What puzzles me is the move TOWARDS caucuses. The last thing we need is MORE ambiguity in elections, not less. And yes, they disenfranchise blue collar and pink collar workers who are far less likely to work 9-5 jobs as well as the entire medical industry. And it's a nightmare for parents - particularly single parents - who must arrange childcare in order to attend. Sortuva defacto poll tax if you ask me.
I understand they are cheaper than primaries, but at what cost? Particularly for Democrats?
Posted by lorelynn at February 9, 2008 03:50 PMdKos was way ahead of you, eriposte - they already have an outraged diary that claims Clinton thinks Obama supporters don't work. Buncha freaks...
And yes, WA is the crappiest. We recently changed to a closed primary, which has caused an uproar. Since most of the brain dead populace can't tell the difference between a primary and a general election, they're pissed 'cos they think that they've got to declare a party to vote at all. It's a wonder humans have survived this long, what with the aversion to actual thinking and learning we've embraced. Idiocracy, indeed.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 9, 2008 04:30 PMi think this guy might be onto something here.
Posted by nance at February 9, 2008 04:47 PMI'm in Washington, and I work for the Red Cross blood services, and yes, we work 7 days a week. I worked today and couldn't caucus. I will send in my primary ballot symbolically, but it really upsets me that my voice - along with a million others - will not be counted. It's very frustrating. I have no idea of who to contact in Washington State to voice my frustration. I've emailed a few contacts almost a week ago and have yet to hear back.
How does a state decide to hold primaries that COUNT or caucuses?
Posted by Jackie at February 9, 2008 05:14 PMIt's funny how the Clintons dealt with the caucus system in Nevada. First, their allies tried to stop the caucuses from happening on the strip, preventing thousands of casino workers from participating. And then, when they won, they said nothing about how it was unfairly democratic.
Same thing with seating of the FL and MI delegates. The Clintons will only criticize the system when it adversely affects them. And they will gladly reap the benefits of states of who act outside of party rules.
I am all for electoral reform, but let's have some principles and integrity here. The Clinton campaign, as usual, has shown none.
Downtown LA,
Actually despite winning in NV, the Clintons did raise the issue of caucus voters being intimidated to vote against their will - something that independent reports verified.
On Florida, Clinton has done nothing that Obama did not. Obama had already said late last year that he will try to get Florida's votes to count. Once he lost, all that interest disappeared.
In Michigan, Obama pulled out of the ballot along with Edwards to make Clinton look bad for staying on the ballot. No one asked Obama to pull his name off the ballot. It was a stunt and Clinton called his bluff. Now Obama doesn't want those results to count.
These are games played by all politicians. Let's not kid ourselves.
Posted by eriposte at February 9, 2008 05:36 PMA lot of people don't like superdelegates because no one votes for them. Maybe rules should be changed before the next election.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 9, 2008 05:51 PMI just changed my voter registration to Independent. I'm not a Democrat anymore. I'm a liberal, a TRUE progressive.
Posted by anon at February 9, 2008 05:55 PMI'm sorry but this seems like a straw man argument for why your chosen candidate had lost. After reading your Clinton posts over the past few months and particularly the last week or two it's pretty clear that this is more about how it's unfair to Clinton in some way. If Clinton was winning these things I doubt you'd say a peep. (Though I bet the posters at Kos would have lots of complaints)
The difficulty of showing up to vote in the caucus and the other factors impact every candidate equally. The problem Clinton is having in these caucus states is simply that Obama's voters are more engaged and show up in larger numbers. Everyone knew the rules for these states months ago.
I don't believe that Clinton's voters all work long less flexible hours or have more kids or any of that. I also don't buy the spin coming out of the Clinton camp she was outspent and it's all about money.
She lost, by a significant margin. Obama's campaign did a better job at making sure their supporters showed up at the polls. Fact is to me it looks like Clinton counted on things being done by this time and didn't build the ground game she needed to win in these states. The fact that she had few resources for a post-super tuesday race backs that up.
Posted by Siberian at February 9, 2008 06:11 PMWell it looks like record turnout and participation (good good good) and appears as if Obama is doing very well this evening. Congrats.
Posted by emal at February 9, 2008 06:30 PMChrist, now the caucuses are "undemocratic". How long have various states been using them in the nomination process? 40 plus years? Were you aware the heinous caucuses were undemocratic before your preferred candidate starting losing most of them?
You start working on reforming the state caucus system, eriposte----right after this current election cycle. Make that Job 1. Don't rest until this fatal injustice is remedied.
Of all the problems with how the parties nominate prez candidates, prohibiting caucuses would seem to be pretty far down the list.
Perhaps Hillary can introduce national legislation prohibiting state caucuses next! That'll go over well with the state parties. Let's get that done before mandating paper ballots!
Or perhap she should have done it a couple years ago! Oh wait, I bet she thought she would be winning most of these severely flawed caucuses and thus they would have been super-democratic then. Why do I suspect that that's really the "problem" and not some grand democratic principle?
Posted by euzoius at February 9, 2008 07:05 PM
I don't like the caucus system. I've never liked the Caucus system. It tends to accentuate the bizarre and give strange results. For example, McGovern won the Democratic Party nomination in 1972 because of the caucus system. And again in 1976 with Carter.
The biggest problem with a caucus is that it disenfranchises people who can't make it to the caucus. In a primary, you can use an absentee ballot. In a caucus, you've got to be there for the whole time.
Posted by Moses at February 9, 2008 07:20 PMThe difficulty of showing up to vote in the caucus and the other factors impact every candidate equally. The problem Clinton is having in these caucus states is simply that Obama's voters are more engaged and show up in larger numbers. Everyone knew the rules for these states months ago.Posted by Siberian at February 9, 2008 06:11 PM
Not really. But if it makes you feel better, believe it away. If you want to understand, consider DEMOGRAPHICS of the voting populations that vote for the different candidates. It'll clue you in a bit.
Posted by Moses at February 9, 2008 07:25 PM"These are games played by all politicians. Let's not kid ourselves."
eriposte, this statement of yours pretty well negates a high percentage of the points you've tried to make regarding Hillary vs. Obama. They are both politicians in a political battle...take a deep breath.
>I don't believe that Clinton's voters all work long less flexible hours or have more kids or any of that.
Then check the figures. Her supporter are largely blue-collar -- people who have work schedules and childcare problems. They aren't free to drift around between lattes.
it's not just the shift workers that get disenfranchised... it's the little old ladies who can't stand or sit or drive to the caucuses either...
Posted by OldCoastie at February 9, 2008 08:10 PMDefine "undemocratic" so that it applies to the caucus system and not to the plurality voting system.
Posted by Wilson Rivers at February 9, 2008 08:13 PMCall for a reform of the system then before the next election comes around. Obama's just playing within the rules of the current set up. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Posted by Mike P at February 9, 2008 08:20 PM"With all that said, I also agree with this:
"If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party. I feel very strongly about this," Donna Brazile told CNN this week. Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, is herself a super delegate.
Chris Bowers :: How I Could Quit The Democratic Party
This is not a negotiable position. If the Democratic Party does not nominate the candidate for POTUS that the majority (or plurality) of its participants in primaries and caucuses want it to nominate, then I will quit the Democratic Party. If you think this is somehow rejecting the rules and bylaws of the Democratic Party, you are wrong. The fact is that there is nothing in the bylaws of the Democratic Party that dictate how super delegates should vote at the Democratic national convention. In the absence of any legal dictation of how they should vote, I will hold them to the principles that make me a Democrat: as the democratic institution through which internal disputes of the American center-left are resolved. If the Democratic Party fails to respect those principles, and their "super" delegates nominate someone for POTUS other than the person who received the most support during Democratic primaries and caucuses, then I fail to see any reason to continue participating in the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party is not a democratic institution, then to hell with the Democratic Party." from Open Left
Now Seven and Tarkana, Euzious, T2, and Judith, still think your party's heading in the right direction. Still think this is fun. Well this person does, I'm sure some of my other friends here does too. I've got my popcorn ready, sitting by my side, boy it taste good.
Posted by peter at February 9, 2008 08:22 PMI watched Obama supporters in red t-shirts that looked like bouncers at a rap concert scream and intimidate the undecided voters thru bullhorns at the Caesars Palace caucus on CNN.
caucus democratic? sure
Posted by TIKI AL at February 9, 2008 08:39 PMha ha ha...
I just saw a link to the number of delegates won tonight and the nett effect appears to be about 37 for obama.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/09/saturday-primaries-ne-la-wa-ks/
hardly worth all the hype compared to the pending primaries.
I would think the super delegates need to look back three elections, at the states that may vote democrat, and see who won those states, then give their votes to that candidate.
I'm just guessing but I bet it isn't the fairytale candidate ;-)
Classic sour grapes, Joe... and bad political analysis.
Posted by at February 9, 2008 08:45 PMLets see, three states today, one on Sunday, and three more on Tuesday. That's a good string of wins to go with the 13 last super duper fat Tuesday. The delegate count doesn't matter much now, they'll virtually be tied, unless Obama strings together a bunch of 85 to 15 victories. Nobody is winning the delegate race, there's too few left and y'all have this proportionate process of giving the loser some delegates too.
Posted by peter at February 9, 2008 08:48 PMJoe,
Obama or Clinton would almost certainly win CA, NY, or Mass in the general. Dems need to be worried about carrying so called "purple" states. Clinton getting 55% of the vote in CA in the general election means pretty much nothing if she can't win Ohio or Missouri or Virginia.
Exactly,
The delegates in caucuses & primaries etc are ALL skewed to some extent, and in this particular race arguing about their impact is an exercise in futility, the super delegates are going to be, we hope, the voice of reason, they will decide who can win the GE, which is the real prize, and vote accordingly.
Anyone catch the comment by obama telling them how they should vote..?
The game will end in March, as dean has said.
enough of the bs.
Posted by Joe at February 9, 2008 09:01 PMI just saw this at Electopundit.com. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
Posted by Gene at February 9, 2008 09:05 PMActually, Democrats need to win Michigan and Florida in the general election, and the DNC is doing its best to piss them off. The point was made. Neither state benefited from the extra money and prestige that goes with having candidates actively campaign in that state. They need to settle on some equitable apportionment of the votes cast and get on with facilitating a general election victory. If they expect the voters of those states to participate in do overs, the next vote some of those voters cast might be for a Republican. Voter disenfranchisement is NOT a core value of the Democratic Party.
Posted by arwe at February 9, 2008 09:16 PMPWN3D.
Sore losers.
Posted by RAM at February 9, 2008 09:19 PMIt's about organization. Hillary's bogus charge that caucuses only help Obama because her supporters work elides a larger point. She doesn't know how to organize her supporters, inform them what to do, and get them out. Where she has succeeded, she relied on existing machines to do the work: Villaragosa in LA, various machines in NJ, Menino and the city machines in MA, and the Reid machine in Nevada. Michael Whouley helped her in NH, which shows what COULD HAVE BEEN had she put similar resources elsewhere. Those machines are an essential element to Democratic success. But she hasn't shown the ability to win anywhere that those machines do not already exist. And it's in caucuses that machines matter most.
There is no excuse for Hillary Clinton to lose by 36 points at caucuses in Washington. Or in Minnesota. Or in Colorado. No excuse at all. She screwed up. And if I were a donor and supporter I'd be wondering where the hell she is putting that $10 million in new funds. Wasted on useless TV ads in DC? Unless she can find another Michael Whouley, she will lose on organization alone.
Posted by Elrod at February 9, 2008 09:31 PMI saw over at drudge she's paid $500K in parking fees.
Posted by peter at February 9, 2008 09:39 PMobama supporters should enjoy tonight.
...like a chimps tea party ;-)
reality will resume with the primaries in March.
Mark Penn or whoever were morons for not playing the ridiculous caucuses too. Disastrous for Hillary. That said, Joe is right. The winner of the "big" dem states should get the nom. Only Pennsylvania is left among those that lean Dem. As Eriposte notes, Obama gamed the system with Michigan and Florida. And it is not so clear Obama wins California--or Penn., MO, and OH in the GE. White racists are bipartisan in those last three states. Sad but true. In California, Obama will have to battle Arnold, some Hispanics who like McCain, and angry over 40 women mad at him for tacitly encouraging the sexist attacks on Hillary.
Posted by thetis at February 9, 2008 11:33 PMI voted today in Olympia, WA. There were 120 people at my precinct caucus. After the initial votes, 88 were for Obama, 23 for Clinton. Me and two others were for Gravel. (I really liked his existential youtube videos.) I was really surprised that no one I talked to had any idea who Mike Gravel even was. (Olympia is very much a Dennis Kucinichy town.) Anyway, while they were counting the first round of votes, people started getting up giving one minute speeches about why they were supporting whichever candidate. I raised my hand for a turn to talk. But not to express support for Gravel. (I had mostly just put his name down because I was undecided, but didn't want to write the word 'undecided' on the voting form.) I spoke in support of Hillary. I had expected that I would end up voting for Obama, but all of a sudden, I realized I genuinely preferred Hillary. I spoke very clearly and eloquently, reiterating many of the points eriposte has made in posts to this blog. Then I actually voted for her - something I never ever thought until just about a week ago I would ever do. I was also elected to be one of the precinct's two Clinton delegates to the county convention in April. (The final precinct vote was 94 people for Obama, 25 for Clinton, giving Obama 8 delegates, Clinton 2).
I was one of only two men there who voted for Hillary. I'm 32 years old, the other guy was about fifteen years older than me. It occurred to me, as I listened to the Obama supporters talk about how "divisive" Hillary supposedly is (and that's why we shouldn't support her), just how week the feminist movement has become in this country. I thought I lived in a "progressive" town. I became very sad. So then I went up to one of the woman with the voting forms to change my vote to Clinton, I said to the woman, who was the Clinton precinct captain, "I can't believe I'm voting for Hillary." With a big smile, which made me smile too, she said, "I can't believe you are either!"
Posted by Jonathansword at February 9, 2008 11:45 PMThe rules are what it is now. I expect they to change in the future caucuses are banned and only ballot voting in considered. But as it is now, Obama is ahead of pledged delegates and that means I think he should be the nominee. But if you look at exit polls in Louisiana, the racial divide is pretty obvious and it makes me think, can Obama hold up in GE?
Posted by BKK at February 10, 2008 05:50 AMNote column by James Dwyer in NYT Saturday pointing out that Clinton's persistent strength among Roman Catholics may be a harbinger of eventual victory.
Posted by bob h at February 10, 2008 06:34 AMCaucuses may not be able to involve anyone who wants to choose the party's nominee for POTUS. However, as far as party-building, in a grass-roots sense, the caucus experience in some states encourages local and state involvement in party issues that a primary really doesn't. In a primary, you go cast a vote for a couple minutes, then it's over. Some caucuses are deomcracy-teaching experiences, some are organizational opportunities, and others have an element of discourse and dialogue that is what the democracy is all about.
I read all the comments and am puzzled as to the lack of a balanced consideration of the issue on the table, (though I am watching 'This Week' and may have just missed it in one of the posts):
Caucuses provide an opportunity to encourage democratic principles in a way no primary can. Many caucuses allow for party business to be considered and resolved.
Including those interested in choosing the democratic nominee for POTUS in decision-making on the local or state level is a powerful way to build the party.
Posted by aquaday0470 at February 10, 2008 07:57 AMCaucuses stink. They stink for everybody. They are a good measure of campaign organization and enthusiasm for a candidate, however, which are both important for winning in November.
There is simply no excuse for getting creamed in Washington State by such a huge margin. The Clinton campaign and its supporters ought to be more interested in improving than complaining.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 10, 2008 07:58 AMI do acknowledge the arguments others have made here: limiting the number of participants by scheduling the caucus over a small time window works against the party-building advantage of a caucus, and it may disadvantage one candidate over another, as some has suggested Clinton was disadvantaged in WA state.
But at this early stage in the game, as a party, do democrats want to attract a greater number of less involved people, or a lesser number of greater involved people?
aquaday0470, you do make a good point about caucuses - they turn people into activists. It is very heart-warming to see huge numbers of people getting involved and going to the caucus.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at February 10, 2008 08:09 AMCA Pol Junkie,
I agree that there was no excuse for Clinton losing by the kind of wide margins that she did yesterday. I suspect they had built their campaign primarily around the early states and Super Tuesday and not focused much on the post Super Tuesday states. This was a strategic error.
That said, this post is about the fact that the caucus system is flawed. It is flawed whether or not it benefits Clinton or Obama. I hope that by 2012 this gets fixed.
Posted by eriposte at February 10, 2008 09:27 AMI have to say I doubt anything will be done. The winners will see no problem, the losers will be accused of sour grapes, and there will be so many other more important issues that need to be addressed, we'll be in the same boat four years from now. Just look at what happened in Ohio in '04. Has anything been done to fix the problems with the voting machines? Well, besides the people who kept bringing it up at dKos being labeled conspiracy theorists and banned, of course, the answer is "no."
Posted by iamcoyote at February 10, 2008 09:37 AM"most of the people are brain dead, can't tell the difference between a caucus and a primary" and last week older people get a pat on the head and a smile(gospel according to coyote).
Bawah I think its not going well for the self appointed knowitalls.
One other thing Hillary gets the older vote they are her base, accoding to you they are braindead as well.
Oh my Toto, this is definately not Kansas.lol
Yes We Can!
*smiles and pats forsyth on the head*
There, there, dear. Calm down. I know it's tough living with the knowledge that although your chosen candidate may win, you'll still be unable to write a coherent sentence. I'm glad you find comfort in the fact that Bush has proven even the brain-dead can win a contest. Everyone deserves something, no matter how idiotic, to make them forget their own shortcomings.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 10, 2008 10:04 AM
Script, Charactor(Iamacoyote)
Smugly.
Exits stage left, sholders hunched in defeat
signed
Idiot,savant,illiterate
ho ho ho
Defeat? I've always said I'll vote for whichever candidate gets the nom, so I'm a winner either way, and I haven't had to use Republican talking points to state my case. Therefore, I've done what I set out to do, defend a democrat against unfair attacks. You, on the other hand, have relied on Drudge-based lies and smears, rather than discussing the supposed virtues of your candidate, and now you're relying on classless taunting to make your (non)point. Sorry, honey, but my shoulders are squared and my head's high, because I followed my principles when I knew I was going against the tide. You, on the other hand, just plain followed because it was the easier path.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 10, 2008 12:15 PMCoyote
Ohio has done something about their machines. New Democrat Sec of State after the 2004 election got new machines for this election Primary day 2008 will have paper ballots, temporary until the new machines are ready for Election 2008.
I saw first hand what happened in Ohio during 2004, traveling to Ohio, John Kerry got as many Democratic lawyers to protect the minority voters in Ohio on election day. Unfortunately, when minority voters are forced to use 2 machines, for thousands of voters, who had to stand in the rain for upwards of 4 and five hours, the desired result occurs.
The Repubilican, then Sec of Stae disenfranchised thousands of voters for casting ballots on the wrong weight paper, he emm issued. They lost while voting black!!! By the way its a Karl Rove tactic to accuse your adversery of a tactic you yourself use, Republican smear tactics are used here by Hillary supporters.
Do you do anything beside blog for the Progressive Democratic Movement?????
Just look at how your local nonpartisan elections work to see a future of open primaries. Those with money and power get to buy the election.
Without caucuses, you're less likely to get new activists involved in the party. Moving to open primaries has made the Democratic brand weak and allowed incumbents to become even more intrenched.
Why in world would I want somebody who can't tell the difference between a republican and a democrat helping to select the Democratic nominee?
Posted by uptown at February 10, 2008 02:21 PMEriposte's blog entries are clearly biased against Obama.
I will try to make the point Euzoius and Elrod are making.
Unfortunatly, our bias often cloud our judgement. If we were not as biased we could view this nomination process as a gift that helps us evaluate how these two outstanding candidates will lead our country.
We know outstanding leaders have a exceptional sense for where we are, where we need to go and how we should go about getting there. Great leaders develop a vision of the end point, key objectives and measures to help us understand how it will look, an outstanding strategy that makes the best use of resources to reach the end point, select the right players to key roles, enroll their group in the vision/plan and a good system to track how we are doing.
If we put away our bias, we can look at how effective each candidate has used their leadership skills in their campaigns as a possible indicator of how they will lead our country and government.
Each candidate raised money, managed the money, selected key players, put together an organization, developed a strategy (based on how the current system works), developed a vision, communicates their vision, etc..
How are the candidates performing? What choices are they making? Do we see trends in how they make their choices. How will this trends impact their ability to lead our country?
Posted by smooth at February 10, 2008 02:25 PMLike millions across the country I want to elect a Democrat for President. I am willing and happy to support the eventual nominee as I think both would govern well (though I have an opinion about who would be better but that is not the subject of this post). However, I want the least doubt possible about who is the most elect able candidate. I am concerned that this may not be occurring for a variety of reasons.
I think both HC and OB are electable, although there is something weird how OB's momentum peters out when there are primaries (not caucuses). When he does win he needs a voting margin from African Americans that is greater than his winning margin to prevail.
BO has exceeded all expectations and deserves great praise. However much of his success has been in caucus states where his demographic support (youth, activists, educated, affluent) is much more likely to attend caucuses than HC's backers (working class, over 50, less educated, poorer). In Maine which OM just won, there were less than 5,000 voters in a state with approximately 1 million voters – how representative can the caucus be? Caucuses do not reflect a primary or general vote, but this difference is hardly mentioned by the pundits.
There are relatively few thousand in most caucus states. So I don't want out-of-state college students and a small cadre of supporters having out sized influence. (I sure hope HC's campaign wakes up and competes in caucuses because of the PR value in winning a state.).
OB’s electoral strength is not proven to be as good as Clinton. After Iowa, everyone thought that he would ride the wave from Iowa to NH with just 5 days to go and the media hype sky high. A funny thing happened on the way to the voting booth, Dem voters did not wholesale buy his inevitability.
Last week with being anointed the successor of JFK and endorsed by both Mass senators and the governor, he lost the state. In CA, he lost by 500,000 votes despite Oprah and Maria Shrivel. OB's campaign has "mistakenly" lost a document to the press that said they do not expect to win the primaries (not caucuses) in OH, TX, and PA.
In SC, GA, and AL he won but by having African American voters going for him 80% as they are a big part of the Den voters in those states. This constituency would go with HC if she is nominated.
In Missouri, he had a margin of 80,000 among AA voters, but won by only 10,000 and lost every county except Kansas City, St Louis, and Columbia (where U of M is). We know he isn't a "black" candidate, but his AA and most other support would go to HC in the general election. The validity of his argument that he would attract more "other" voters than HC is not proven. HC could make an equaling convincing case. He would attract certain non-leaning Democrats independents and she would attract others.
HC has been dominant (CA, AZ, FL, NJ) or super competitive (NH, Missouri, NM, CT) (forget home states of IL and NY and Arkansas) except the aforementioned (SC, Alabama, Georgia). Then why does the media always minimize her victories (except NH where they were fools in predictions)?
Further why is everything she does calculating, cold blooded, amoral, and ruthless (see Rich’s column in the Sun NYT)? On the other hand OB is the next JFK, next MLK, almost the next Jesus. Everything he does is fighting for the people and he is the only messenger of change (something he adopted after wonkish policy statements did not excite anyone.).
In SC Bill Clinton said some potentially explosive things, but OB's campaign was also playing in this area by unfairly saying HC was dissing MLK when she mentioned LBJ achieved landmark civil rights legislation. This dichotomy strikes me as a result of the media being in love with OB and tired of the Clintons.
I don't know if OB's stump speech will keep having the same magic for the next 10 months. JFK, who was a war hero and in congress for 14 years only had to campaign for less than a year (including primaries) and there wasn't the 24 hours news cycle in 1960 (note he won the popular vote by the skin of his teeth against Nixon of all people). After OB's inspirational speeches and campaign organizational ability, we are left with a 1-year senator before he ran for president.
He also spoke out against invading Iraq, but he didn't have to vote in the Senate as a Senator whose state was attacked 6 months earlier on 9/11. This isn't criticizing OB, but I want Dens in primaries, not a limited amount in caucuses, to assess his background in terms of how he will fare in Nov if elected and for the media to do its homework and be fair.
I find it ironic (hypocritical?) that OB is against super delegates deciding the election (he must assume he is behind in these) but is all for caucuses which generally are dominated by activists and the highly motivated. Many working class, elderly, and single parents would not feel comfortable with the format, not know or understand them, or be able to leave children or jobs to attend.
OB says caucuses are good because he does not have the brand identity and name recognition that HC has. Duh!, this is definite positive trait for any candidate and not an unfair advantage. Some of it may be that HC's constituency remembers the economic progress under the Clinton administration.
Also if OB is for the people, he can't just ignore 1.5 million voters in Florida because of some dumb decision by the DNC. Somehow FL and Michigan will have to be included. But OB is for the rules when it excludes FL and Michigan, but against them when it comes to super delegates. And to the pundits, OB is above reproach while HC is the lowest kind of manipulating ___ (fill in the blank).
I worried about the OB spin (which he should be making to promote himself) is being swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the media and pundits. He has not proven himself with non-AA voters (which should vote Dem in fall) and non-youth (who vote in the lowest %).
The Rep are playing up the delegate disputes in order to create divisions in the Dems and weaken the eventual nominee. I say, be careful about their machinations and stay united.
"The rules are what it is now. I expect they to change in the future caucuses are banned and only ballot voting in considered. But as it is now, Obama is ahead of pledged delegates and that means I think he should be the nominee. But if you look at exit polls in Louisiana, the racial divide is pretty obvious and it makes me think, can Obama hold up in GE?"
Not really. You seem to think that South Carolina or Lousiana are representative of the country. THey are not.
First off, no Democrat (man, woman, white, black) will win a Southern state other than Florida...Virginia might be in play this year as the population of NOVA has increased quite a bit and is clearly Democratic.
This is very simple. There are pockets of extreme anti-black bias in the South and there is still racial division. That is largely unimportant to Obama as he is not going to campaign there.
What I would be concerned about is Hillary's high negatives and the fact a vast majority of men don't like her and even in the Democratic party won't vote for her. The Clinton's are not well liked in a lot of swing states either.
It is obvious that in states like Nebraska that is overwealmingly white (like 90%) Obama can win.
That tells me that the South and the Midwest or the West white populations are not demographically the same.
Posted by Dragon Horse at February 11, 2008 05:30 AM"Democrats have no chance of carrying any of these states in the fall." Sounds like something an HRC supporter would say. Fighting...and losing...the last campaign. Just the kind of keen strategery she's been displaying in the primaries.
Obama can, and I believe, will be our nominee, and will go on to win the bulk of red states, riding a tidal wave of support to a 47 state victory and consigning the Republican party to the dustbin of history.
Yes, we can!
Posted by balthus at February 11, 2008 12:45 PM