I can't wait for Sen. Obama and his supporters to declare Bush the winner of the 2000 election. That would be a fitting end to this joke.
Not to mention:
--------
...
P.S.S.S. OK, I just spoke with Jill Derby, the head of the Nevada State Democratic Party. Regarding the Obama claim that he'll actually get more delegates out of this, essentially that's spin. Derby said that the caucuses are an "expression of the support of Nevadans today." Around 11,000 delegates were elected today. That will be winnowed down at county conventions and eventually at the state convention in May to the 25 that will go to Denver for the DNC. In 2004, Kerry didn't win every delegate on Election Day, but most of the delegates that eventually went to the DNC were his. Once there's a presumptive nominee, the delegate numbers are subject to change. It's non-binding.
If that makes your head spin, the short version is that this was a beauty contest, and you can't project delegate numbers at this time.
On the question of charges of voter suppression and intimidation, which the Obama campaign is officially alleging, Derby said this (paraphrase):
"We had strict standards in place for what went on in the caucus room. Outside of the room is not necessarily our purview. We did get a few calls over the course of the day, and we did eject some people from the caucus room for engaging in tactics that were not within the rules."
I asked her if she was going to initiate an investigation, and she demurred. She basically said that if Nevadans feel they have had their voting rights infringed upon, they should take it up with the "proper avenues," which specifically she said was the courts. She also basically said that there was a lot of passion on both sides, and these kind of charges get thrown around in those circumstances.
Trying to be hands-off here, just the facts, ma'am. I can tell you one thing - this will not go away, and it could end up being a very big part of the conversation heading into South Carolina.
--------
For a while I was wondering what Obama meant by Chicago-style politics.
Posted by Pacific John at January 19, 2008 06:09 PMUsing the same "logic"--if one can dare call it that--of the Obama campaign, then Hillary placed second in Iowa. The delgate count in Nevada was Obama 16, Clinton 15, and Edwards 14. The media, however, noted that Hillary Clinton placed a "decisive third place" since she came in just 0.28% behind Edwards in the actual voter totals. Yet she was 1 delegate ahead of him in the allocation. Not once was that ever noted during the coverage of the Iowa caucus.
Will the double standard never end?
Posted by Tyler at January 19, 2008 06:13 PMExactly, Pacific John. Hillary's playing with the big boys, now, Cook County style! And she better get used to it, because the Republicans aren't going to treat her any better. But, even though I bet Obama gets that single delegate more than Hillary or he could get it (he wouldn't threaten like that if he didn't have the delegate, bluffing is not Chicago style), Hillary ought to relax about it. Whether by "intimidation" or not -- I can't believe those things are the norm from either side -- Hillary is the winner today. If Obama couldn't do it in Nevada, he can't do it in California or a lot of other states besides. It's over for him, really. And I'm sad to say it.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 19, 2008 10:27 PMNo Reality check needed, turkana, but thank you...
To suggest that teacher's union employees were somehow disenfranchised by allowing voting at the place of employment of the many citizens of Nevada employed by casinos is disingenuous. Last time I taught high school we did not teach on Saturdays. Some of us may have volunteered our time for the school on Saturdays in other capacities -- as a coach, mentor, or custodian. But, how can you insist that those people who are scheduled to work in the casinos or at some other place of business on the strip do not have the right to vote without taking a significant length of time off to get back to their home precincts? I remind you that all would be asking for the same specific time off, so it wouldn't have happened under any manager under whom I've worked...that reality probably impacted the turn-out of culinary union members yesterday anyway.) And how on Earth does allowing voting on the Strip in any way compromise the ability of a teacher, teacher's assistant, para, or counselor to cast their own vote in the caucus?
I offer the following to refute your suggestion that the caucus system that awards delegates by a method other than reliance on the popular vote is arcane. The state of my birth and of my current residence, North Dakota, would be wholly absent from congress were senate seats awarded based on population and not based on obligation to our status as one of the united states of this nation. That fact that Sen. Obama performed exceedingly well in rural areas of Nevada that traditionally do not draw democratic voters points to his ability to connect with voters in a way that motivates them to change. His ability to draw new people into the political process will be justifiably rewarded if the county conventions (and eventual state convention) votes as the Obama campaign expects them to in April.
It may indeed be the case that Nevada will award all of its delegates to Kucinich, if he goes on to be clearly in the delegate count lead on April 19. It would not suprise me if the Clinton campaign machine exerts enormous pressure on those who will be present at the county conventions to try and persuade them to ensure she attains the delegate edge. Fortunately, for those of us who believe in the message of hope for positive change that Sen. Obama promises America, Sen. Obama will gain a clear advantage among those delegates decided in the primaries and caucuses. The question may be whether Sen. Clinton's campaign will be able to retain the endorsement of "super-delegates" when those delegates are faced with a choice between the ultra-partisan Hillary Clinton and a unifying voice like Senator Obama's. I hope this nomination is not decided based on the "air of inevitability" that once surrounded Senator Clinton's campaign and by the political power exerted by Bill and Hillary Clinton garnering all of those extremely early super-delegate commitments. Many of them must be reconsidering, and if they don't, the nation will lose the opportunity to put the acrimonious divisiveness rampant in our national political scene behind us by uniting all Americans behind our future President Barack Obama.
Finally, the Obama campaign has every right to trumpet losing by 6 percentage points to Clinton after having been behind by 25% points as recently as two months ago. Granted, the campaign will have more reason to raise trumpets next Saturday, when Barack takes more than 45% of the vote in South Carolina.
P.S. And, as far as California goes, all hispanics are not the same, so a greater percentage of them may vote for Barack in California; if they don't, Barack will have to hope the independents (not allowed at the Republican primary) come out in force.
P.P.S. Here's a thought: If Bill was the first "black" president, if Hillary wins the presidency, will she be the first "Hispanic" one?
Posted by Aquaday0470 at January 20, 2008 12:03 AMJill Derby is a Clinton person, so it is no surprise that she wants to put her own "spin" on this issue. Tyler is not correct in the delegate appropriation in Nevada, the correct count is Obama 13, Clinton 12. I think he is referring to the delegate count in Iowa.
You may think it "arcane" but the reality is that Obama won 11 of 17 counties in Nevada, Hillary only winning 6. Her popular vote win was largely in Clark County home of Las Vegas, the largest population center in Nevada.
The caucus yesterday was wild here in Reno. I think this was largely due to the huge turnout and relative inexperience of Nevadans participating in such a large caucus. For comparison, in the 2004 caucus, in my precinct there were a total of 8 people who showed up. Yesterday, in my precinct, they predicted there might be as many as 40 people and instead we had 85 show up. My wife was an Obama precinct captain, so we had a vested interest in this. The Obama camp had 49, Clinton 36 after folding in the non viable Edwards group (one of which gave an impassioned speech to entice people over to the Edwards group without success).
The caucus site was a school multipurpose room with FIVE precincts in it. It was way too small for such a huge crowd. I was surprised at how many people showed up without knowing their precinct number. We had some printed maps but it would have been far better to have a computer at the ready to check addresses on line to find precincts but none were available. Also, voter preference cards ran out and had to be copied at the school library. Voter registration forms almost ran out, but fortunately, the Obama campaign boxes each had 40 registration forms in them, so that problem was solved.
In regards to teacher disenfranchising, how is this even an issue? The caucus was held on a Saturday when school is out, OUR caucus, like most of the caucus sites, were held at SCHOOLS so if anything there was a bias for teachers. I think the Clinton camp has nothing to complain about. In fact, most of the precinct registration sites at our caucus were staffed with Clinton people, many wearing Clinton campaign shirts. I think this should not be allowed, I would have the same complaint if I were a Clinton person and all of the precinct registration sites were staffed by Obama people. Despite the head being a Clinton person at our caucus site (Harvey W), I thought he was very fair, and believe me I watched him like a hawk. He did a good job under difficult circumstances and I gained new respect for him.
As an Obama person, I have respect for the Clinton "machine", although observing them in Nevada, I think they play down and dirty. One thought for the Clinton people reading this: Hillary is the least likely of the top 3 Democratic candidates to win vs a Republican and may bring in Bloomberg. Their down and dirty and false accusations against Barack Obama makes us bitter and more likely to vote for someone other than Hillary in the general election.
Posted by Wildcats at January 20, 2008 09:40 AMWildcards, if Obama won Nevada, probably he would have had the decency to thank the volunteers and/or staffers who worked on his campaign tirelessly. When you work tirelessly for a candidate many on voluntary basis -- a little thanks and appreciation will go a long way. He showed he has no class and played a dirty politics. If he is the winner, come on out and give victory speech. Come to think of it, in IA, HRC showed class, she congratulated the winner, she thanked her staff/volunteers and played very clean and nice. Jill Derby may be clinton person, what spin is she putting on the fiasco that obama has put together?
Posted by bkk at January 20, 2008 10:52 AMWildcats:
Yes, I was referring to the delegate count in Iowa, not Nevada. Sorry.
Notice the reply by "bkk". First, he changes my online name to "Wildcards". Secondly, my wife and I did receive an e mail thanking us for our work on behalf of Barack. You can make your own judgement of who played, as you call it, "dirty politics". Obama was not declared the "winner" by the media, but it isn't quite clear is it when Obama picks up 13 delegates and Hillary 12 and wins 11 of 16 counties? Delegates are apportioned based not on popular vote but by districts in Nevada. I will not respond with personal attacks on your candidate.
Posted by Wildcats at January 20, 2008 02:42 PM