i also suggest people take a look at the recent polls- both of upcoming states, and of november head-to-heads with mccain.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
Posted by Turkana at March 21, 2008 02:17 PMAs Hillary told NPR yesterday about Obama's withdrawal of his name from the ballot:
"That was his choice," she says in an interview with Steve Inskeep. "There was no rule or requirement that he take his name off the ballot. His supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted."
That's being generous. Several media commentators have suggested he withdrew his name was for strategic reasons, wanting to keep Hillary from claiming a win in a race he knew he would lose.
In other words, Sen. Obama voluntarily withdrew his name from the MI ballot even though he did not have to, partly for the same kind of crass political reasons that underlie his intent to disenfranchise MI and FL altogether.
Wow. Quite a slippery slope here. We go from a statement by Clinton to an opinion by "several media commentators" about Obama's alleged devious intent to eriposte's statement about Obama's "intent to disenfranchise MI and FL entirely."
A physicist's reaction to this: normally one wouldn't add very differently sampled datasets together without rescaling. While I think caucuses are undemocratic, to penalize caucus states in this calculation is questionable. It would be good to present the totals produced by taking the candidates' percentages in each state and multiplying those by the state (voting age or registered or registered D or etc) population. For dual primary/caucus states, one could simply treat the sets of percentages as the significant data and average them before the above rescaling. If Clinton comes out ahead in these calculations regardless how they are run, she has a very strong case.
Posted by rilkefan at March 21, 2008 02:29 PMExcellent analysis.....
Michigan and Florida need to be in the "blue column" on Nov, 4 2008...
You need to broadcast this "analysis" against the "Chuck Todd's" of the world....
Have a good weekend....you most certainly made mine !!!
Posted by PaulieB at March 21, 2008 02:32 PMJoeldanwalls,
Actually there was an article that specifically included comments made by Obama aides to a reporter about their strategy. I thought that is the one Jeralyn linked to but now that I went back and looked at it, that wasn't the one she linked to. Once I find the article I'll post it, but this is not new news and has been mentioned in some of the blogs before. I just need to hunt down the article.
Rilkefan,
I am not "penalizing" the caucus states. I am merely observing that turnout impacts the results and that higher turnouts in the caucus states have tended to be less unfavorable or more favorable to Clinton. I am also pointing out that when both primaries and caucuses are held in the same state, and we don't double-count votes (which is ridiculous), the primary turnout is much higher and more representative of the popular will.
Posted by eriposte at March 21, 2008 02:41 PMI'm a Washington state Obama supporter. I caucused but didn't bother to vote in the primary, because the Democratic party does not use the results of the primary to award delegates.
Bear in mind... the Washington primary took place weeks after the caucuses and as far as Obama supporters were concerned, it was already a settled issue.
If Obama supporters like myself had known that Clintonistas would be citing the primary data in an effort to overturn the results of the Washington Caucuses, I guarantee that the results would have been far different.
Posted by Mickeleh at March 21, 2008 02:46 PMAnd I'm a Michigan Obama supporter (former Washington state voter) who didn't cast a vote for Dem Presidential candidate because I was assured it wouldn't count anyway. Had I known all this would come up and become an issue, I would have voted "uncommitted". I just don't see how we can compare these different sets of voter data as if all factors were equal. The fact is, the vote here in Michigan was held under a specific set of circumstances whose impact on the vote cannot be underestimated, and from which only the murkiest of conclusions can be drawn.
Posted by Simplicissimus at March 21, 2008 03:08 PMNothing to add??? Nothing to add?
You just wrote a small book that sums up to nothing more than " if I close my eyes and count every vote Clinton could have ever gotten anywhere and include anyone that ever said the word Clinton and any voter a little inclined to not vote for Obama and then added a few hundred thousand votes that I'll just pull out of my ass then she might get to within a hundred thousand on a good day if we're lucky" Sheeesh!
I know how disappointed all you Clinton supporters must be and I know many of you have convinced yourselves that Obama is horrible and has no chance against Mccain but its time to at least prepare yourselves for the high probability that Obama is going to win this thing.
Those of us that have supported him from the beginning see one of the most gifted politicians we have ever seen and think he may be more gifted than Bill Clinton and thats saying a lot. We see a man that will present a face to our allies and enemies that will make all of us proud to be american. We see a man who was raised with experiences that are international and multiculturial in a way no previous politician has ever been raised. We also see a brilliant man with an eligant (forgive the spelling) education that may be perfect for the new world order we all are living in.
I challenge any of you to listen to his victory speech after Iowa and to that great speech on race and not say that this guy gets it. He doesn't just give good speeches, he writes good speeches and that is the key. He wrote that speech on race and understands the issues well.
Think what a debate between him and Mccain will be like, he will distroy him.
In the end we must destroy this neocon wing of the republican party that has damaged the country and the constitution so badly or frankly I don't want to live under people like this any more and will gaze longingly at Toronto.
Rethink your dislike of Obama and consider supporting him if he gets the nod. We will need all of you. If Mrs Clinton gets the win I will give money, time and my vote and will be proud of my country the day after the election if she wins.
Eric in Austin
Mickeleh,
No one is "overturning" the results - the delegate count is still based on the WA caucus. However, just as you decided to not vote in the primary, there are far more people who were *unable* to participate in the caucus even though they wanted to. So, while the primary is not a perfect representation of the popular will, it is still a much better representation than the caucus.
P.S. The caucus was on Feb 9 and the primary was 10 days - not weeks - later.
Posted by eriposte at March 21, 2008 03:24 PMAnd I'm a Michigan Obama supporter (former Washington state voter) who didn't cast a vote for Dem Presidential candidate because I was assured it wouldn't count anyway. Had I known all this would come up and become an issue, I would have voted "uncommitted". I just don't see how we can compare these different sets of voter data as if all factors were equal. The fact is, the vote here in Michigan was held under a specific set of circumstances whose impact on the vote cannot be underestimated, and from which only the murkiest of conclusions can be drawn.
Yes, and the only fair solution to the voters in your state would have been the re-vote that was vetoed by your wonderboy Obama.
Ooops. So much for free and fair elections.
Posted by at March 21, 2008 03:27 PMThanks for the analysis. There's no one way to look at the numbers, but it helps to see the scenarios you lay out. The edge now is with Obama and let's see what it looks like when the rest of the states are done.
I voted for Clinton, but like Obama (and for the longest time supported Edwards). We should have a strong candidate in any case, and I do second the notion that popular vote should be key. Especially since no candidate will get a majority of the committed delegates.
It's March. We have a long way to go.
Posted by JJF at March 21, 2008 03:51 PM'I am not "penalizing" the caucus states'
Adding them to primary states unscaled effectively penalizes them in this count. You can fairly say that you don't want to rescale because of x, y, and z, but it does dilute the vote of working-class single-parent voter V who couldn't make it to the caucus to vote for candidate C (which is part of why caucuses are evil - but that's not the individual voter's fault). That's why I suggested adding a column taking that issue out via rescaling so that every voter is equally weighted according to something sensible like state party affiliation or state totals for Kerry. This is a standard practice with complex data - show it according to a range of criteria.
Posted by rilkefan at March 21, 2008 03:55 PMat
Obama did not "veto" a re-vote here in Michigan as you put it. The campaign did resist pursuing a re-vote under circumstances that would clearly advantage Clinton. In the same way, Clinton rejected doing a caucus in Michigan because she feels it would not be to her advantage. Instead, she insisted on a primary option which required the full participation of the state legislature and that was probably doomed from the beginning.
eriposte
I voted my first Pres elections in WA, and have never heard anyone complain about the caucus system before this cycle. I was a Seattle voter for 18 years, and no one in WA looks at, thinks about, or takes seriously the numbers that result from the primary. Never have. And since that is the case, how can any numbers from it be taken seriously?
The Washington caucus counted. The Washington primary didn't count.
So, the Washington primary numbers are irrelevant just like online polls at sites like Mydd and Daily Kos are irrelevant.
Moot point, of course, since no one outside of Hillaryland places any stock in Eriposte' wishful thinking disguised as 'math.'
Posted by Geek, Esq. at March 21, 2008 04:05 PMeriposte, please stop making fun of yourself. The super delegates are not going to follow a heavily slanted dissertation on how to skew the popular vote toward Clinton and then have 3/4 of them vote for Clinton for that reason. Counting the Washington primary (which literally didn't count) instead of the caucus??? The process to choose the nominee varies from state to state: that is why the DNC uses delegates to choose the nominee, and that is why the primary campaign strategies are geared toward getting more delegates. It's Clintonian Calvinball to suggest that now we're going to use a Hillary-skewed popular vote metric to decide the nominee.
BTW, it is quite unlikely that Clinton could win Michigan by any significant margin in a real contest, if she were to win it at all.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 21, 2008 04:06 PMObama did not "veto" a re-vote here in Michigan as you put it. The campaign did resist pursuing a re-vote under circumstances that would clearly advantage Clinton.
I call that a veto. And I call you a traitor to democratic principles if you are supporting a candidate who stops people from voting in order to advantage his campaign.
Posted by at March 21, 2008 04:09 PMOne more thing - it's embarrassing to see Democrats advocating for counting the popular vote of caucuses as if they were the same as primaries. Democrats were right to call out places like Florida and Ohio which used inferior voting equipment in Democratic strongholds. The differences as far as a voter is concerned between a primary and a caucus is an order of magnitude greater, so equating them in popular vote tallies is profoundly undemocratic.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 21, 2008 04:10 PMThe Left Coast, aka Hillary Central, is sounding more and more desperate every day to find something, anything to grasp onto. Meanwhile, the folks over at Politico make clear that Hillary insiders think she has about a 10% chance of getting the nomination:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html
It is pretty embarrassing to read the laughably anti-Obama coverage here and the similarly laughable pro-Hillary rantings.
She's thrown everything at him and he looks to have braved it. His numbers, after being down, are on the rise...
This is the most partisan piece of trash I have read yet on Clintonite math. Obama is not disenfranchising anyone. The Democrats in Michigan and Florida broke the rules and they are to blame. A Florida Democrat introduced the proposal to go early and a Florida Democrat cosponsored the legislation and the Florida Democratic Party supported it. So don't give me some revisionist history of how they didn't know what they were doing and how it was all the Republican's fault.
Also this crap suggesting that Dem States won't vote Dem in November if Obama is the nominee is about the most ludicrous of all fallacies spewed by Clintonites.
Obama is running a 50 State strategy and Clinton is running a DLC consulted electoral chess match and failing fairly miserably. I, for one, am tired of not winning everywhere and I don't want to go backwards from where Dean has brought the Party too.
Clinton is not entitled and Obama has won and will continue to win! That is the math!
Posted by ProgressiveNotLiberal at March 21, 2008 04:39 PMCA Pol Junkie,
I guess I could say it's time to stop making fun of yourself but I won't.
If you are so Concerned about the Rules, then you should note that the superdelegates are not required to either follow the delegate count or popular vote. Their role, according to DNC rules, is to provide an independent view. So, according to the famous rules, any claim that Obama should be declared the nominee even though he will not have enough delegates to win on his own, is a pile of steaming horse manure. If superdelegates voted the way their states did, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Bill Richardson and others would have to support Clinton.
Richardson himself - until recently - was of the view that superdelegates should support the candidate who wins their state (in his case, Clinton). Why in the world is it OK for him to then endorse/support Sen. Obama? I know. The Clinton Rules and The Obama Rules.
----------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/a-few-unanswered-question_b_92751.html
...But I think superdelegates should vote according to who they represent. If somebody's appointed as a superdelegate because they're Hispanic or a governor, they should pay attention to what their voters and their constituencies are saying....
----------------
There is no Hillary-skewed popular vote metric in my post. I made the best attempt to get at the popular vote given the current situation in the campaign where the frontrunner is scared of a revote in FL/MI and the DNC and some of his supporters are happy to disenfranchise two very important states in the country.
If you want to have an honest debate we can do so by acknowledging that we are in new territory that the DNC never anticipated when it came up with bulls*** rules. If you want to dictate The Obama Rules, then you can debate with yourself.
Posted by eriposte at March 21, 2008 04:41 PMBy all means let's revote Florida and Michigan. But please don't include the phony results in any tally. For a vote to be legitimate, a candidate out to be able make her or his case to the voters, and she or he should have her or his name on the ballot.
Posted by nerdoff at March 21, 2008 04:52 PMought
[i]In other words, Sen. Obama voluntarily withdrew his name from the MI ballot even though he did not have to, partly for the same kind of crass political reasons that underlie his intent to disenfranchise MI and FL altogether.[/i]
Does the same apply to Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich? All of whom withdrew their names from the Mi. ballot. This blog has become so pro-Hillary it's become tough to read anymore.
Posted by Upton at March 21, 2008 05:06 PMProgressiveNotLiberal:
You are simply incorrect on several points.
- FL and MI legislatures may have broken the rules for the primary, but that does not in any way prevent a re=vote at this point. Re=votes are the only way to make the nomination legimitate for either candidate at this point in this close race. Thus, your pounding on the history of the problem is irrelevant. What could fix the problem now are re-votes. And Obama shot them down in order to win.
- Obama is not running a 50 state strategy anymore. It is a 48 state strategy at best.
- Your bold assertion that FL and MI will not prove a problem in the general election is just that - an assertion. My observations of the outrage out there on this issue suggests otherwise to me. But I guess somehow you just "know".
Posted by Corrected at March 21, 2008 05:25 PMUpton--This is not a blog. It's Hillary's Last Chance Crack House and Landfill. I like crack--and the smell of garbage--so I return again and again.
Posted by nerd at March 21, 2008 05:30 PMEriPostal,
Oh, I remember from years ago... this is the NEW MATH!
I'm not the only long-time reader who thinks that the Left Coaster is the DLCoaster. When you cite RealClear Politics, I start to (God forbid) agree with the previous commenter that YOU and Turkana are really Repub trolls.
Oh yeah, Hill and Bill are really liberals. Get over yourselves.
tfitznc (AKA as one of the "dimwitted Obama supporters")
Posted by tfitznc at March 21, 2008 05:42 PMSimplicissimus,
You said:
I was a Seattle voter for 18 years, and no one in WA looks at, thinks about, or takes seriously the numbers that result from the primary. Never have. And since that is the case, how can any numbers from it be taken seriously?It was estimated that over 200,000 voters participated in the WA caucus. Almost 700,000 voters voted in the WA primary. Maybe all those people are just stupid, but let's just say some people take the primaries more seriously than others regardless of whether the DNC cares about those votes. Posted by eriposte at March 21, 2008 05:42 PM
eriposte
thank you for this amazing, insightful and helpful post!
Posted by Fen at March 21, 2008 05:49 PMProgressivenotLiberal,
You said:
Also this crap suggesting that Dem States won't vote Dem in November if Obama is the nominee is about the most ludicrous of all fallacies spewed by Clintonites.Um, I have no idea what you are referring to, but I never said anything like this. The solid Dem states will likely remain in the hands of the Dems regardless of whether Clinton or Obama is the nominee. However, the swing states are still a question mark. Posted by eriposte at March 21, 2008 05:51 PM
Excellent post. A couple of thoughts for you though. His supporters urging people to vote uncommited against her in MI makes him ineligable to any delegates there. The DNC rules(i have read them) explicitly states that any campaigning by a candidate or staff shall forfeigt any and all eligablility to pledged delegates and alternate delegates.
After his fundraiser which was ok, in Tampa September 2007 he went across the street to a group of reporters holding a breif press confrence. Which means he shouldn't get any delegates from FL either. So if you do the math on that Clinton takes the lead just if these two states are counted. Not to mention her favored to BLOWOUT Obama in PA. There's even talk that an upset in NC is not impossible for her.
May i ask how you got your info on Clintons labor friends on the ground for her in FL? I hadn't heard that.
It should also be noted that a recent poll suggests that 29% of people who voted for Obama in the primaries to date would vote for Clinton if they could. This should be passed on to the superdelegates.
Posted by ldog70 at March 21, 2008 05:53 PMFlorida is a perfect example of how the rebuli-cons continue to screw the Democratic voter and party. It has nothing to do with Barack Obama. The repuli-con strategy in FL is on par with their gerrymandering efforts (among others). Take a look at what FL H.B. 537 accomplished for republi-cons:
Besides getting rid of touch-screen machines, the bill:- Moves Florida's presidential primary from March to the end of January.
- Changes the "resign to run" law, so that Florida politicians can keep their state jobs and run for federal office at the same time.
- Cracks down further on citizen petitions, and creates a mischievous counterprocess in which opponents can get petition signatures revoked.
- Restricts complaints to the already-puny Florida Elections Commission to the point that rule breakers just about have to turn themselves in.
- Stacks the executive committees of political parties, and gives the state party bosses absolute power to remove local party officers.
- Deals with the ability of political committees to raise money under various names, and to conduct polling.
This state virtually assured itself of being republi-con for years.
I cannot comprehend how a Democrat (or voter period) in the State of Florida doesn't see that the republi-con state congress introduced the bill (sponsered by 2 repuli-cons, David Rivera and Dorothy Hukill) to move up the primary date... passed the bill with its huge majority... and was signed into law by a republi-con governor. This whole scheme worked great for the republi-cons and totally screwed the Democrats.
A fair state congress would have said, "Hey, the Democrats have certain rules we have to abide with, we will only move up the republi-con voting date but the Dems have to have their vote after Super Tues."
I argued with my neo-con sister in Tampa and she said, "The current strategy has worked to perfection so far."
As for MI... Hillary wouldn't give a shit about the revote if she was leading... she would be doing the same thing as Obama... which is a simple holding mode... waiting for this to play out.
The MI state congress (which also has a republi-con majority) went on vacation... the people of MI only have their state reps to blame. The repuli-con party agenda is having fun at the expense of the Democratic voters and party.
But wait... I see a pattern developing... as with FL... it's all Obama's fault.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 21, 2008 05:55 PMFrom Taegan Goddard from POLITICO:
Clinton Aides Admit She Has Little Chance
"One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives."
BTW, eRiposte you made a strong argument.
However, I would retitle your article: "eRiposte's Math" of the Popular Vote in the Democratic Primary
Tfitznc,
You said:
When you cite RealClear Politics, I start to (God forbid) agree with the previous commenter that YOU and Turkana are really Repub trolls.Right, unlike your Dear Leader Saint Obama and his blogger supporters who cite Bob Novak, Matt Drudge and other miscellaneous frauds on the right to smear Clinton using false stories.
I understand you don't want to read anything that spoils your wonderful image of Obama being crowned king immediately, but I am not citing some fraudulent right-wing-style hit piece here unlike several prominent Obama bloggers who have become smear merchants like Bob Novak and Matt Drudge. I am citing a page that is cited by numerous media outlets and bloggers that maintains an up-to-date repository on election statistics. If you want to point me to another page that has the same comprehensive collection of data, feel free to post it here.
Posted by eriposte at March 21, 2008 06:03 PMI'm a WA resident and while I'm willing to concede that the caucus results are unfairly skewed towards Obama, the WA primary results really can't be considered any more accurate than the caucuses can. In WA, high information voters would have a disincentive to vote since it didn't matter anyways. It's kind of like a backwards caucus.
Posted by Jefe Le Gran at March 21, 2008 06:05 PMWhy can't Michigan and Florida Dems organize caucuses? Both campaigns have a huge incentive to go out and drum up support. I fail to understand the claim that caucuses inherently favor Obama. Am I supposed to conclude that Clinton voters are too lazy or unmotivated to go to caucuses? I should hope not!
For crying out loud, organize caucuses, make the caucuses easy to get to, do whatever has to be done to get people there. Is this a challenge that Clinton supporters cannot rise to?
I'm an Obama supporter, but look at the blocks of people voting for Obama versus Clinton. In caucus states like WA, Clinton is getting low income and seniors and Obama is getting the young and well educated. It's way easier to get the young and well educated to cram themselves into a crowded auditorium for 3 hours on a Saturday.
Posted by Jefe Le Gran at March 21, 2008 06:09 PMEriPostal aka the 'Cherry-picker of convenient statistics',
THis is whay RCP actually shows on its Repub website:
REAL CLEAR POLITICS ELECTION 2008
Democrats Obama-Clinton Spread
Total Delegates 1628 - 1496 Obama + 132
Pledged Delegates 1414 - 1246 Obama + 168
Popular Vote 49.5 - 46.9 Obama +2.6
Popular Vote (w/FL) 48.5 - 47.1 Obama +1.4
Nat'l RCP Average 47.3 - 44.2 Obama +3.1
Pennsylvania 35.2 - 51.8 Clinton +16.6
North Carolina 46.7 - 41.3 Obama +5.4
AND:
RCP Mobile
Democratic Battle
Politico: Clinton Has No Chance
Richardson Boosts Obama
The Importance of N. Carolina
Passports Breached at State
Obama Leads By 132 Delegates
BTW, don't talk down to me you lightweight, I read Real Clear Politics every day!
If you are so Concerned about the Rules, then you should note that the superdelegates are not required to either follow the delegate count or popular vote. - eriposte
It is within the rules for the superdelegates to throw the nomination to Clinton, but they won't. Politico gets it right:
Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.
Of course, a reasonable tabulation of popular vote, deeply flawed though it may be, would have to be done with math, not eripostemath, to make a persuasive case. That means relying on actual democracy, not rigged elections in FL and MI and of course the Washington caucus would count. Also inconvenient for Clinton, of course, the popular vote would have to include upcoming states like North Carolina and Oregon.
For those of us living on this planet, Clinton's only path to the nomination would be something catastrophic happening to the Obama campaign. Considering what Bill Clinton overcame, that basically means failing the live boy / dead girl test. Wright is an order of magnitude too minor.
Why can't Michigan and Florida Dems organize caucuses? - joeldanwalls
They can, but Clinton would lose, so it would be besides the point when the whole idea is to give Clinton another chance to win. Texas was a good demonstration of how Obama does in caucuses - on average about 12 points better than he would in equivalent primaries thanks to more volunteers, superior organization, and more motivated supporters.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 21, 2008 06:39 PMWhy can't Michigan and Florida Dems organize caucuses?
joeldanwalls, Because Hillary said no to that process. Yet it's Obama who disenfranchised the voters!
Am I supposed to conclude that Clinton voters are too lazy or unmotivated to go to caucuses?
It's more like Clinton's campaign is too lazy to organize a 50 state strategy! She concentrated in 10 major states, with 3 powerful lobby efforts blitzing the media 24/7. Then she realized their effort didn't provide the knockout on Super Tues. Then the "kitchen sink" came out. Long time Hillary friends and support personel being fired, going completely negative... yet, keeping the "master of disaster" Mark Penn.
Google Mark Penn, he employs McCain's campaign manager. "Charlie Black's firm, BKSH, is a subsidiary of Mark Penn's, Burson-Marsteller."
Ain't that some shit!
Posted by Seven of Six at March 21, 2008 06:49 PMUpton at March 21, 2008 05:06 PM
"Does the same apply to Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and Kucinich? All of whom withdrew their names from the Mi. ballot."
Kucinich was on the MI ballot.
Obama supporters: Get a clue. There are 2 possibilities here:
One is that your candidate will be appointed our nominee by the superdelegates, because like his opponent, he can't win enough pledged delegates. If this happens, you are going to be hoping like hell that all the people you're busy insulting (including Hillary Clinton herself) will be actively trying to get him elected.
The other is that your candidate will not be appointed. If this happens, you will have to decide how to reconcile yourselves to being so publicly wrong.
In either case, right now is a very good time to lay off the snark. You aren't coming across as gracious winners, know what I mean? You should start thinking about that if you really think your guy is going to be the one.
Just sayin'.
Posted by hitchhiker at March 21, 2008 07:17 PMIn either case, right now is a very good time to lay off the snark.
Oh, you Hillary supporters... trying to squash my Freedom of Speech! ;)
Posted by Seven of Six at March 21, 2008 07:30 PM
It gets old debunking the "lazy Clinton" supporters meme. They aren't lazy. They're busy, old, and underprivileged. It's really time to stop absorbing the MSM bs. It's warping your brains.
Older, lower-class people often struggle for transportation, and often struggle with deteriorating health. Take it from me, I know them. People who have young children, work shifts, who have illnesses, or are just incredibly timid do not come to these caucuses. Not because they don't support the candidate, but because lifestyle keep them from there. Those people compose a large part of HRC's demos. Thus, it sucks to be them because they always lose out.
By the way, the Texas caucuses were a joke. I attended one and had to take over because no one knew what to do or how to do anything. We're still at 41% weeks later.
Just because you call caucuses a measure of democratic loyalty, doesn't make them the ultimate or even best measurement.
Posted by Rege at March 21, 2008 08:02 PMI am SICK of the DNC and the "Messaih Obama"
I would have voted for him, but it is obvious he only wants to win the democratic nomination and not the general election, thats why he is opposing re-vote in Michigan and Florida...Michigan I agree with a revote...as for florida...he was ON THE BALLOT AND HE RAN ADS here....
And now I find he has a wife who is "FINALLY PROUD OF THIS COUNTRY"...and a preacher who is "anti-white", "anti-jewish" and "anti-america". I would not have voted for him with all this baggage, NOW I SEE HIM FOR THE FRAUD HE IS.... I WILL NEVER NEVER VOTE FOR HIM in the GENERAL...
and the way DNC screwed up...THEY DESERVE TO LOSE!!!!
I'll take 4 years of a liberal republican than 4 years of uncertainty...I'll vote Mccain if Obama is the nominee and Dem the rest of the ticket so Mccain can't do too much damage....
BUT THIS FORMER DEMOCRAT WILL NEVERRRRRR vote for the FRAUD OBAMA....no matter how much CNN and MSNBC cramp him down our throats!!!!!
Posted by former democrat at March 21, 2008 08:10 PMHow anyone can take 50 different primaries/caucus's conducted under 50 different sets of rules with any number of rules regarding who can and can not vote and pretend to arrive at a number that supposedly represents "the will of the people" at a national level is beyond me.
Everyone who tries, be they an Obama or a Clinton advocate, is basically making up a number.
The delegate count is what matters.
Posted by snark at March 21, 2008 08:14 PMIt's amazing how many moby faux Clintonites have been showing up on the Internet in the last week. Anyone who professes to support Clinton for her Democratic ideals and then professes to support 4 more years of the current policies rather than vote for Obama is either faking it or suffering from severe cognitive dissonance.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 21, 2008 08:38 PMEriposte,
Welcome to the Math Club. It used to be that only Obama supporters like myself relied on the delegate math to make the case that the race should be over. Thus, we were regarded as the math nerds and dweebs who couldn't see the broader picture. But now that the Clinton campaign is hanging on by its fingernails, we're starting to see all sorts of fancy colored graphs and visual aids that make the case for prolonging the agony. Check out this one over at MYDD. It breaks the record for over-the-top graphics. It sorta resembles a pinball machine in Las Vegas or something.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/21/152338/706
But when push comes to shove and the superdelegates have to pull the trigger, they aren't going to come here to the Left Coaster or go to MYDD for in depth graphic analysis. They are going to search their hearts and do the right thing for the Democratic Party.
Posted by basil at March 21, 2008 08:44 PMEric in Austin
After Iowa I tried my best to find something in Obama I could support. You can believe I made an honest effort or not it is up to you, but I just couldn't and can't support your candidate. Why would someone on a winning streak say "your likable enough, Hillary"? I know Bill Clinton is not a racist. Hillary, Bill and Chelsea went to MS and tried their best to explain their position and Obama went down there and all he said was Bamboozle, hoodwink and the old okey-dokey. What was that about? The old okey-dokey? The people of his senate district in IL living and freezing in those slums he helped Tony get millions that should have been used to repair and restore the buildings but wasn't. But friend Tony helps the Obama's subdivide a historic piece of property (not an easy task) and move into a mansion and Tony get a vacant lot, because he is nice and the Obama's need a home (a warm home). Then is lack of engagement in his present job (not a single oversight hearing by his subcommittee). And now we have the Reverend Wright a two faces hater. I know why the religious right spews hatred it is the same reason that the Roman Catholic Church after Luther told Catholics that the Lutherans were going straight to hell. It is about power, just power, keeping the flock following you and handing their money. And that is all Wright is about too, power. Wright kept his parishioners stuck in a time loop for the sake of his own ego. And I can see it on his face when he is shown kissing up to Clinton in his treasured keepsake photo from the prayer breakfast so long ago. His sermons of hate were political speeches and after NH the CD were played and handed out any black church willing to show them.
And I have one more thing to add, I have never added the correct spelling of Obama's name to my spell checker.
Posted by Betty at March 21, 2008 09:12 PMEriposte, your spin that Clinton doesn't face that big a deficit is ridiculous. Whether by pledged delegate count, total number of contests won, or popular vote, Obama enjoys a near insurmountable lead. the calculations on Pennsylvania ignore the rest of the remaining races. Whether by 810,000 or practically 200,000, Clinton's down by almost hundreds of thousands in the popular vote. Her electoral goose is cooked. This is over. The only reason it goes on is to see if Clinton can pull something with the superdelegates at the Democratic National Convention akin to a "Dubya" Bush circa Fla. 2000. Is that really what Hillary-supporters want, to destroy the party like that?
Posted by Brian Bell at March 21, 2008 09:50 PMI admire and respect the hard work that you put into this eriposte, but using WA State as you did just does not jive.
Washington Democratic presidential primary, 2008[11]
Candidate Votes Percentage
Barack Obama 354,112 51.22%
Hillary Clinton 315,744 45.67%
John Edwards 11,892 1.72%
Dennis Kucinich 4,021 0.58%
Bill Richardson 2,040 0.30%
Joe Biden 1,883 0.27%
Mike Gravel 1,071 0.15%
Christopher Dodd 618 0.09%
Totals 691,381 100.00%
My guess is that a whole lot of people who went and caucused for Obama just did not bother to vote in the primary - knowing that the primary was meaningless, or did as I did and voted their first choice (Edwards) in the primary simply to make it known, and caucused for Obama.
My caucus was packed and went 9:1 for Obama.
I agree with Snark, one cannot take so many different ways of determining delegates and try to extrapolate numbers like this.
If we don't like the way it is determined then we can get involved and try to change the rules for next time. However, we can't try to change the rules in the middle of the game - this makes the candidate illegitimate.
Somebody will win. Someones feelings will be hurt. Someone's supporters will be disappointed.
In the end, we absolutely must come together as a Party and beat McCain.
He has had a horrible week and I would hardly know it reading the blogs.
Posted by Anjha at March 21, 2008 10:07 PMBetty -
How about supporting Obama for...
- ending the Iraq war
- talking to our enemies
- helping out working families
- increasing ethics of government
- progressive energy policy
- progressive Supreme Court justices
- 100% pro-choice
- fiscal responsibility
Although I happen to like Obama, I usually don't like presidents personally. Of course, what they do as president is 1,000 times more important than who they are.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 21, 2008 10:13 PMI'd actually rather take 4 years of another Rep screwing up than 8 of a Dem (like we'd get two terms out of that guy). That way, Reps are really screwed for it and Dems still have a chance at redemption. I'll gladly vote downticket for Dems but that fraud is not getting my vote.
Actually, come to think of it, I don't consider myself much of a dem these days anyway. As I'm sure you'll be glad to note, I plan to change my designation to Independent as soon as possible. Dems are a joke. (See H. Dean for example.) We don't stand for long and when we do it don't seem to be for much.
Posted by Regency at March 21, 2008 11:16 PMAlthough I come to these sites because I want my spirits lifted and it is especially diminished by Obama posters I respect the journalistic integrity of your site by letting the posters post.
I suppose that is just the way it is done and it would be difficult for you to hold your head up as a journalist, which I am not, if you did not allow the posting.
I am not a journalist and I look to Hillary Clinton for hope. She is MY HOPE!
I can't see why the DNC or the other candidate for president can exclude the votes of Michigan and Florida. It's just like not allowing supporters of the other candidate to post!
I can't find the story, although I have seen some coverage in some small magazines like The Nation or American Prospect or Mother Jones, all of whom clearly support the other candidate, about how this came about that the Democratic Party excluded its members from their constitutional right to representation.
I think the voters in Michigan and Florida have the absolute right to cry with the orignal American revolutionaries, taxation without representation because they are denied at a fundamental level the say so they are entitled to in whom will govern.
But, maybe America is so often called the imperialist that these sayings that were shouted out at an imperialist empire are of little importance to it anymore.
This website has given me HOPE. I have HOPE that the DNC will change its decision and seat the 2 states it said it would deny.
If, if, if. All she needs is to win by 20% for the remaining contests! It's sad because I prefer her policy positions on a number of points, notably health care, but it ain't gonna happen. Positing that every potential Clinton supporter might turn the tide in every possible re-do is less than compelling, it's destructive, but that argument isn't even necessary.
Even the popular vote, which Obama will certainly win, is irrelevant. We're talking about the primary and, ugly as it is, only the delegates matter. The super-delegates make this even more of a no-brainer. I don't get the Obama "messiah" thing and it also doesn't matter. It's not about pro- or anti-him/her, jeez.
You seem to have KKKarl Roves math, doesn't surprise me, with the crap that is spewed on this anyi-progressive blog
Posted by eriposteshillin at March 22, 2008 05:37 AMSeven of Six,
You can call it eripostemath or anything you want. I am not the one sitting here claiming superdelegates are going to read my posts. My intention is very simple. I believe it is the popular vote that reflects popular will. That is what democracy is all about. I could care less what some elites in the DNC think. I'm doing my best to take a jumble of data to come up with my best assessment of the vote. If you disagree and have a better measure of the popular vote feel free to post it here.
We can argue till the cows come home but unless MI and FL go to a re-vote, the indications are that Obama will go to the convention without the delegates he needs to win. Superdelegates will look at not just the total delegate count but a number of other factors to judge their vote including the popular vote (more on that in a future post).
You also are critical of Clinton for not supporting caucuses in FL and MI. Just as we disagree on the primaries, I disagree with you on the caucuses. They are undemocratic. Large numbers of voters get shut out of it for a variety of reasons - and it is nothing short of voter suppression to pick the approach that enormously limits voter participation. This is the reason I have the chart in this post - to show the dramatic difference between voter participation between caucuses and primaries.
Posted by eriposte at March 22, 2008 09:00 AMJefe Le Gran,
You said:
...the WA primary results really can't be considered any more accurate than the caucuses can. In WA, high information voters would have a disincentive to vote since it didn't matter anyways. It's kind of like a backwards caucus.If it makes you feel better to add all of the caucus voters into the primary tally (even at the risk of double-counting) and come up with a revised popular vote estimate for WA, be my guest. Post it here and we will have that reference for the future when we come back to this topic because it is very likely we will come back to this topic as we head to the convention. Posted by eriposte at March 22, 2008 09:03 AM
Lots of Obama-anians clogging up the commenting here.
Lots of noise, but in the final analysis, mostly signifying nothing.
FACT: Obama can't win the nomination outright.
FACT: Hillary isn't out of this, not by a long shot. The upcoming primaries will give a clue as to how things will go. I don't think she can win the nomination outright, either.
FACT: Obama's supporters are acting more and more like Republicans, thinking they can create their own reality, just by saying something is so (when it's not). But the reality is, their candidate is quite flawed, and from my point of view, much more flawed than Hillary Clinton.
FACT: Obama has basically zero experience in running a complex bureaucracy. He has nearly zero experience in seeing how one runs a complex Federal bureaucracy (just form his participation in the Senate, of which he has yet to serve even a complete first term). Ms. Clinton has lots of experience in both (as Prime Counselor to Governor, and then, President Clinton), and being steeped in how one runs such complex, byzantine bureaucracies up close (yes, from the vantage point of the White House, which does include policy failures. I guarantee she has learned form that). Obama has a Senate subcommittee he is the head of (if memory serves) that has done zero work. I wonder if he even held any meetings of this subcommittee in recent months, if at all.
FACT: On other discussion threads here, there have been URL links supplied that show Obama's voting record is a far cry from backing up his rhetoric. That sounds like a Republican to me. (He reminds me a lot of the current Republican Senator of PA, Arlen Specter--he gives good sound bites, but in the face of heavy opposition from others (including vested interests), goes the other way on issues from what his rhetoric indicates nearly every time. And that's because he is a Republican.)
FACT: The primary season is far from over. I would suggest the overheated rhetoric on the part of the Obama-anians be put in deep freeze. Let the primaries play out.
I personally think that Obama's connections to Afro-American bitterness-, and reverse racism- elements in his coterie of supporters has damaged his candidacy in ways neither he nor his supporters can see at this juncture, and additionally, I think that those very things will also have lasting effects that they do not see currently that spell trouble for Obama politically in the long term. It's kind of akin to the KGB being unable to see the factors that contributed to the falling apart of the USSR. They were right in the middle of it, and couldn't see it. I think that the Philadelphia speech, while very good in my view, managed to not quell the issue so exemplified by Reverend Wright, but instead tied Obama to the issue of Racism outright.
With this speech in Philadelphia, I think Obama is in the process of "jumping the shark."
Let the primaries play out, to the end. Then we will see where the Democratic party stands.
Let them do a re-vote in Michigan and Florida.
Posted by Troubled American at March 22, 2008 09:04 AMSnark,
You said:
How anyone can take 50 different primaries/caucus's conducted under 50 different sets of rules with any number of rules regarding who can and can not vote and pretend to arrive at a number that supposedly represents "the will of the people" at a national level is beyond me.I understand what you are saying but the delegate count is far far worse of a metric. Someone wins the popular vote in a state and the opponent gets more delegates - is that in any way a representation of the popular will? Not in the least...the delegate count is useful when one candidate has an overwhelming majority but in close races, it is not a good measure of popular will.
With respect to the popular vote, the challenge is really in estimating the popular vote for caucuses because of various reasons - including non-viable votes getting transferred to viable candidates in each caucus location, and the inability of huge numbers of voters to participate in caucuses compared to primaries. This means the winner of caucuses has an inbuilt advantage. However, I am actually willing to grant Obama the advantage (in the caucus states he won) and use the popular vote *estimate* from RCP for lack of anything better. If someone can come up with a better measure of the popular vote in the caucus states, I'm all ears.
As for primaries, those are much cleaner. One person, one vote and much lower constraints on voters in terms of participation. The rules for primaries may differ, but guess what, rules for voting in states differ even in the general election. That has never been an argument against the importance of the national popular vote.
Posted by eriposte at March 22, 2008 09:14 AMI think that eriposte has used up all the straw. What will the livestock eat this year?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at March 22, 2008 09:36 AMI am really dissapointed in the level of rancor I see on this site-both in the postings and in the comments. I think it is fair to say that four more years of republican appointments are more than we can take in the judiciary.
This statistical analysis of relative value of votes is just ridiculous. Obama, like Clinton, engaged in the best strategy to win the nomination. So far Clinton's strategy for winning the nomination has been unproductive against a man who has only been on the national scene for two years.
The reason that people like Richardson (who was my candidate after edwards), have been endorsing Obama is because they believe he can win the primary, and the general election.
As to florida and Michigan, those states democrats made no real effort to fight the republican set election dates. The parties in those states decided to play chicken with the DNC rules committee, and lost. Do i think that crappy iowa and New hampshire should be preselecting our candidates? No. But each of the candidates, including Clinton, signed agreements to play by DNC rules. Now she says that those rules shouldn't count. Too stinking bad. Once her supporters allow the texas caucus results to be released, her margin there will drop.
My wife and I have been in politics for a long time. She is a second generation political figure in local politics, and I have eaten enough crappy chicken divan to fill the nina, if not the pinta and the santa maria. We sat together and watched the Obama speech on race. I haven't heard any politician in my lifetime with the kind of charisma, intelligence, and insight before Mr. Obama.
I was irritated with him for running to begin with, then again, I was irritated Ms. Clinton was running. After that speech I have no doubt that this man either will be or should be the next president of the united States. My guess is that Bill Richardson saw the same thing. Listen to it. keep an open mind.
Posted by ltg at March 22, 2008 10:01 AMltg:
Eye of the beholder I guess. I listened to the speech and heard some pretty words given for political expediency in order to tamp down the crisis of the Rev. Wright controversy. I see Obama as a fraud - his words never match his actions. Trinity Church is a disgrace along with its former and current pastors. Don't talk unity to me while listening to your pastor preach divisiveness, and bringing up your children to hate people who don't look like them. Don't talk unity to me while smearing the Clintons as racists. Don't talk unity to me while exploiting the gay-bashing McClurkin.
As for your review of the MI and FL problem - completely disingenuous. There is only one issue now that matters - a re-vote had traction and could have solved a lot of problems. Oblahma shot the re-vote down. He doesn't care about voters' rights; he only cares about himself. And that's what the American people will hear over and over now. What a stupid move.
He can forget my vote in the GE. Period. And the Democratic Party can forget my money too. I'm switching to Independent. And no amount of people trying to guilt me into voting for Obama based on the Supreme Court or anything else will change that. Sometimes, principles are more important than anything else.
Posted by at March 22, 2008 10:57 AMI see Obama as a fraud - his words never match his actions.
This is the conclusion that I, a life-long Democrat on the progressive end of the spectrum, have also come to. Obama seems to think that his words give him a pass on his actions. McGlurkin, for example. He has the "ex-gay" pastor campaigning with him in S. Carolina, then turns around and makes reference to tolerance for homosexuals in his MLK day speech. Uh, the words do not excuse the action.
Thanks for this post, Eriposte. Clinton does need to stay in it. I think it's important for the Supers to get a true measure of the Democratic electorate's sentiments in this race.
Posted by otherlisa at March 22, 2008 12:17 PMI've been waiting to see if anyone would take the time to do a respectable analysis of the popular vote question. Thanks so much for providing this! I think Obama supporters will be very disappointed with the upcoming primaries; the actual movement is now towards Senator Clinton. She will not only win PA by 16 or more points, she will also win N. Caaroline, W. Va., Kentucky, and Indiana. And Puerto Rico overwhelmingly. And whether there's a new vote or not, the superdelegates will in fact take into condiseration the almost 2 million DEMOCRATS who voted in FLl, meaning over 350K more votes for Clinton over Obama. In short, I think the popular vote can very fairly be seen in the end as going to Clinton. We hated it in 2000 to see Gore get half a million more votes than W., yet "lose". We aren't going to let that happen this time, delegate counts be damned.
And, none of this takes up another powerful argument Clinton will be able to make in June. No one can deny that she will win handily the actual DEMOCRATIC vote in the primaries and caucuses. Superdelegates can see this, and know that such a victory in the Party itself is another point in her favor. And as poll after poll begin to show more evidence that all those "Independents and moderate Republicans" who gave Obama several caucus victories in red states, are moving solidly to McLame in the fall.
BTW, re the Texas foolishness of primary, then caucus that evening: it took 22,000 voters in the primary to win ONE delegate; in the caucus, it took just 1800 people to come back and vot a second time to win one delegate. By ten to one, the democratic result was the primary vote.
Go, Hillary! We can win in November with you as our candidate. And if Obama is as honorable and decent and faithful and brave and courageous and inspiring as he's made out to be, his campaigning for Senator Clinton will surely tip the balance to her this November!
Posted by donald169 at March 22, 2008 04:46 PM"The reason that people like Richardson (who was my candidate after edwards), have been endorsing Obama is because they believe he can win the primary, and the general election."
My bet is the Richardson endorsement was damage control--for the party! Obama is Democratic brand poison, but the Dems are stuck. Dean wants Hillary to save his ass by dropping out--to spare him the embarrassment of not seating MI and FL. They've made a mess of the primary, and now they are being held hostage by threats of black riots. What did Hillary say about vetting?
How do we bridge the faith gap if our nominee belongs to a Marxist, racist church? All the basic premises for electing a novice to the White House -- post-racial, national realignment, unity -- have been obliterated by Obama's own actions.
And I'm not taking any lectures in 'party unity' from people who've been cursing the DLC like it was the KKK for the past 4 years. Or from Ted Kennedy--the O.J. Simpson of American politics--who ambushed Jimmy Carter. Drunken womanslaughter, yet he challenges an incumbent President in the primary?
Look at these new SUSA numbers (from state polls, not national) after the Wright fiasco enumerating electoral college numbers in the general:
John McCain 288
Barak Obama 238
(Tied 12)
Hillary Clinton 294
John McCain 231
(Tied 13)
Obama is now waaaay behind McCain in crucial states like Ohio and Florida, and we haven't seen Pennsylvania yet.
It's quite clear Obama's ability to carry large usually-Democratic states is waning, and he'll get his a** kicked in the general election against McCain.
Superdelegates will certainly be looking at these general election numbers and making decisions for the benefit of the party as a whole.
And by the way.....how does Richardson get away with ignoring the vote of New Mexico (FOR Clinton) and moving to Barak? Didn't he say supers should follow the "will of the people?"
Won't do Obama any good, though. Hispanics vote overwhelmingly for Clinton, and will continue to do so.
Poor Richardson. He's become a joke, now.
Posted by Mary at March 22, 2008 06:32 PMThe rules for primaries may differ, but guess what, rules for voting in states differ even in the general election. That has never been an argument against the importance of the national popular vote.
Two things;
In the general election it is truly one person, one vote. No one has to do any of the mathematical gymanstics being pulled off by advocates of both camps here. The second you start estimating and extrapolating the numbers mean nothing.
And the "national popular vote" means nothing in the general election. One candidate could out poll the other by millions of votes and still lose in the electoral college.
Posted by at March 22, 2008 07:48 PMYou also are critical of Clinton for not supporting caucuses in FL and MI. Just as we disagree on the primaries, I disagree with you on the caucuses. They are undemocratic.
Once again, to you they are undemocratic. Obama supported them because they would be cheaper, faster and be able to seat all the delegates at the convention. Yet, Hillary shot the idea of caucuses down, just as Obama, who followed the original rules, shot down the idea of a revote.
eRiposte, Each candidate is going to play the politics game on how it will help them the most.
Posted by Seven of Six at March 23, 2008 02:18 AMthat has got to be the lamest serpentine reach for some tiny shred of leftover psuedo-logic i've seen yet in the immoral campaign of clinton surrogates. your "facts" are blatantly biased, you ignore anything the smacks of fair play and you overstate anything that praises clinton or pummels obama. you're preaching to the choir.
frankly, if clinton gets the nomination, i'll vote for the nastiest republican i can find. why? because clinton and all of her twisted supporters deserve to hear exactly why her tenuous grip on ethics causes sane people to wretch.
Posted by sf at March 24, 2008 09:27 AMthis looks to me like a labyrinth of deceit
Obama 08
Posted by sonnyshook at March 24, 2008 04:21 PMCorrection>>>>The big state strategy is NOT working
Posted by Good Point at March 24, 2008 11:55 PM