Puerto Rico Will Put Obama Over The Top
This is how it would go... if the democrats, or the Obama camp were smarter about spin right now. They could play it like this...
The real magic number is of pledged delegates 1627, not 2024. Here is why...
As is commonly held belief, the required number of delegates required in order to gain the democratic nomination and avoid a protracted convention or pre-convention fight, is 2024. Since the number of pledged delegates is 3253, and the number of superdelegates is 794 the grand total voting members of the convention is 4047. By conventional theory, 2024 is over half the total number of delegates, thus guaranteeing that the superdelegates can not rob this side of the nomination. But this is only in the case of a scenario where the pledged delegates may be at odds with the tendencies of the superdelegates.
But lets not think that way. Lets think of it as a real democratic contest. A contest where only the pledged delegates matter and the superdelegates understand the risk of overturning the convention majority. In this case, the real number of pledged delegates necessary to ensure this majority would be over half of 3253, or 1627. In this case, the superdelegates would have to overturn the will of the majority of the pledged delegates in order to prevent this candidate from getting the nomination. Lets take it on faith that this would only be done in the case of extreme circumstances like a crazy surprise that makes the candidate's viability doubtful. In the case of Clinton, this could be her tax returns, in the case of Obama, it could be a number of things.
Since the Obama campaign has so far accumulated 1385 pledged delegates (by their count, 1321 according to CNN, 1366 according to MSNBC and Reuters) he needs a total of 242 (or slightly more) in order to achieve this majority.
This the magic number that the Obama camp should be talking about.
1627 is the real number for victory being assured (virtually) at the convention in August. This will likely be won by the Obama campaign after the Puerto Rico Primary on June 1st.
Thus, Obama will get an extra two months, from June to the convention to hit McCain and the republicans. This is far superior to the alternative which is a convention fight.
1627 for victory!!!
The real magic number is of pledged delegates 1627, not 2024. Here is why...
As is commonly held belief, the required number of delegates required in order to gain the democratic nomination and avoid a protracted convention or pre-convention fight, is 2024. Since the number of pledged delegates is 3253, and the number of superdelegates is 794 the grand total voting members of the convention is 4047. By conventional theory, 2024 is over half the total number of delegates, thus guaranteeing that the superdelegates can not rob this side of the nomination. But this is only in the case of a scenario where the pledged delegates may be at odds with the tendencies of the superdelegates.
But lets not think that way. Lets think of it as a real democratic contest. A contest where only the pledged delegates matter and the superdelegates understand the risk of overturning the convention majority. In this case, the real number of pledged delegates necessary to ensure this majority would be over half of 3253, or 1627. In this case, the superdelegates would have to overturn the will of the majority of the pledged delegates in order to prevent this candidate from getting the nomination. Lets take it on faith that this would only be done in the case of extreme circumstances like a crazy surprise that makes the candidate's viability doubtful. In the case of Clinton, this could be her tax returns, in the case of Obama, it could be a number of things.
Since the Obama campaign has so far accumulated 1385 pledged delegates (by their count, 1321 according to CNN, 1366 according to MSNBC and Reuters) he needs a total of 242 (or slightly more) in order to achieve this majority.
This the magic number that the Obama camp should be talking about.
1627 is the real number for victory being assured (virtually) at the convention in August. This will likely be won by the Obama campaign after the Puerto Rico Primary on June 1st.
Thus, Obama will get an extra two months, from June to the convention to hit McCain and the republicans. This is far superior to the alternative which is a convention fight.
1627 for victory!!!
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The Democratic Party Should Disband
For once in my life, I find myself agreeing with Tucker Carlson.
On his show today, he said something that I have been thinking for quite some time.
Here it is.
If the Democratic Party can't win the election this year, shouldn't they just pack it up and go home?
He's right.
With supposedly the worst president in history leaving office, and his now-admitted successor as the nominee of the Republican Party, the Democrats are finding new ways everyday to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
With the now interminable leadership campaign sucking all the money and enthusiasm out of the most ardent supporters, by the time they actually choose a leader they are ensuring that they have battered them to the point of being useless.
Good job Democrats.
What is wrong with you?
You are blowing it again, and the country will not forgive you forever!
On his show today, he said something that I have been thinking for quite some time.
Here it is.
If the Democratic Party can't win the election this year, shouldn't they just pack it up and go home?
He's right.
With supposedly the worst president in history leaving office, and his now-admitted successor as the nominee of the Republican Party, the Democrats are finding new ways everyday to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
With the now interminable leadership campaign sucking all the money and enthusiasm out of the most ardent supporters, by the time they actually choose a leader they are ensuring that they have battered them to the point of being useless.
Good job Democrats.
What is wrong with you?
You are blowing it again, and the country will not forgive you forever!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Math is too hard for MSNBC
Just to keep on this point.
MSNBC has still not gotten back to me on this, and I have no evidence that they intend to ever correct their error, or learn how to count.
The issue was not lost on the people from ABC. They, it seems can do math, even if their friends at MSNBC can not.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3445514&page=1
They noted right away that Obama would be 47 if he was inaugurated and would be the FIFTH youngest president not third FIFTH. OLDER THAN BILL CLINTON.
Got it, MSNBC? FIFTH youngest!!!
MSNBC has still not gotten back to me on this, and I have no evidence that they intend to ever correct their error, or learn how to count.
The issue was not lost on the people from ABC. They, it seems can do math, even if their friends at MSNBC can not.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3445514&page=1
They noted right away that Obama would be 47 if he was inaugurated and would be the FIFTH youngest president not third FIFTH. OLDER THAN BILL CLINTON.
Got it, MSNBC? FIFTH youngest!!!
MSNBC, SHAME ON YOU
It seems that the fine people at the MSNBC news desk are incapable of doing math.
Not, Chuck Todd, of course... his delegate math is impeccable.
I'm talking about something much simpler, and much easier to check.
This is the issue of Barack Obama's age.
On 11:26 AM PST (2:26 EST - notice the quick math there) on MSNBC on this day of February 29th, Contessa Brewer gave a nice little story about how age does not matter for the presidency.
75% of respondents said that John McCain was not too old to be president.
80% of respondents said that Barack Obama was not too young to be president.
Great. What a nice little story. I'm so warm and fuzzy now.
The trouble is that miss Brewer went on to say that Barack Obama would be the third youngest president in history. The third youngest after Teddy Roosevelt and JFK. What?
Really?
Really, MSNBC people?
Can you look things up? Can you do math?
Can you reliably calculate a persons age? Can you get your friend to help?
Can you remember ancient history as long ago as 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected as our nation's third youngest president at the age of 46!!!
Barack Obama will be 47 if he is elected president.
Hmmm.
OK, I'll stop rubbing it in, but this is a major issue because of the Bill Clinton "rolling the dice" comment.
BARACK OBAMA WILL BE OLDER THAN BILL CLINTON WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.
OK, I'll say it again.
BARACK OBAMA WILL BE OLDER THAN BILL CLINTON WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.
This is important only because of the attacks that Bill and Hillary have leveled against Barack regarding his age and supposed inexperience.
Barack Obama will be the Fifth youngest president. oh, and MSNBC, the list goes like this...
1. Theodore Roosevelt, 42 and 322 days
2. John F. Kennedy, 43 and 236 days
3. Bill Clinton, 46 and 154 days
4. Ulysses S. Grant, 46 and 236
5. Barack Obama - possibly, 47 and 169 days
6. Grover Cleveland...
The fact that Barack Obama will be older than Bill Clinton is significant, and should be corrected before the Texas and Ohio primaries.
Oh, and get your damn act together. Most people trust you and will repeat tidbits like this as if they are fact. Seriously. This is not OK.
Not, Chuck Todd, of course... his delegate math is impeccable.
I'm talking about something much simpler, and much easier to check.
This is the issue of Barack Obama's age.
On 11:26 AM PST (2:26 EST - notice the quick math there) on MSNBC on this day of February 29th, Contessa Brewer gave a nice little story about how age does not matter for the presidency.
75% of respondents said that John McCain was not too old to be president.
80% of respondents said that Barack Obama was not too young to be president.
Great. What a nice little story. I'm so warm and fuzzy now.
The trouble is that miss Brewer went on to say that Barack Obama would be the third youngest president in history. The third youngest after Teddy Roosevelt and JFK. What?
Really?
Really, MSNBC people?
Can you look things up? Can you do math?
Can you reliably calculate a persons age? Can you get your friend to help?
Can you remember ancient history as long ago as 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected as our nation's third youngest president at the age of 46!!!
Barack Obama will be 47 if he is elected president.
Hmmm.
OK, I'll stop rubbing it in, but this is a major issue because of the Bill Clinton "rolling the dice" comment.
BARACK OBAMA WILL BE OLDER THAN BILL CLINTON WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.
OK, I'll say it again.
BARACK OBAMA WILL BE OLDER THAN BILL CLINTON WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.
This is important only because of the attacks that Bill and Hillary have leveled against Barack regarding his age and supposed inexperience.
Barack Obama will be the Fifth youngest president. oh, and MSNBC, the list goes like this...
1. Theodore Roosevelt, 42 and 322 days
2. John F. Kennedy, 43 and 236 days
3. Bill Clinton, 46 and 154 days
4. Ulysses S. Grant, 46 and 236
5. Barack Obama - possibly, 47 and 169 days
6. Grover Cleveland...
The fact that Barack Obama will be older than Bill Clinton is significant, and should be corrected before the Texas and Ohio primaries.
Oh, and get your damn act together. Most people trust you and will repeat tidbits like this as if they are fact. Seriously. This is not OK.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Super Delegate List Number One
It struck me that the super delegates are getting a lot of attention of late. It also struck me that - aside from a handful of the them - I had no idea who they were.
Well... after a few minutes of web surfing (yes its sad, we all get all our information this way don't we?) I found a reasonable verifiable list.
The list can be found at
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
The lead right now for Clinton over Obama is approximately 80 or so. Now, the Clinton strength is clearly in Arkansas, New York and California, but it includes many areas that seem to be places where pressure could be brought to bare. Here is a brief list of District of Columbia super delegates that are for the Clinton candidacy...
DNC Mary Eva Candon (DC)
DNC Yolanda Caraway (DC)
DNC Hartina Flournoy (DC)
DNC Harold Ickes (DC)
DNC Ben Johnson (DC)
DNC Eric Kleinfeld (DC)
DNC Minyon Moore (DC)
DNC Elizabeth Smith (DC)
DNC Marilyn Tyler Brown (DC)
Is everyone here on this list still positive that Hillary Clinton would make the best general election candidate? Even given the 50 point trouncing that Obama took in the DC primary?
Well... after a few minutes of web surfing (yes its sad, we all get all our information this way don't we?) I found a reasonable verifiable list.
The list can be found at
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html
The lead right now for Clinton over Obama is approximately 80 or so. Now, the Clinton strength is clearly in Arkansas, New York and California, but it includes many areas that seem to be places where pressure could be brought to bare. Here is a brief list of District of Columbia super delegates that are for the Clinton candidacy...
DNC Mary Eva Candon (DC)
DNC Yolanda Caraway (DC)
DNC Hartina Flournoy (DC)
DNC Harold Ickes (DC)
DNC Ben Johnson (DC)
DNC Eric Kleinfeld (DC)
DNC Minyon Moore (DC)
DNC Elizabeth Smith (DC)
DNC Marilyn Tyler Brown (DC)
Is everyone here on this list still positive that Hillary Clinton would make the best general election candidate? Even given the 50 point trouncing that Obama took in the DC primary?
Clinton People are Bushian Liars
I can not believe the rhetoric that I am hearing out of the Clinton camp these days.
It reminds me of the kind of crap that comes out of the Bush White House. It really does.
They make arguments that are so obviously partisan and unfair and hope that people don't care about facts since they are just supporting the candidate anyway. Its bullshit. Plain and simple.
Hilary Rosen comes on Hardball today and actually argues that there is some kind of moral equivalence to the Florida/Michigan debate, and the debate over super delegates.
I've seldom heard more self serving fact-ignoring crap out of anyone outside of the Bush administration.
1) Florida and Michigan were ruled by the DNC to have their delegates revoked. This is a fact.
2) The candidates agreed not to campaign in these states and agreed that they would not count.
3) Hillary gets behind, wins the false contests, and wants to change the rules.
Simple as simple gets.
Now, lets look at the super delegate debate.
The Obama campaign has never advocated changing the rules. They have never said the the delegates should 'have' to do anything. They were merely outlining the possible political backlash (which should be obvious to everyone) if they overturn the will of the primary voters. This is just a statement of fact.
The Hillary campaign is a dishonest group of spinning liars.
That being said, I do remember Obama saying that if McCain was nominated that he would take public funding if McCain did. I think that he should honor this commitment. It would not handicap him substantially and would make the race more interesting.
It reminds me of the kind of crap that comes out of the Bush White House. It really does.
They make arguments that are so obviously partisan and unfair and hope that people don't care about facts since they are just supporting the candidate anyway. Its bullshit. Plain and simple.
Hilary Rosen comes on Hardball today and actually argues that there is some kind of moral equivalence to the Florida/Michigan debate, and the debate over super delegates.
I've seldom heard more self serving fact-ignoring crap out of anyone outside of the Bush administration.
1) Florida and Michigan were ruled by the DNC to have their delegates revoked. This is a fact.
2) The candidates agreed not to campaign in these states and agreed that they would not count.
3) Hillary gets behind, wins the false contests, and wants to change the rules.
Simple as simple gets.
Now, lets look at the super delegate debate.
The Obama campaign has never advocated changing the rules. They have never said the the delegates should 'have' to do anything. They were merely outlining the possible political backlash (which should be obvious to everyone) if they overturn the will of the primary voters. This is just a statement of fact.
The Hillary campaign is a dishonest group of spinning liars.
That being said, I do remember Obama saying that if McCain was nominated that he would take public funding if McCain did. I think that he should honor this commitment. It would not handicap him substantially and would make the race more interesting.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The Imprimatur
Imprimatur - noun
1. an official license to print or publish a book, pamphlet, etc., esp. a license issued by a censor of the Roman Catholic Church.
2. sanction or approval; support.
After a brief hiatus from blogging, I finally find the need again to add to the debate. In an effort at full disclosure, I have been disgusted at the discourse that has evolved in the Democratic race and was so angry that I felt it wise to hold my keyboard. I'm glad. The things that I would have said in the last few days would have not been responsible toward the Clintons. That being said, I will proceed.
Today, in an editorial in the New York Times, Caroline Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama for President. Here is the final paragraph and inspiring finish to her piece:
"I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans - Barack Obama."
Today Maureen Dowd, a columnist for the New York Times was on Meet the Press with Tim Russert and said "I think this is huge... this is very much like the moment that Bill Clinton pushed when he shook JFKs hand at Boys Nation. The Clinton campaign made that the Arthurian moment where Galahad took the sword out of the stone. Now Caroline has done that for Obama but its a real moment because she is saying 'you are like my father'. After decades of politicians pretending to be like JFK, and Gary Hart chopping his hand and Dan Quayle trying to act like he was JFK she is giving him the Imprimatur and I think its huge."
It was her term used to describe Obama's new legitimate claim to the Kennedy dream and the Kennedy legacy. After weeks of the Clintons trying to cut down this new national hero, here is the first family of Democratic politics - in effect - giving Obama the reverse of the Dan Quayle moment. The Kennedy clan is saying effectively "We knew Jack Kennedy and this man is the closest thing we have to Jack Kennedy." If Senator Edward Kennedy gives his endorsement on Monday this will be the full weight of the surviving Kennedy clan effectively telling the Clintons that they are wrong - that this new political phenomenon is the real thing.
This is why I wanted to lead with this term. Imprimatur - a latin term not often used in english conversation - it hearkens to the Old English prose of Camelot, and reinforces the weight and profundity of a clan that still leads the ideological heart of the Democratic party.
Will the Clintons dare sully this new vision? A new grass roots movement that carries with it the real dream of a new Camelot?
They should do with the full knowledge that the core of the party is rapidly losing patience with them.
I have long believed that the Democratic party establishment support for Hillary Clinton was always soft. They were not so much in love with her, but in hope of winning the White House. They knew that this couple could win, and they were willing to hold their noses in order to prevent another Republican president. As the tide of red state endorsements for Obama grows, will the support of the establishment, or the super delegates be sustained? This blogger thinks there is a chance that it will not.
There is no denying that Barack Obama represents something new and powerful in the country, yet the Clintons are hell bent on painting him as something old and failed. They compare him to Jesse Jackson - a black candidate that Al Gore and Dukakis both mercilessly tried to pigeon hole as a single constituency candidate with no real chance of winning. They mock the comparison to Dr. Martin Luther King by lowering King's achievements and saying that he 'needed a president - Johnson - to pass the legislation. The code they are using is not subtle and not vailed. What they are saying is 'slow down', 'wait your turn', 'we'll take care of you'. The implication is that two white folks are better suited to take care of black interests than a black candidate. I expect this language from the old Dixiecrats, or the Republicans not the new Democratic party. It is a shameful testimony to the Clintons that they would stoop to this level in order to win, and the rage - if my friends are any measure - is spreading like wild fire. You can't just do anything to win, this is a democracy and you need to deserve to win. Right now, the Clintons deserve to be served up a round of eye opening defeats.
In the two states that Barack Obama has won so far he has done so with an overwhelming turnout, and an overwhelming turnout in traditional Republican states - Iowa and South Carolina. In the two states that he lost, he lost narrowly and with a strong wide coalition of voters. He has attracted record numbers of young people to the process, and has raised money from a bigger coalition of Americans than any campaign has acheived - ever.
In Iowa, as in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton would have won if the turnout was what it was in 2004. She won 140,000 votes in South Carolina and in 2004 the total turnout was 290,000. The trouble is that Barack Obama has changed the game. Barack Obama convinced a record number of blacks and young people to come out and vote. He won more votes than the ENTIRE democratic turnout in 2004!!
If he can do this in the general election - atleast 5-6 red states on the border and in the south are now in play. The Democratic party CAN NOT turn this down. If they do, they deserve another decade of defeats.
Hope is real. Hope drives people to volunteer. Hope drives people to vote. Hope wins elections.
1. an official license to print or publish a book, pamphlet, etc., esp. a license issued by a censor of the Roman Catholic Church.
2. sanction or approval; support.
After a brief hiatus from blogging, I finally find the need again to add to the debate. In an effort at full disclosure, I have been disgusted at the discourse that has evolved in the Democratic race and was so angry that I felt it wise to hold my keyboard. I'm glad. The things that I would have said in the last few days would have not been responsible toward the Clintons. That being said, I will proceed.
Today, in an editorial in the New York Times, Caroline Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama for President. Here is the final paragraph and inspiring finish to her piece:
"I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans - Barack Obama."
Today Maureen Dowd, a columnist for the New York Times was on Meet the Press with Tim Russert and said "I think this is huge... this is very much like the moment that Bill Clinton pushed when he shook JFKs hand at Boys Nation. The Clinton campaign made that the Arthurian moment where Galahad took the sword out of the stone. Now Caroline has done that for Obama but its a real moment because she is saying 'you are like my father'. After decades of politicians pretending to be like JFK, and Gary Hart chopping his hand and Dan Quayle trying to act like he was JFK she is giving him the Imprimatur and I think its huge."
It was her term used to describe Obama's new legitimate claim to the Kennedy dream and the Kennedy legacy. After weeks of the Clintons trying to cut down this new national hero, here is the first family of Democratic politics - in effect - giving Obama the reverse of the Dan Quayle moment. The Kennedy clan is saying effectively "We knew Jack Kennedy and this man is the closest thing we have to Jack Kennedy." If Senator Edward Kennedy gives his endorsement on Monday this will be the full weight of the surviving Kennedy clan effectively telling the Clintons that they are wrong - that this new political phenomenon is the real thing.
This is why I wanted to lead with this term. Imprimatur - a latin term not often used in english conversation - it hearkens to the Old English prose of Camelot, and reinforces the weight and profundity of a clan that still leads the ideological heart of the Democratic party.
Will the Clintons dare sully this new vision? A new grass roots movement that carries with it the real dream of a new Camelot?
They should do with the full knowledge that the core of the party is rapidly losing patience with them.
I have long believed that the Democratic party establishment support for Hillary Clinton was always soft. They were not so much in love with her, but in hope of winning the White House. They knew that this couple could win, and they were willing to hold their noses in order to prevent another Republican president. As the tide of red state endorsements for Obama grows, will the support of the establishment, or the super delegates be sustained? This blogger thinks there is a chance that it will not.
There is no denying that Barack Obama represents something new and powerful in the country, yet the Clintons are hell bent on painting him as something old and failed. They compare him to Jesse Jackson - a black candidate that Al Gore and Dukakis both mercilessly tried to pigeon hole as a single constituency candidate with no real chance of winning. They mock the comparison to Dr. Martin Luther King by lowering King's achievements and saying that he 'needed a president - Johnson - to pass the legislation. The code they are using is not subtle and not vailed. What they are saying is 'slow down', 'wait your turn', 'we'll take care of you'. The implication is that two white folks are better suited to take care of black interests than a black candidate. I expect this language from the old Dixiecrats, or the Republicans not the new Democratic party. It is a shameful testimony to the Clintons that they would stoop to this level in order to win, and the rage - if my friends are any measure - is spreading like wild fire. You can't just do anything to win, this is a democracy and you need to deserve to win. Right now, the Clintons deserve to be served up a round of eye opening defeats.
In the two states that Barack Obama has won so far he has done so with an overwhelming turnout, and an overwhelming turnout in traditional Republican states - Iowa and South Carolina. In the two states that he lost, he lost narrowly and with a strong wide coalition of voters. He has attracted record numbers of young people to the process, and has raised money from a bigger coalition of Americans than any campaign has acheived - ever.
In Iowa, as in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton would have won if the turnout was what it was in 2004. She won 140,000 votes in South Carolina and in 2004 the total turnout was 290,000. The trouble is that Barack Obama has changed the game. Barack Obama convinced a record number of blacks and young people to come out and vote. He won more votes than the ENTIRE democratic turnout in 2004!!
If he can do this in the general election - atleast 5-6 red states on the border and in the south are now in play. The Democratic party CAN NOT turn this down. If they do, they deserve another decade of defeats.
Hope is real. Hope drives people to volunteer. Hope drives people to vote. Hope wins elections.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Ed Muskie in a Pantsuit?
In the tradition of hearing beautiful lines from the political pundits and elaborating on them, I'll continue with this little gem I heard today on Meet the Press.
Mike Murphy, long time Republican political consultant - and former adviser to John McCain said on the show that "If she loses here [New Hampshire], she turns into Ed Muskie in a pantsuit".
This and awesome analogy, and I'd like to comment on it.
The year was 1972. The Democratic party was hungry for a win against the lying war mongering imperial presidency of Richard M. Nixon.
The favorite for the nomination was, overwhelmingly Ed Muskie. He had been on the ticket in 1968 and with strong Democratic credentials, he assumed that it was his turn to be at the top of the ticket.
The primary system was in its infancy, and he had never competed in one.
A dark horse candidate by the name of George McGovern, Senator from South Dakota, challenged him in Iowa and lost to Muskie. They then went on to New Hampshire and Muskie won there as well, but by a very small margin.
Muskie was so surprised by the enthusiasm of the McGovern campaign that his effort dissolved quickly thereafter.
Muskie was never heard from again in a major race in the National Democratic party.
Mike Murphy, long time Republican political consultant - and former adviser to John McCain said on the show that "If she loses here [New Hampshire], she turns into Ed Muskie in a pantsuit".
This and awesome analogy, and I'd like to comment on it.
The year was 1972. The Democratic party was hungry for a win against the lying war mongering imperial presidency of Richard M. Nixon.
The favorite for the nomination was, overwhelmingly Ed Muskie. He had been on the ticket in 1968 and with strong Democratic credentials, he assumed that it was his turn to be at the top of the ticket.
The primary system was in its infancy, and he had never competed in one.
A dark horse candidate by the name of George McGovern, Senator from South Dakota, challenged him in Iowa and lost to Muskie. They then went on to New Hampshire and Muskie won there as well, but by a very small margin.
Muskie was so surprised by the enthusiasm of the McGovern campaign that his effort dissolved quickly thereafter.
Muskie was never heard from again in a major race in the National Democratic party.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Why I can't resist having hope
Until now, I've resisted putting much personal information into this blog.
I'm not sure why, perhaps I wanted to maintain an impartial distance. Now that this distance is clearly out the window, I feel like my story, or the story of my family has brought here me to this place in a way that has made my recognition of this new movement and my participation in it inescapable.
My father was Irish, born in Dublin, Ireland. At the age of three, his father went to Burma as an engineer. At this young age, he was evacuated from Burma to escape the advancing Japanese forces, and grew to 10 years old living in Shimla, India. He finished his studies at Trinity College and went to Canada for graduate school as a PhD candidate in Physics in the early sixties. After a brief post-doctoral stint in California, where he met my mother, he went back to Canada and began a career in physics. The year was 1965.
My mother was born in New Caledonia, and came to California at the age of 10. Speaking french as a first language, she felt out of place as a teenager on the west coast in the fifties.
When my parents made the decision to move to Canada in 1965, politics was not a small part of the decision for them. I have read many of the letters my father wrote to my mother during this time, and the Kennedy assassination, the rise of militarism and escalation in Vietnam were subjects that they talked about, and made them like the United States less than their alternative, Canada.
As a child, I really did not understand this. I questioned why they would allow this to influence their decision making, and why they wouldn't choose to live in such a cool place like California.
It wasn't until I came here myself, as a graduate student in Physics at Stanford, that I started to understand.
Despite moving here during the Clinton years, I was struck by how apolitical and apathetic most Americans were. It was as if the thought of change and the hope for responsible government was a myth that existed in ancient times.
I have studied history my entire life, and this movement that I'm witnessing now has not happened in 40 years.
I walk down the street and people are talking about politics, and they're excited about it.
People actually are allowing themselves to believe that something might change and that government might actually speak to them and not the rich or the interest groups.
This is an enormous thing that Barack Obama is doing right now.
It is so earth shaking that the real effects of this will not be realized for 10 or 20 years.
Living in the United States for almost 20 years now, I have never been tempted to give up my Canadian citizenship.
If Barack Obama wins the Presidency, I would consider it.
I'm not sure why, perhaps I wanted to maintain an impartial distance. Now that this distance is clearly out the window, I feel like my story, or the story of my family has brought here me to this place in a way that has made my recognition of this new movement and my participation in it inescapable.
My father was Irish, born in Dublin, Ireland. At the age of three, his father went to Burma as an engineer. At this young age, he was evacuated from Burma to escape the advancing Japanese forces, and grew to 10 years old living in Shimla, India. He finished his studies at Trinity College and went to Canada for graduate school as a PhD candidate in Physics in the early sixties. After a brief post-doctoral stint in California, where he met my mother, he went back to Canada and began a career in physics. The year was 1965.
My mother was born in New Caledonia, and came to California at the age of 10. Speaking french as a first language, she felt out of place as a teenager on the west coast in the fifties.
When my parents made the decision to move to Canada in 1965, politics was not a small part of the decision for them. I have read many of the letters my father wrote to my mother during this time, and the Kennedy assassination, the rise of militarism and escalation in Vietnam were subjects that they talked about, and made them like the United States less than their alternative, Canada.
As a child, I really did not understand this. I questioned why they would allow this to influence their decision making, and why they wouldn't choose to live in such a cool place like California.
It wasn't until I came here myself, as a graduate student in Physics at Stanford, that I started to understand.
Despite moving here during the Clinton years, I was struck by how apolitical and apathetic most Americans were. It was as if the thought of change and the hope for responsible government was a myth that existed in ancient times.
I have studied history my entire life, and this movement that I'm witnessing now has not happened in 40 years.
I walk down the street and people are talking about politics, and they're excited about it.
People actually are allowing themselves to believe that something might change and that government might actually speak to them and not the rich or the interest groups.
This is an enormous thing that Barack Obama is doing right now.
It is so earth shaking that the real effects of this will not be realized for 10 or 20 years.
Living in the United States for almost 20 years now, I have never been tempted to give up my Canadian citizenship.
If Barack Obama wins the Presidency, I would consider it.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Where is she going to hide the body?
Sometimes there is a line in the days news that just can't be ignored.
I love it.
Chris Matthews, a favorite of mine, was talking to a table of pundits regarding the upcoming Clinton/Obama showdown. Faced with the statement that Hillary could lose New Hampshire and still soldier on challenging Obama for the nomination, he issued a question that summed up the central issue of the Democratic party from now on.
Where will she hide the body?
If Clinton continues to challenge, and possibly beat this energetic young transformative figure, how will the party survive?
How will she convince Obama to go back to being the junior senator from Illinois?
Pat Buchanan uttered it in another way. He said "she could still win, but she'd have to steal it from the kid - and that kind of fight can destroy a party."
She won't convince his growing army to vote for her in the general. That much is assured. Logically, then so will be her loss to another Republican.
Even if the Democratic party does not yet know it, this is the choice that it now has in front of it.
1) Move forward and embrace the Obama Revolution or,
2) Shrink back, retreat, and lose another election out by nominating another party insider.
We'll see.
The contest in Iowa has gone a long way, I hope, of convincing rank and file Democrats in the other 49 states that Obama can win.
Now, can the Democrats convince themselves that they want to win?
I love it.
Chris Matthews, a favorite of mine, was talking to a table of pundits regarding the upcoming Clinton/Obama showdown. Faced with the statement that Hillary could lose New Hampshire and still soldier on challenging Obama for the nomination, he issued a question that summed up the central issue of the Democratic party from now on.
Where will she hide the body?
If Clinton continues to challenge, and possibly beat this energetic young transformative figure, how will the party survive?
How will she convince Obama to go back to being the junior senator from Illinois?
Pat Buchanan uttered it in another way. He said "she could still win, but she'd have to steal it from the kid - and that kind of fight can destroy a party."
She won't convince his growing army to vote for her in the general. That much is assured. Logically, then so will be her loss to another Republican.
Even if the Democratic party does not yet know it, this is the choice that it now has in front of it.
1) Move forward and embrace the Obama Revolution or,
2) Shrink back, retreat, and lose another election out by nominating another party insider.
We'll see.
The contest in Iowa has gone a long way, I hope, of convincing rank and file Democrats in the other 49 states that Obama can win.
Now, can the Democrats convince themselves that they want to win?
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Obama Wins in Clinton County
OK, maybe that title is too clever by half. I'll try not to gloat.
The truth is, in Clinton County Iowa, Obama took 37% of the vote to Clinton's 33%.
Symbolic? Maybe.
Although the Clinton camp will try and trample on this victory in the next few days... they have to in order to salvage a prayer of winning New Hampshire, there are a few salient figures that should be mentioned.
1) Turn out - It is possible that turn out could be up as much as 85% as compared to 2004. Possibly 230,000 Democrats, Independents, and Republicans caucused as Democrats tonight handed Obama his victory. If this can be maintained in the general, this is a game changing strategy and will put half of the red states in play against the Republicans.
2) Women - Despite Hillary's appeal to older women, women as a whole supported Obama by 57%.
3) Young People - There was a youth vote this year, and it supported Obama by 46% to 17% for Hillary
4) Independents - 20% of the turn out were independent voters and without them, Obama's win would be only a point or two.
Together, these facts not only destroy the Clintonian claim of inevitability, but also to electability. Obama now clearly owns the electability crown. Through solid political organizing techniques that he honed as an organizer in the streets of Chicago, he is well on his way to winning this thing.
This is a historic day for American Politics. The final Iowa results are
Obama - 38%
Edwards - 30%
Clinton - 29%
My prediction some weeks ago was not that far off. I predicted the correct order of candidates, but the bunching of Clinton and Edwards is tighter than I thought it would be. Obama's win was also larger than I thought it would be.
An African American is now the leading contender to win the Presidency of the United States.
The truth is, in Clinton County Iowa, Obama took 37% of the vote to Clinton's 33%.
Symbolic? Maybe.
Although the Clinton camp will try and trample on this victory in the next few days... they have to in order to salvage a prayer of winning New Hampshire, there are a few salient figures that should be mentioned.
1) Turn out - It is possible that turn out could be up as much as 85% as compared to 2004. Possibly 230,000 Democrats, Independents, and Republicans caucused as Democrats tonight handed Obama his victory. If this can be maintained in the general, this is a game changing strategy and will put half of the red states in play against the Republicans.
2) Women - Despite Hillary's appeal to older women, women as a whole supported Obama by 57%.
3) Young People - There was a youth vote this year, and it supported Obama by 46% to 17% for Hillary
4) Independents - 20% of the turn out were independent voters and without them, Obama's win would be only a point or two.
Together, these facts not only destroy the Clintonian claim of inevitability, but also to electability. Obama now clearly owns the electability crown. Through solid political organizing techniques that he honed as an organizer in the streets of Chicago, he is well on his way to winning this thing.
This is a historic day for American Politics. The final Iowa results are
Obama - 38%
Edwards - 30%
Clinton - 29%
My prediction some weeks ago was not that far off. I predicted the correct order of candidates, but the bunching of Clinton and Edwards is tighter than I thought it would be. Obama's win was also larger than I thought it would be.
An African American is now the leading contender to win the Presidency of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)