Next up: Indiana and North Carolina

Great Debates
401

Because until this year, they favored the party insiders, which is the real reason why they still exist.

It’s actually unusual that no upstart has been able to shanghai the caucuses before now. I think this is the real genius of the Obama campaign- the community organization tactics from experts in the game used to drive impassioned turnout to the caucuses. Caucuses would seem made for younger voters, I think they had been ignored as a possible caucus silver bullet because the CW was that they were unreliable.

There is a fascinating book to be written about the ins and outs of the Obama primary campaign, regardless of the result.

402

There it is again: the community organizer approach by Obama’s campaign, and how amazingly well it’s paid off.

Has there ever been another candidate for President with that kind of background? To me, it seems like a superb training ground for an effective political career.

403

Me too. But we ain’t gonna get that pony. So we have to make do with what we’ve got.

Exactly: they like Obama a little better.

And that’s how we resolve things in a democracy. Even a 50.1-49.9 decision, AFAWC, expresses “the will of the people.”

We’re there.

404

The only state Clinton is doing well in is the State of Denial.* :smiley:

*Conan O’Brian - last night.

405

Not that I disagree, but the first person who claims Obama has a mandate gets a swift kick in the rear. We growled over Bush pretending that nearly half the country didn’t vote against him. I don’t think it would do us any favors to act the same way because it’s our guy.

Not that I think your post is an example of that, RTF, but I see the path that could be taken from it.

406

I don’t think the “mandate” thing works the same way with a party nominee as it does with an actual winning presidential candidate. There’s really nothing for Obama to have a mandate on…his policy positions are almost identical to Clinton’s. It’s not as if we have a primary between Otto von Bismark and Eugene V. Debs.

407

Nor even Carter vs Kennedy.

408

I’d draw a big distinction between “the people have spoken” (or “will of the people” or similar constructions) and a “mandate.” Even in the closest elections where the outcome’s not in doubt, it’s traditional for even the loser to concede the former, but a ‘mandate’ implies a pretty substantial, emphatic win that can reasonably be taken as popular endorsement for a particular program or course of action.

The Democratic primary voters have spoken, and they’ve chosen Obama. But Obama would need to win the election by a substantially larger margin than he’s effectively won the nomination by, to claim a mandate. And even then, he’d only have a mandate for those things he emphasized in his campaign.

Speaking of Bush, not only was his 50.73% vote share absurdly small to call a mandate, but even if he’d won with 55% of the vote (which I would personally characterize as mandate-level support; others’ MM quite reasonably V as far as where the line is), his mandate would have applied to things like his handling of the Iraq War and the GWoT, but not to Social Security privatization, which he only started slipping in references to at the very end of his campaign, apparently for the purpose of making the bullshit claim that that’s what the voters had re-elected him to do.

409

I’d pay good money to see that!

410

Yes, in a *final *vote, I’d agree a 50.1-49.9 decision is the “the will of the people” although certainly I also agree with Bosstone in that it’s far from a “mandate”.
But there’s still several states to go:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/not_quite_yet_1.html

Elite opinion on the Democratic race has congealed around the idea that it is over. Clinton has no chance whatsoever to win the nomination now. There is a minority of analysts out there - maybe 5%, maybe even less - who see her path to the nomination as much narrower than it was four days ago, but who still see a path.

I’m with the minority on this one. I think she is nearly finished, but not quite yet.

As Oxendine says in his analysis of Indiana and North Carolina: “Appalachia didn’t budge [on Tuesday]. She is going to absolutely blow him out of the water in West VA and KY.”

So, here’s my question. What happens to “It’s Over” if Clinton pulls a 40-point victory in West Virginia on Tuesday, then follows it up a week later with a 30-point victory in Kentucky? If these states turn out in the same margins that states since March 4th have averaged, that would imply a net of about 290,000 votes for Clinton. That puts her within striking distance of a reasonable popular vote victory. “Over” will be over as we turn our attention to Puerto Rico.

There are good reasons not to take Puerto Rico lightly, even though the press has continued to do exactly that. I would note: (a) Puerto Ricans vote in large numbers (2 million in the last gubernatorial election); (b) Puerto Ricans have never had this important a role in United States presidential politics; (c) Puerto Rico’s politics is focused at least partially on how (if at all) to adjust its relationship with the United States; (d) …

The inference I draw is that Puerto Ricans could turn out in huge numbers. If they do, and they swing for Clinton in a sizeable way, the popular vote lead could swing, too. Add 290,000 votes from West Virginia and Kentucky to 250,000 votes from Puerto Rico, account for expected losses in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, and you get Clinton leading in many popular vote counts, some of which are really quite valid. If she has one of those leads when the final votes are counted on June 3rd, the race will go on to the convention.

Am I predicting that all of this will happen? No. That would be quite presumptuous. The problem is not that any of these incidents is individually unlikely. It is not unlikely that Clinton will get a huge victory in Kentucky, West Virginia, or Puerto Rico. Theoretically, I would wager at least one of the three will happen. The problem is that she has to do all three. What’s more, she has to keep it competitive in Oregon (just how competitive depends on her margins in the other states). That’s a tall order - four big things to do with no margin for error. I’d never predict that she could do all four. I may be a contrarian, but I am not an idiot!" *

Unlikely? :dubious: Very. Impossible? No. :eek: Not there, yet.

It *will *be interesting.

411

How many Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico vote in the general election? Under what state do their electoral votes get tallied?

412

Ultimately, any means of scoring besides delegates comes down to its persuasive value. This is true of counting the popular vote, as it is true of any other way of looking at things besides the official way.

The argument for considering the delegates from Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI, American Samoa, etc., is that the rules say they count, which is pretty inescapable. But what are you going to say to a wavering superdelegate, as you argue that (a) s/he should consider the popular vote, and (b) the definition of the popular vote should include the folks who don’t get to vote in November?

I don’t see an argument there that’s straightforward enough to have an impact.

Not that it matters. Obama has caught up in superdelegates, that tide’s gonna keep running, and nobody’s going to really care that much about Hillary’s big win in WV next week.

It’s over.

413

None. Why do you ask? They do have 63 delegates. Guam has no Electors and has 9 delegates. Democrats abroad have no direct electors and have 11 delegates. American Samoa has 9 delegates and no Electors. I don’t understand the question. What does number of electoral votes in the Presidential election have to do with number of delegates to a parties Convention? :confused:

I mean, if we were counting states by Electors then I think Hillary wins. Do we want to do it that way? Each state is winner take all? Cause then it’s more or less CA, TX, NY, Fla with maybe PA, IL and OH counting. HRC won CA, TX, NY, Fla, PA & OH. Obama won IL. If the DNC allocated delegates like the EC allocated Electors, HRC would have won.

414

So, I got to wondering…what’s the pretty much worst-case scenario that might happen for Obama? I decided to crunch some numbers; now that I did it, I might as well post them. I decided on this thread, although I suppose one of the others might be more appropriate. Oh, well. Information mostly taken from RealClearPolitics Upcoming States and DemConWatch Ultimate Summary. My math is below, but here’s the executive summary:[ul]
[li]Using worst case polling, the remaining primaries will give Clinton 150 delegates and Obama 67. [/li][li]Without MI and FL, Clinton needs 177.5 (69.5%) of the remaining 255.5 supers, while Obama needs 99 (38.7%).[/li][li]With MI and FL, in the worst case, Clinton needs 168.5 (58.2%) of the remaining 289.5 supers, while Obama needs 209 (72.2%).[/li][/ul]
I doubt very sincerely that it will work out this way, and again, these numbers are all worst case (i.e., worst polling data, all of PR for Clinton, and neither MI nor FL suffer any penalty). But it was rather instructive, showing that Obama takes quite a hit if things really go Clinton’s way. He’s not out of it even so, but contrary to the talking heads (and my desires), it’s not quite over yet. :frowning:

So, if anyone cares to check my work, here’s the explanation and math:

Bullet point 1: Remaining primary estimates, matching worst-case-for-Obama polling, using the formula:
(50% + (point difference / 2)) * delegates to allot = # Clinton delegates

WV: (0.5 + (+0.43 / 2)) * 28 = 20.02 Clinton (8 Obama)
KY: (0.5 + (+0.36 / 2)) * 51 = 34.68 Clinton (16 Obama)
OR: (0.5 + (-0.06 / 2)) * 52 = 24.44 Clinton (28 Obama)

Since RealClearPolitics doesn’t have polling data for PR, MT, and SD, I chose: PR goes 100% for Clinton, MT and SD split:
PR: 55 Clinton (0 Obama)
MT: 8 Clinton (8 Obama)
SD: 8 Clinton (7 Obama)

Total delegates from remaining primaries for Clinton: 150
Total delegates from remaining primaries for Obama: 67

Bullet point 2: Leaving out FL and MI (i.e., need 2025.5 delegates to clinch), we get:
Total w/o uncommitted supers for Clinton: 1697+150 = 1847
Total w/o uncommitted supers for Obama: 1859.5+67 = 1926.5

Due to the 19 Edwards delegates, the percentage sum doesn’t equal 100%:
Clinton needs 177.5 (69.5%) of the remaining 255.5 supers
Obama needs 99 (38.7%) of the remaining 255.5 supers

Bullet point 3: Then I decided to keep going and figure out the worst-case-for-Obama inclusion of FL and MI (numbers gleaned from DemConWatch, scenario 5), which means:

  • need 2208.5 delegates to clinch
  • FL pledged delegates allotted as per vote (105 Clinton, 67 Obama, 13 Edwards)
  • FL super delegates committed (8 Clinton, 5 Obama)
  • FL super delegates uncommitted (13)
  • MI pledged delegates allotted as per vote (73 Clinton, 0 Obama)
  • MI super delegates committed (7 Clinton, 1 Obama)
  • MI super delegates uncommitted (21)

This yields, by my calculations:
Total w/o uncommitted supers for Clinton: 1890+150 = 2040
Total w/o uncommitted supers for Obama: 1932.5+67 = 1999.5

Due to the 32 Edwards delegates, the percentage sum doesn’t equal 100%:
Clinton needs 168.5 (58.2%) of the remaining 289.5 supers
Obama needs 209 (72.2%) of the remaining 289.5 supers

415

Don’t forget the threat of asteroids.

416

Or evil robots trying to take over the world, and Hillary revealing that her real name is Yoshimi.

Yep, there’s all sorts of possibilities. :slight_smile:

417

NEWSFLASH: HILLARY TRIPLES HER SUPERDELEGATE LEAD!!!

No, really! According to DemConWatch, Rep. Ciro Rodriguez just declared for Clinton. Her lead’s gone from 0.5 superdelegates, to 1.5 superdelegates, according to their count.

See? She really DID triple her lead amongst the supers!

418

Now, now, no need for snark. I chose my calculations to be on the acceptable outskirts of plausibility. Since I did the work, I figured that others might be interested in seeing it. And, you see, the 2004 presidential election was such an incredible let-down for me that I feel the need to consider the worst case and steel myself for it.

Furthermore, I don’t trust that Clinton will do what is, in my eyes, the “right thing” and concede the nomination. Coupled with the fact that Clinton backers form a major contingent of the DNC rules committee – the ones that might decide the FL and MI arrangement – I have to admit that the scenario I outlined is possible.

Even so, the takeaway point that I got from running the numbers is that, even if things go horribly wrong for Obama over the next few weeks, it still ends up being a toss-up. But I’ll only stop being nervous once Clinton explicitly concedes.

419

And today Utah [del]pornstar[/del] superdelegate Kristi Cumming endorsed Obama, cutting Hillary’s superdelegate lead by 2/3, from 1.5 to 0.5 superdelegates.

420

A pornstar for Obama? How badly will that endorsement crush Dems chances for election?

I demand that Obama repudiate, disavow, condemn, attack, blast, criticize, knock, pan, slam; belittle, deprecate, disparage; doom, sentence; convict; blacklist, excommunicate, ostracize; rebuke, reprimand, reproach; admonish, chide, reprove; berate, lambast, scold, upbraid; curse, imprecate; abhor, abominate, detest, hate, loathe, and revile this disgraceful endorsement!