# Into the Great Wide Open: the Dem Race after Mississippi **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 12, 2008, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148 "2008-03-12T20:07:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/21 "2008-03-13T03:47:19Z")
Um, no offense, but the idea that the Democrat higher-ups are suddenly going to jump onto the Obama band-wagon is pie-in-the-sky. This thing is going the distance: the party mucky-mucks prefer Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/22 "2008-03-13T03:52:02Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] Um, no offense, but the idea that the Democrat higher-ups are suddenly going to jump onto the Obama band-wagon is pie-in-the-sky. This thing is going the distance: the party mucky-mucks prefer Clinton. [/QUOTE] We’ll see. But I beg your pardon, because I don’t think the muckety-mucks prefer Clinton in sufficient numers. Unless you have a cite. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/23 "2008-03-13T04:00:35Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] Um, no offense, but the idea that the Democrat higher-ups are suddenly going to jump onto the Obama band-wagon is pie-in-the-sky. This thing is going the distance: the party mucky-mucks prefer Clinton. [/QUOTE] Will they continue to prefer her if they see her as wrecking the party’s chances with her tactics? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/24 "2008-03-13T04:09:38Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Now that Obama’s won Mississippi and we can look forward to forty days without a primary, it’s time for us political junkies to [del]check into Betty Ford[/del] assess where the race stands now, or at least open a new thread about it because the previous threads are many pages long. [/QUOTE] **FORTY DAYS!!??!!** That’s just like Lent! Okay, what is everybody going to be giving up? I think for me it’s gonna be wild honey and locusts… ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/25 "2008-03-13T09:22:56Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] But no electoral-college votes. [/QUOTE] Which should make this year interesting for them, unlike most election years. There are a couple of Dopers in Puerto Rico, aren’t there? ---
**Author:** ![Jurph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/50afbb/32.png) [@Jurph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurph)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/26 "2008-03-13T11:48:06Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Third, how about the voters? Are Pennsylvanians, North Carolinians, Indianans, etc. still excited that the race is finally coming their way, or are they ready for this thing to be over? [/quote] Quick aside: folks from Indiana are called Hoosiers. I think Obama’s best move is to play the delegate numbers game: find districts with an odd number of delegates and get a ground operation there to squeak out a win; play a blowout game in friendly even-count districts and hope to win 3-1, 4-2, or 5-3 for a net gain in delegates. A few small six-delegate districts inside Philly or Pittsburgh that break 4-2 can wipe out the delegate wins for miles and miles of farmland and mountains. Note also that Clinton didn’t even file a full slate of delegates in PA. It’s a technicality, but I think it could be spun – late in the game – as “she’s said a lot about how much she cares about Pennsylvania, but she couldn’t be bothered to submit a complete candidacy package.” I don’t think Obama can win Pennsylvania on his merits and charm, mostly because of its demographics. However, Hillary’s campaign seems to work through some kind of spooky-action-at-a-distance: her surrogate attacks appear unconnected to any kind of central strategy or core message (perhaps to enhance deniability) but this also makes a good number of the attacks backfire spectacularly. Are they really Hillary’s attacks, or are her surrogates that far off the reservation, and don’t realize the damage they’re doing to her? I can’t tell who’s in charge of the campaign, and perhaps that’s the reason she’s losing. An executive ought to at least be able to run a campaign, right? ---
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/27 "2008-03-13T12:19:24Z")
[QUOTE=Jurph] Quick aside: folks from Indiana are called Hoosiers. I think Obama’s best move is to play the delegate numbers game: find districts with an odd number of delegates and get a ground operation there to squeak out a win; play a blowout game in friendly even-count districts and hope to win 3-1, 4-2, or 5-3 for a net gain in delegates. A few small six-delegate districts inside Philly or Pittsburgh that break 4-2 can wipe out the delegate wins for miles and miles of farmland and mountains. Note also that Clinton didn’t even file a full slate of delegates in PA. It’s a technicality, but I think it could be spun – late in the game – as “she’s said a lot about how much she cares about Pennsylvania, but she couldn’t be bothered to submit a complete candidacy package.” I don’t think Obama can win Pennsylvania on his merits and charm, mostly because of its demographics. However, Hillary’s campaign seems to work through some kind of spooky-action-at-a-distance: her surrogate attacks appear unconnected to any kind of central strategy or core message (perhaps to enhance deniability) but this also makes a good number of the attacks backfire spectacularly. Are they really Hillary’s attacks, or are her surrogates that far off the reservation, and don’t realize the damage they’re doing to her? I can’t tell who’s in charge of the campaign, and perhaps that’s the reason she’s losing. An executive ought to at least be able to run a campaign, right? [/QUOTE] She hasn’t been running her campaign, she’s been flying on her name and not her actions. If she had substance behind her actions she’d be in the lead right now. So what if she’s tenacious, so what if she can play hardball - Obama is just as calculating as she is and you can’t tell me all of Obama’s advisors are sitting down and planning the end game which will quickly turn into the national election. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/28 "2008-03-13T12:22:51Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] **FORTY DAYS!!??!!** That’s just like Lent! Okay, what is everybody going to be giving up? I think for me it’s gonna be wild honey and locusts… [/QUOTE] Sex with supermodels. Definitely. -Joe ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/29 "2008-03-13T13:17:01Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] **FORTY DAYS!!??!!** That’s just like Lent! Okay, what is everybody going to be giving up? I think for me it’s gonna be wild honey and locusts… [/QUOTE] I’ll be rehearsing the choir of voices crying in the wilderness. ---
**Author:** ![burundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3ec8ea/32.png) [@burundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/burundi)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/30 "2008-03-13T13:42:31Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] Third, how about the voters? Are Pennsylvanians, North Carolinians, Indianans, etc. still excited that the race is finally coming their way, or are they ready for this thing to be over? [/QUOTE] Ready for it to be over. I read an article in the _Charlotte Observer_ which suggested that state and local politicians are dreading the primary. For one thing, airtime gets a lot more expensive when you have presidential candidates who want to buy ads. I think that Clinton may squeak by in Pennsylvania, but she’ll lose in North Carolina. While Pennsylvania has lots of working-class white Democrats, North Carolina doesn’t. I suspect that Clinton’s tactics to appeal to working-class whites in Pennsylvania won’t go over so well with Democrats in North Carolina, who tend to be well-educated whites or African Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Monocracy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monocracy/32/4493_2.png) [@Monocracy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monocracy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/31 "2008-03-13T14:06:33Z")
Mathmatically, Clinton will need a couple miracles to win. Even if she does better than expected in the remaining contests, Hillary would only be able to put a dent in Obama’s approx 150 pledged delegate lead, maybe work it down to 100. When Obama wins the pledged delegates and popular vote, there is no way that the super delegates will swing to Clinton by more than +50. In my opinion, they’ll swing toward Obama. According to the DCW ([Democratic Convention Watch: Ultimate Delegate Tracker](http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ultimate-delegate-tracker.html)), Clinton would be +111 if Michigan’s and Florida’s delegates were seated. I don’t know the exact breakdown, but most of those must come from Michigan, which will never be seated without a do-over. If both states have a revote, i see Clinton coming out of it with fewer than +50. So Hillary is toast unless Obama’s been ordering from the Emperor’s Club. ---
**Author:** ![Monocracy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monocracy/32/4493_2.png) [@Monocracy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monocracy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/32 "2008-03-13T14:12:47Z")
A few weeks ago, i heard a pundit or news source mention that Puerto Rico could choose to apportion their delegates all-or-nothing if they wished. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Puerto Rico has 55 delegates and it would be a major swing if it were 55-0. Who is going to win Puerto Rico? Non-continental U.S. contests favor Obama, but hispanics favor Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/33 "2008-03-13T14:35:57Z")
[QUOTE=Monocracy] A few weeks ago, i heard a pundit or news source mention that Puerto Rico could choose to apportion their delegates all-or-nothing if they wished. Can anyone confirm or deny this? [/QUOTE] Yes, I can deny it. DNC rules forbid winner-take-all contests. Puerto Rico will hold a primary on June 1 (recently changed from a caucus), and the delegates will be allocated proportionally as in every other Democratic primary. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/34 "2008-03-13T14:53:48Z")
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig] Yes, I can deny it. DNC rules forbid winner-take-all contests. Puerto Rico will hold a primary on June 1 (recently changed from a caucus), and the delegates will be allocated proportionally as in every other Democratic primary. [/QUOTE] Interesting. The justification I heard (a couple months back) was that voters in Puerto Rico tended to hash out their arguments and then vote in unity for one candidate. I’m in no position to evaluate the truth or falsity of that, but it wouldn’t be against the DNC rules to do so. However, going from a caucus to a primary certainly does change the plausibility of it working that way. ---
**Author:** ![Monocracy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monocracy/32/4493_2.png) [@Monocracy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monocracy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/35 "2008-03-13T15:36:56Z")
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig] Yes, I can deny it. DNC rules forbid winner-take-all contests. Puerto Rico will hold a primary on June 1 (recently changed from a caucus), and the delegates will be allocated proportionally as in every other Democratic primary. [/QUOTE] This isn’t the source i first heard it, but i googled it, and this source says something similar to what i heard. Michael Barone, U.S. News [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/2/6/puerto-rican-poll-power.html](http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/2/6/puerto-rican-poll-power.html) > [@](#): > > In practice, the dominant figure in Puerto Rico identifying with the Democratic Party has seen to it that his faction gets all the territory’s delegates. This article implies that the Democrat leader in Puerto Rico decides who gets all the delegates. However, from the Washington Post fact checker: [http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/will\_puerto\_rico\_decide\_everyt.html](http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/will_puerto_rico_decide_everyt.html) > [@](#): > > The notion of Puerto Rico being a “winner-take-all” jurisdiction stems from previous presidential primary contests, which were pretty much over by the time the Puerto Ricans got to vote. John Kerry swept Puerto Rico in 2004 just as Al Gore triumphed in 2000 because they were the only candidates left in the race, and the party bosses could manipulate the caucus process. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/36 "2008-03-13T16:52:24Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] Um, no offense, but the idea that the Democrat higher-ups are suddenly going to jump onto the Obama band-wagon is pie-in-the-sky. This thing is going the distance: the party mucky-mucks prefer Clinton. [/QUOTE] That must be why Clinton’s superdelegate lead has been dropping like a rock for the past couple of months. And certainly if there were still a bunch of superdelegates that had been waiting for an excuse to get off the fence and endorse Clinton, her wins in the Texas and Ohio primaries provided plenty of cover for doing that. And certainly Clinton would welcome a superdelegate surge right about now to get some positive buzz. :crickets: ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/37 "2008-03-13T16:54:16Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] **FORTY DAYS!!??!!** That’s just like Lent! Okay, what is everybody going to be giving up? I think for me it’s gonna be wild honey and locusts… [/QUOTE] I think I’ll give up $5,000/hour hookers. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/38 "2008-03-13T17:25:01Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] First of all, do the candidates spend the next six weeks touring every hamlet in Pennsylvania? Or do they find something else to do with their lives for awhile? [/QUOTE] Forget that. Obama should spend the next month in Guam. He could hold his press junkets on the beach with mixed drinks for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/39 "2008-03-13T17:35:52Z")
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] We’ll see. But I beg your pardon, because I don’t think the muckety-mucks prefer Clinton in sufficient numers. Unless you have a cite. [/QUOTE] Actually, I have a cite here that says exactly the opposite. > [@](#): > > Democratic lawmakers are becoming persuaded that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would have a more positive impact on other Democrats on the November ballot than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.). > > Obama’s advantage over Clinton would be most pronounced in the Southern and Western states President Bush carried in 2000 and 2004, say lawmakers interviewed by The Hill. **In total, 32 members of Congress from these “red states” have endorsed Obama. Twenty-two lawmakers from those states have backed Clinton.** > > . . . > > Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), who at first endorsed Clinton but then switched to Obama, said he thought Obama would do more to help Democratic candidates in his state by boosting Democratic turnout. He said the nominee’s influence on other races “is a general thrust of the conversation” in the House between Obama supporters and lawmakers on the fence. > > That argument has proved persuasive with many red-state superdelegates, whose votes would go toward determining the party nominee at a brokered convention. **Obama has won a slew of endorsements from Democrats representing solidly Republican states and districts.** Obama has picked up congressional endorsements from Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, North and South Dakota, Mississippi, Kentucky, and West Virginia. \*\*Clinton has not collected congressional endorsements from any of these states, according to a tally kept by The Hill. \*\* > > . . . > > \*\*“You ask any elected official, virtually any elected official west of the Mississippi, and they say, without equivocation, ‘We want Barack Obama at the top of the ticket.’ They’ll say that privately,” said Daschle. \*\* > > . . . > > [http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/eyeing-obama-coattails-2008-03-12.html](http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/eyeing-obama-coattails-2008-03-12.html) I posted my concerns about Puerto Rico [a month ago](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9477023&postcount=66), with a link to the same US News article **Monocracy** provided above. I’m relieved to hear that there’s pretty much no chance it will go winner-take-all, though it would be nice to have a cite to a firm rule disallowing it, since it’s apparently happened before. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2008, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148/40 "2008-03-13T18:00:53Z")
[QUOTE=Shayna] I’m relieved to hear that there’s pretty much no chance it will go winner-take-all, though it would be nice to have a cite to a firm rule disallowing it, since it’s apparently happened before. [/QUOTE] Certainly. See the Democratic National Committee [Delegate Selection Rules](http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf), Rule 13, “Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference”. > [@](#): > > States shall allocate district-level delegates and alternates in proportion to the percentage of the primary or caucus vote won in that district by each preference, except that preferences falling below a 15% threshold shall not be awarded any delegates. Subject to section F. of this rule, no state shall have a threshold above or below 15%. . . . At-large and pledged party leader and elected official delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated to presidential preferences by reference to primary or convention votes or to the division of preference among district-level delegates or alternates, as the case may be, as specified in Rule 10.C., except that a preference falling below a threshold of 15% shall not be awarded any delegates or alternates at this level. Such delegates and alternates in primary states shall be allocated to presidential preference (including uncommitted status) according to the statewide primary vote. This rule has been in place since 1984. If one candidate won all of the seats in a particular primary or caucus in any election since then, it was because no other candidate got over the 15% threshold (not uncommon after only one candidate is left standing!), not because the rules were different. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/into-the-great-wide-open-the-dem-race-after-mississippi/441148.md?page=3)