I just got in a little while ago from voting for Hillary. If she takes RI, this thing is going all the way to the convention--we're the only state that really matters!
I do not pretend to be an expert on the primary system, but it seems to me that G(OH)bama would be a better outcome for him than (NO)bama or D('oh!)bama.
Why are members of one party allowed to determine a different party's candidate?
Because many state parties think it's advantageous to them to allow cross-over voting and thereby run a candidate more likely to win in the general, and open primaries are popular in many states to the point that it can even be held against your party if you don't have one.
2: I know a passel of old, rich, white ladies from places like Newport and East Greenwich who are all about Barack.
Because many state parties think it's advantageous to them to allow cross-over voting and thereby run a candidate more likely to win in the general
Why would one imagine that if Republicans are trying to determine the Democratic candidate, they want to make it the candidate who is more likely to beat the Republicans?
7: I'm not surprised. The East Side is tilting heavily toward Obama as well. But here in The Bucket, we're all about HRC. Or at least the SO is, and she made me feel bad about not supporting her candidate.
Hmmm.... Vermont exit poll numbers show Obama taking it by about 62% - 36%. The poll numbers from Pollster.com show that as modest outperformance (the polls averaged 57%-34%), but it's based on polls from around February 21st.
It's going to be a long night.
Not as many people are strategic voters as you think, not as many people are stably party identified as you're indicating either.
4: 6 gives the rationale, but I think it's complete bullshit (open primaries, not comment 4).
From the state that brought you the Election Disaster of 2000, our primary had been diss-qualified. Onward to Suppurating Tuesday !!
Gobama !!
Do other states ask you to vote for individual delegates, as well as for a presidential candidate? I admit to being totally unprepared for that question.
I like that Ohio isn't close enough to call at the close of the polls, but remain pessimistic about the ultimate result. If my pessimism is wrong, I really need to stop reading pollster.com.
I hope you didn't vote for one of the Paolinos, mrh!
CNN's exit polls in Ohio show Clinton taking it 51% to 48%.
Definitely a close one.
I don't think so! I voted for the two names I recognized, and them more or less at random.
And Ron Paul got 10% of the Ohio male Repub vote. Awesome.
18: Maybe this differs state-to-state, but I remember having the option to vote for a candidate and then the six delegates pledged to that candidate, but I didn't have to choose between delegates on any basis other than which candidate they were for.
21: You got 10% of the Ohio male Repub vote? That is awesome!
she made me feel bad about not supporting her candidate
So, she made you feel shame, did she?
Sir Kraab! Why aren't you at the caucuses, young lady!!
26 to 26!
(with the name replaced, of course)
It's a 2-minute walk from my house. What's your excuse, missy?
It's a 5 minute drive from our house. Are you going to try to be a county delagate?
So, she made you feel shame, did she?
It was more guilt than shame, really. She also noted that Obama was kind of reminiscent of a pompous cousin of hers, an observation that was impossible for me to deny.
29: Nope. I'd do it if they needed people, but I'm sure there will be lots of folks jumping at the opportunity.
Caucusing sounds sorta fun. At least, when you can get in the door. KS caucuses were apparently turning caucusers away by the thousands.
does anyone find the link for the msnbc news coverage? all i can find are prerecorded clips, and my tv is fading in and out.
Brattleboro, VT has voted to indict, arrest, & extradite Bush and Cheney.
Because the polls in Sandusky County will remain open later due to a court order, no Ohio county board of elections may report results until after 9:00 p.m. this evening. Please check this web site again after 9:00 p.m.
I assume this is on the news, I'm getting it from Ohio Sec. State's site.
KS caucuses were apparently turning caucusers away by the thousands.
The TX caucus is weird. You sign in with your name & candidate, and then you can leave right away. (If your candidate doesn't get enough caucusers for a delegate, you can move to a different candidate after everyone signs in.)
To caucus, to caucus, to caucus I go!
Keith Olbermann just reminded me that this primary season was supposed to be "condensed and super-fast."
38. yeah it was funny. all the states that moved up to get attention either got ignored (flmi) or thin spread attention in teh supertues blitz.
From the Caucasus, they say Medvedev won.
Resolved: Obama's campaign song should be "I want Barack", to the tune of Twisted Sister's "I want to rock."
Weird. I just reloaded the CNN results, and they had the following for Texas primaries:
Obama - 459,430 votes
Clinton - 348,141 votes
Precincts - 1% reporting
Now, maybe Texas suddenly has 80,000,000 Democrats, in which case we really should declare a special census and redistrict, or maybe someone's finally rigging the elections in a way I like and just being kind of incompetent at it.
42: Kos is saying that those totals include the early voting numbers.
41: Surely "for those who vote Barack, we salute you."
Fox News is hinting that they'll have a Texas result when the polls close at 9 ET. "We'll be able to tell you something," Brit Hume says.
HRC is calling an emergency press conference. Her lawyers are claiming the caucuses are irregular, etc., with illegally obtained caucus packets. Etc. Fun!
I'm sure illegally obtained caucus packets CAN be fun, when deployed correctly.
In November/December, I was ready to resign myself to Hillary. Then it got to the point where Obama had a realistic shot -- then to the point where it would be heartbreaking if he didn't get it -- then to the point (presently) where it would be rage-inducing if Hillary somehow snuck in. I have a friend, for example, who said that if Hillary got it through her clever machinations, he would go completely nihilist and vote for McCain (presumably out of a desire to destroy the country). I have weird friends.
49: Yes. You know Obama. They are very tiny ziplock caucus packets.
For those about Barack, we salute you! Too easy.
Caucus Pockets, the new microwaveable hot snack. They're democra-licious!
Bah. That prick Hume just called Texas and Rhode Island for McCain - and that's the results he promised.
Dr. Paisley transates comment 1 from lolcats to English.
51: And yet, the only thing I fear more than the rage I'll have if Obama isn't our president next year is if he is, but he lets me down. Clinton and McCain are both sure-fire AWB down-letters. It's not that he'll break my heart. We'll just grow inevitably colder to one another, and someday I'll point to him and say, "You know that man? I used to love him. Now I feel nothing."
Okay, fine, that's still way better than any other negative scenario.
The Clinton campaign is accusing Obamabots of disenfranchising voters in Texas.
Barack out with your cock out!
Presidents are all, all, all down-letters. I think it's important to face that as early as one can.
Everyone will let me down. I have come to terms to this.
It will, however, be hard to forgive HRC for saying that, like herself, McCain would bring a lifetime of experience to the office, but BHO would only bring a speech. I am going to resent seeing that in a McCain ad.
And yet, the only thing I fear more than the rage I'll have if Obama isn't our president next year is if he is, but he lets me down.
Hmmm, no I'm pretty much on board with a war-monger for president being worse.
I hope the democrats run an anti-McCain advert starting with this line: The "Smeagle" seeking his "Precious."
Awesome news! Bush is about to endorse McCain. Maybe they'll have another great big man hug.
Huckabee drops out of the race! Shocking!
Rhode Island for Hillary. The streak ends at 12.
Meanwhile, mrh has totally let the Obama camp down.
I think Russert's head is going to fall off his body and break someone's leg.
The Clinton campaign is accusing Obamabots of disenfranchising voters in Texas.
A friend in Houston (Humble, actually) says the opposite's happening, that Clinton supporters are keeping Obama's people from entering the caucuses. I quote:
The "organizers" were asking people who they supported in the lobby. They told the Clinton supporters to line up on the left and Obama's people on the right. They said a lot of people were already in there and they wanted to make this orderly, so Obama's supporters were going to enter through the doors on the right, Hillary's on the doors to the left. They came out and told us to come in, and so we walked to the right but the doors were locked. We banged on them but nothing happened. So we went back to the lobby and tried to go in through the doors on the left but they were locked too. We banged more, and someone on the other side told us to be quiet because they're caucusing in there. I don't want to say it was deliberate, since we were the second wave and there were Obama folks in there already, but it sure seemed deliberate on the part of the "organizers." I've got calls in to the local media and Party headquarters. We'll see what comes happens [sic].
Sorry for the long quotation, but to be honest, this pisses me off.
Are there a bunch of really heavy Obama districts in Ohio which haven't reported yet? Because otherwise, it sure looks like they should call it, and I should start drinking.
Well, I know that Cuyahoga County stayed open late. (That's the county with Cleveland in it.)
Moronic Russert was baffled about how one says "mano a mano" if one is talking about a woman.
The rest of OH wasn't even supposed to start reporting until Cuyahoga closed at 9. A lot of the early results don't seem right.
Also, as RFTS and Snarkout (and p/h oudemia) will attest the weather here is pure hell. It took me an hour to get home from the office (normally a 20 minute commute by car). That has to do a number on turnout, and low turnout always is bad for my candidate, whoever my candidate is in whatever the election.
Yes, holy crap, it's dreadful out. On my walk home, I was freezing-rained on: it was raining, and then the rain turned to slush, and but the time I got home the sleeves of my coat were actually completely encased in ice. Unprecedented in my experience!
SHould I start drinking as if I know classes at Last Chance Community College will be canceled tomorrow?
(My larger child is asleep, the smaller one is persistently awake.)
how one says "mano a mano" if one is talking about a woman.
Are you joking? (I'm not watching.) Was he saying that for effect, or does he not know that "mano" means "hand"?
84: Hee!
Why are they still saying Ohio is too close to call, when HRC is up now by 20? That has to mean that neither Cincinnati nor Cleveland has reported.
85: Truthfully, I could not tell. He stumbled and started to sputter and then said "womano?" and then laughed. He could have been joking, but it did not seem so.
It's true, Witt. He said "Mano a Womano".
ohio is like missouri. poor urban areas that have creaky voting systems report late.
I doubt very strongly that I will be having an ice day tomorrow, but with a more commuter-filled campus, your odds may be better.
Everyone here still committed to Social Security and Medicare?
86: That's true, according to CNN's map. Columbus (Franklin County) is 54% for Obama with 11% reporting.
McCain love, love, loves the teleprompter.
85: I didn't get that for a surprisingly long time. Oh, if I'd thought "What's the Spanish for 'man'?" I'd have figured it out, but I never did. I wouldn't be surprised if he were honestly confused.
86: Sandusky and Cuyahoga counties are still open.
mccain is trying for the doting grandpa look
35
Brattleboro, VT has voted to indict, arrest, & extradite Bush and Cheney.
The thing is, Vermont's primaries are held on town meeting day. In most towns, anyone can get anything on the agenda for the town meeting if they have a petition signed by five percent of the town's voters. Last year, Lincoln voted for a resolution asking for more thorough investigations into who was really behind 9/11. That town has about 500 registered voters. 5 percent of that isn't too hard to get.
To be fair, though, Brattleboro's much larger than that, so this is a bit surprising. Also, a lawyer might know better than I -- why indict, arrest and extradite instead of impeachment?
creaky voting systems
I'm new to the area, but I'm pretty sure that should be incompetent election bureaucracies that are intentionally hobbled by people who stand to gain from disenfranchising urban areas.
87, 88: Thanks. That cracks me up. I don't think it's fair to expect people to know every little bit of multi-lingual trivia, but that's a silly one to say on national TV. (Except if you were planning on being a jerk about her being a woman, and didn't mind if it sounded stupid, I guess.)
(I got really cross in law school once, with a professor who kept on giggling about Scalia making ad feminam attacks on O'Connor. The joke doesn't make sense if you know the Latin, and it's not worth bothering with in any case.)
ABC says BHO wins Texas, loses Ohio massively, close in RI.
Just a commenter over at MY's, so grain of salt, but Obama is winning with crossover Republican votes. What Ned said at #8.
Hilzoy and MY (I don't read Klein anymore) are worried about HRC staying in the race and "damaging the Democratic Party" but don't seem to worry about the consequences of Obama bringing to the Party gain a sizable wingnut minority of former Republicans. Obama destroying the Party in order to save it or something.
A major faction in the Democratic Party of ex-Republicans who want to end the war and cut taxes, want health care but hate unions, will destroy it. Obama wants those people and will remember who gave him the nomination.
I will change my registration.
I will change my registration.
Think this will be a fucking promise you can keep?
91:I am, but I am not sure about the rest here. Deals have to made ya know. And whatever Obaaammmaaa thinks best.
On McCain's speech: Criticizing the decision to invade Iraq is "re-litigating decisions of the past"? When were they litigated in the first place? On the other hand, if you really do oppose re-litigating decisions of the past, thanks for agreeing to instruct your solicitor general to never attack a precedent.
I'm really pissed at Ohio right now. But happy that the area my parents looks Obamaish.
I'm giving my screwed-up-his-registration brother such hell tomorrow.
92: Yes the margins in relatively well-counted SE Ohio (Appalachian) are pretty amazing high 60s to high 70s for the Hill. (And guess which county Ohio University is located in.)
90: of course, my campus is 100% commuter. OTOH I quizzed my logic class the other day on exactly what inferences are licensed by the statement "Classes are only canceled when they don't need to be."
105: It was a joke, bob, based on the exit breakdown by age.
104:If I can change to Independent or Libertarian. Or hell, maybe Socialist Workers are available.
84, 98: It's "Barack, a tie? I deny! El Ohio'll elect anyone." Get it right people.
79: That make me choke on my beer. Please tell me, did he suggest "mano a womano"?
110:Since I believe President Obama will radically test SS & Medicare, forcing a choice between himself and those programs, I don't find the joke at all funny.
Fuck. Way pwned. Ignorant dork.
Ok, I'm pessimistic about Ohio now. Mostly, I'm worried that the extended primary battle will hurt us in the general election.
Back from caucusing. It seemed about 3:1 in favor of Obama.
117: Were you optimistic at some point? And if so, why? Also: is there any good news itonight, other than Bob's impending party switch? Actually, is there any news at all?
doesn't that give clinton a good chance to pick up an extra delegate in that SE district
118: Oh, that's good news. Thanks. I've been in a state of dread all day.
Mildly fun article this morning about the 1924 Democratic convention. Perhaps overdetermining, but it suggests that year is a reason Democrats shy away hard from drawn-out battles.
At the 1932 convention, the party leaders started to panic after three ballots and McAdoo got up and urged the convention to avoid "another disastrous contest like that of 1924." FDR's people offered the vice presidency to anybody who controlled enough votes to break the deadlock. John Nance Garner took the deal, delivered the Texas delegation and ended up vice president, a job he later reportedly described as "not worth a bucket of warm spit."
I was optimistic about ohio up until a wekk ago, just based on Missour and wisconsin. then clinton reversed her losses there
Actually, is there any news at all?
Gary Gygax ascended to the Astral Plane.
"Nance" of course being the "Hussein" of 1924, as politically-unfavorable middle names go.
117-It doesn't matter who wins Ohio because the delegate split will about the same, regardless. And that doesn't matter because Hillary will move on no matter what. And that doesn't matter because Hillary will lose. Whether Hillary hurts Obama by going negative is yet to be seen, but Ohio is irrelevant to that.
125: And everyone uses that middle name when talking about him, even to this day. Hmm.
I wish someone would write A Very Short Introduction to the American Primary/Caucus/Primary + Caucus System. I'm a little bit confused. Why does Texas have both a primary and a caucus, for example?
More broadly, in terms of accusations of "disenfranchising voters," what (if anything) is the legal/constitutional status of these primaries/caucuses? What, if any, rights do voters have? Could a political party just decide to choose a candidate by lottery, for example, or using some other method that didn't involve voters at all?
A major faction in the Democratic Party of ex-Republicans who want to end the war and cut taxes, want health care but hate unions, will destroy it. Obama wants those people and will remember who gave him the nomination.
This is sort of funny, because I've heard lots of complaints about Republicans voting for Hillary, not Obama. There's evidence on both sides, really. Republicans for Obama: Andrew Sullivan and his correspondents. Republicans for Clinton: Rush Limbaugh.
128: IIRC, 2/3 of the Texas delegates are apportioned by the primary; then, all who voted in the primary are eligible to participate in the caucuses, which determine the remaining 1/3 of the vote. Why they do things this way, I ascribe to the fact that it's Texas and they're ipso facto difficult people to deal with.
Why would one imagine that if Republicans are trying to determine the Democratic candidate, they want to make it the candidate who is more likely to beat the Republicans?
In a more idealistic age, the theory was probably that people would vote for a good candidate and trust that both parties had the good of the nation at heart.
The "mano a mano" thing is just mortifying. Russert should die of shame. But of course he won't.
I will change my registration.
Honestly, become a Green. That way you get the most annoyance value for your effort--especially on the internet.
Two weeks ago, I expected Clinton to sweep Texas and Ohio. That both states are still competitive tonight isn't a good thing for here.
Could a political party just decide to choose a candidate by lottery, for example, or using some other method that didn't involve voters at all?
I'm almost certain that the answer to this is "yes." The party can pick its candidate any way it pleases.
What, if any, rights do voters have?
Political parties aren't part of the constitution, so constitutional rights, per se, don't exist. Maybe statutory rights - non-discrimination? - could be enforced if, say, a political party decided to bar blacks or women.
And I think the Obama camp has really underplayed the "it's over" argument. Maybe they didn't want to take a chance that Clinton really would win Texas and Ohio by 15, but Obama himself should have said, just once, that she can't catch him in delegates. They should have been raising expectation for Clinton, not letting her get into a position where squeaking out a win would let her act triumphant.
That both states are still competitive tonight isn't a good thing for her.
Exactly. She needs large margins tonight to stay competitive, and that appears to be off the table. There's still the Hail Mary of superdelegates, but that's not likely either. As long as O's campaign keeps doing the work, I think the race is his to lose.
asl in 126 nails the big picture precisely.
Mary Catherine, you might find Scalia's opinion in this 2000 case worthwhile. Or Stevens' dussent, if you prefer.
what (if anything) is the legal/constitutional status of these primaries/caucuses?
Primaries and caucuses are party events, not elections, so they are not subject to the usual voter protections/equal protection requirements. The national parties vest the power to decide how to allocate delegates to the state parties, within certain rules. And state parties set the rules for how those events will be conducted. In Virginia, the Republican party will select its Senate candidate by a convention of about a thousand party activists, not by caucus or primary. You must be invited to participate.
If the primaries/caucuses were actually elections, they would clearly be unconstitutional. The whole delegate thing violates the one person/one vote principle, and evening caucuses clearly have a disparate impact on certain protected minority groups. (Minorities are more likely to work unusual hours and are unable to participate.)
Short version: these are party events, and so they're played by party rules. Which are wacky.
Two weeks ago, I expected Clinton to sweep Texas and Ohio. That both states are still competitive tonight isn't a good thing for here.
They are? Texas is a nailbiter; it looks like 49 percent for each of them at the moment with 22 percent reporting. But Ohio, at 10:40 p.m., with half the state reporting, has Clinton with 57 percent and Obama with 41. That's just a couple percentage points from Rhode Island, which was called hours ago.
134: Well, but it seems pretty clear that, frex, there could arise such a thing as a Fascist Party, and they could run in elections if they got enough funding or whatever, and it would be sort of beside the point to bother with elections to decide who their fascist candidate would be. In the election, he'd have to be elected by the electoral college just like anyone, but the party could just name someone.
Obviously, it would just be outright hypocritical to have a "Democratic" party or a "Republican" party that doesn't bother to ask its members whom they support.
Am I just totally misreading this? That voting in primaries is a privilege granted by the state and national organizations of the parties, according to their own professed political values?
God, I'm slow tonight. 139 is smarter and better-informed than 141. I don't preview while prophylactically drinking against my future disappointment.
All over, people changin' their votes, along with their overcoats. Ha! They think it's funny: Turning rebellion into money.
BTW, even Utah went for Obama by double digits. Texas and Ohio can suck it.
143: Who will give us the wealth distribution, minneapolitan? Who, I ask?
there is private association 1st amendment rights for parties.
obama has said something like "the math is very improbable for hillary" or something like that
what scary ethnicity does "nance" refer to? sounds english to me.
139: The whole delegate thing violates the one person/one vote principle,
Wha? 'S bit like the Senate then, innit?
Who knew that Rhode Island was so full of hatred? Very uncool. Vermont should declare war on them.
Texans! When do your caucus results start rolling in?
145: White youth, black youth, better find another solution.
what scary ethnicity does "nance" refer to? sounds english to me.
The ethnicity of gay gay sissy gay.
146: what scary ethnicity does "nance" refer to?
Awright, let's try this again:
146: what scary ethnicity does "nance" refer to?
Texian.
I wouldn't trust 'em as far as I could throw 'em.
The party can pick its candidate any way it pleases.
Indeed. The "smoke-filled room" method was very popular for many decades.
How are Ohio's delegates awarded? By congressional district?
I think his is the answer on how the Buckeye State hands out delegates:
Sorry, I should have said the accursed Buckeye State, site of my misspent youth and current home of racist warmongers. Or something.
clniton is doing well all over. athens county flipped to her, she ran up the numbers in yongstown, and leading in cuyahogo so far
CNN and NYTimes calling OH for Clinton. No real surprise there.
CNN calls Ohio for Hillary.
yoyo, how is it that I am able to comment more coherently than you, despite the fact that I had one martini and four mai tais in two an a half hours tonight?
They say Cuyahoga won't be counted until 430 am? Can they call it without final Cuyahoga results?
hope springs eternal,
Obviously, it would just be outright hypocritical to have a "Democratic" party or a "Republican" party that doesn't bother to ask its members whom they support.
I dunno -- I mean, the Democrats don't hold a party-wide vote for the position of Minority/Majority Leaders, do they?
Is that outright hypocritical?
OT: Is there a difference between green beans and haricots verts? Because in French class years ago there didn't seem to be, but maybe I was misinformed.
When you're speaking English, haricots verts generally refers to delicate, thin, French-breed green beans.
Mostly, I'm worried that the extended primary battle will hurt us in the general election.
I'm still irrationally optimistic that Obama will ultimately win (as the delegate math suggests) and that the extended primary campaign will be good for the Democratic party and Obama.
I think an extended primary battle is in itself good because it generates news, and free press coverage. I though Kerry was really hurt by the long dull stretch leading up to the convention.
I also think that none of Clinton's attacks, so far, do much of anything to weaken Obama's position for the general. I think there is a certain inoculatory value to some of the attacks -- I believe that the 3 AM ad, and the subsequent debate gives Obama a great opportunity to make the case that he passes the foreign policy/experience threshold, and to practice those arguments. I also think that, for me, seeing the Obama campaign tested by attacks makes me much more confident in my support of him, and my faith in him and the campaign. Finally, I think the extended primary helps undercut the "obama-cult" meme for the general. First of all it just gives it time to play itself out, secondly, it makes it obvious that voters took a long look at him and liked what they saw.
165: If someone's calling for haricots verts, I usually assume they mean very young, thin, whole, dark green beans, as opposed to the big fatties we ate popped in 2" segments when I was a kid.
165: White people like haricot verts.
(Seriously, I tend to think of green beans as fatter, less stringy? Maybe a different variety of the same species. Possibly just my imagination.)
Meanwhile, mrh has totally let the Obama camp down.
I did my part! My household accounts for two Obama votes, although, damn, looks like we were the only ones.
I just came back from a moderately depressing "Obama primary party" at Lupo's... the What Cheer Brigade played! That was fun, at least.
People who say "haricots verts" but otherwise speak english are referring to a thinner, pricier sort of green bean.
It's sort of like how gelato is Italian for ice cream, or means "ice cream in the Italian style".
166: GODDAMN IT STOP PWNING ME EVERYONE.
Also, I am drunk, and appear to have beer on my glasses. Uncool!
"Something I've always wondered, Peter -- how did you manage to keep Nancy for so long?"
"Er... I've never been nancy, John."
I'm taking up Snark's role as infuriating pwner for the evening, I perceive.
Thanks, Ari. This site spells it out pretty well. At 10:20 pm, with Hillary leading 57-41, they have the delagate split 75-52.
Mary Catherine, parties can do a lot of things in a primary, but not anything. See the so-called White Primary Cases (a trilogy of cases about the Texas Democratic party trying to stop black people from voting in their primary). The first one is Nixon v. Herndon, the most interesting one is Smith v. Allwright.
167 is smart and reasonable. But because it's about the Democratic Party it can't be those two things and also right.
So someone around these parts (Nápi, I think?) has advocated giving Florida back to Spain. Can we give Ohio to Canada?
180: I'd rather be right than President. Hopefully the same does not go for Obama.
181: Please, please take us first!
161: well i do stick too closely to realiy
People who say "haricots verts" but otherwise speak english are referring to a thinner, pricier sort of green bean. un peu precieux.
178: I have reasonably good information from a Democratic activist and Hillary partisan working in Cuyahoga County that the number listed there will narrow before night's end. The HRC camp's (probably optimistic) projection, I'm told, is that they pick up 12-17 delegates. I'm afraid that I don't know if that's overall, though, or just in Ohio. I think the latter but really can't say for sure. And of course they might be wrong.
FUCKING TAGS. Please imagine "referring to . . . green bean" as being struck out.
Thank you.
I see Hillary has continued Bill's tradition of using the shittiest campaign music imaginable.
People who say "haricots verts" voted for Barack Obama.
188: Why doesn't anyone use Serge Gainsbourg as their campaign theme? I would definitely vote for anyone who did that.
190: Canada can have you, Frenchie. I bet you say haricots verts.
Why did Hillary just say that Ohio was right to pick George W. Bush for President?
i jyust her people saying 'yes she will' for hillary
doesn't that seem very cult of personality
By which I mean, she said "Ohio knows how to pick a President."
The crowd is changing "yes she can". Isn't that, like, plagiarism?
I'm surprised at all the anti-Hillary sentiment here. I thought most people were like me, alternating between being convinced that one or the other is the more trustworthy, or that one or the other is the more electable.
The true feelings come out during these periods of stress and (relatively) intense emotion.
192: She was referring, I think, to the idea that whoever wins Ohio usually wins?
Ha! "Bonnie and Clyde" is playing on our stereo right now.
Why did Hillary just say that Ohio was right to pick George W. Bush for President?
Because if they hadn't, John Kerry would be running for reelection right now with John Edwards as his veep, and Clinton would never get a chance to wreck the party herself?
I'm surprised at all the anti-Hillary sentiment here.
You. Are. Completely. Joking.
I thought most people were like me, alternating between being convinced that one or the other is the more trustworthy, or that one or the other is the more electable.
Huh, what gave you that idea? I'd thought that anti-HRC sentiments had gotten a good thorough airing in these parts.
Thank god you're here, Stras. Please make me laugh through the tears. Please. Ugh, she just did the 3 am thing. I'm in hell.
190: if someone used "Poupee de cire, poupee de son" as a campaign theme, I would wonder who is pulling the strings.
Ugh, she just did the 3 am thing.
Oh, not REALLY. Eugh.
191: Canada can have you, Frenchie.
Oh whatever. I can't even pronounce "Noilly Prat", which is really not that much of a disability, since I like my martinis in the "English" fashion described by Bunuel, where a beam of sunlight is allowed to pass momentarily through the bottle of vermouth before striking the gin.
Serge Gainsbourg was a citizen of the world, I'll have you know!
200: I'm surprised that people are acting as if anti-Hillaryism is as much the default condition as anti-McCainism.
I'm not in as bad a mood as I should be; I've apparently finally trained myself not to put any stock in early exit polls.
How can anyone not utterly despise the way she still talks about the Iraq vote?
I'm surprised at all the anti-Hillary sentiment here.
I'm also not a huge fan of Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, the Nelson twins, and gonorrhea (D-MD).
I like Fred Frith's cover of Melody Nelson.
Okay, she's now talking about a woman who sent her $10, a woman who has two young daughters, and how they chant and cheer for Hillary. She should stick with that line. Because it works on me.
I'm surprised at all the anti-Hillary sentiment here.
I think we're mostly Democrats here.
This is actually a reasonably well written speech. But the delivery is just awful. She's stepping all over her own applause lines. And she has no sense of cadence. Well, at least it's over.
Ned, you've obviously missed the political threads here.
197: I know what she meant (that Ohio counts for more than just however many delegates she wins there), but if Ohio knows how to choose a President, which is what she said, it's hard to argue that their previous choice of President was a massive, massive error.
Okay, she's now talking about a woman who sent her $10, a woman who has two young daughters, and how they chant and cheer for Hillary. She should stick with that line. Because it works on me.
Sucker.
Florida to Spain, yes. But Ohio is reformable, surely.
212: Well, her policy proposals are basically exactly as liberal as Obama's. The difference is all in track record, trust, etc.
I should rephrase "anti-Hillary sentiment" as "anti-mcmanus backlash".
216: I really am. But that idea, that little girls will grow up in a nation where a woman can be the Democratic nominee (or maybe the president), means something to me. Which, I know, means that I'm a sucker.
Have I mentioned that I will punch Tim Russert in the face if I ever happen upon him on the street? Because I will. Punch him in the face.
I think you have mentioned that, Ari.
i sorta understand thinking hillary is the white ethnic candidate, but thinking of her as a 'vicotry for women' just seems ridiculous.
When do we get to start peeing on GWB's stuff? Do we have to wait for him to die?
The difference is all in track record, trust, etc.
Yep.
But that idea, that little girls will grow up in a nation where a woman can be the Democratic nominee (or maybe the president), means something to me.
Those little girls are going love being drafted even more.
wow, no one lives in the Texas panhandle.
Well, her policy proposals are basically exactly as liberal as Obama's.
Except for the never leaving Iraq thing.
Ari, if you punch Tim Russert in the face, I promise that in return Teo will go to grad school in history.
But that idea, that little girls will grow up in a nation where a woman can be the Democratic nominee (or maybe the president)
... as long as they're married to a previous president.
Only in America! Land of opportunity! Could a poor boy like me grow up and maybe be President!
228 is a powerful argument for gay marriage.
Check out how many counties in Texas reported no votes at all, especially on the Republican side. Some of those counties are overwhelmingly Hispanic and have very few Republicans, but not all of them.
223.2: No, that's when one can stop masturbating, and how I look forward to that day.
Re:Serge Gainsbourg victory songs: I have one in mind for Obama, but it would get the both of us banned, so I'll pretend to keep it to myself.
Okay, it's been a long, long time since I last took Spanish classes. But why is "yes, we can" translated "sí, se puede" instead of "sí, podemos"?
232: I wonder, do they have polling places along some deserted stretch of highway, and, in that whole stretch when people could vote, someone showed up to work the polls, sighed, and went down to the truckstop for lunch? Surely there are polling places, and a few votes?
235: I think it's more that "si, se puede" is translated "yes, we can."
But why is "yes, we can" translated "sí, se puede" instead of "sí, podemos"?
It's an idiom. It literally means something more like "yes, it is possible."
obama looks like he is looking out at those cattle and is about ready to tear some meat off of one as he holds it donw
Chicks dig historians, teo.
Evidence?
235: It's like "Se habla español" instead of "Hablamos español."
235: Sí se puede is a pre-existing slogan. Close-enough-for-funk sort of situation, basically.
wow, no one lives in the Texas panhandle.
But Amarillo stil gets a little dot on every map of the US, by virtue of being the only vaguely-city-like thing in what would otherwise be an big unsightly gap on the map.
I group it with Caribou, Maine; Salina, Kansas; Dothan, Alabama; and other places with which it no doubt has a lot in common.
By the way, thanks for the green bean info, everybody. Sounds like a bit of a scam, but if the powers that be have decided to distinguish thin varieties from fat ones by using the French term, I suppose it can't be helped.
243 was multi-pwned, but I had a link!
235/239: Right. It's kind of like "se habla Ingles" or "se habla Espanol": the third-person, rather than second, implies a more impersonal sense of collective, whereas in English "we" can be used either as the impersonal collective or as, literally, us two people (you and me, apo, baby).
242, cont'd, in which case "Hablamos español" could mean something more like "We're speaking Spanish."
It's like, an idiomatic translation, or something.
Of course the first woman to be President would be a victory for women.
I thought most people were like me, alternating between being convinced that one or the other is the more trustworthy, or that one or the other is the more electable.
I do believe that. I am just not convinced that one of those is named "Clinton."
Though, if Clinton chose "Désenchantée" for a campaign song I might look more favorably on her.
251: Margaret Thatcher: feminist.
239: Spanish doesn't have modal verbs, like English "do," "have," and "can," that can stand in for an entire verb phrase. The Spanish equivalent of "Yes, we can" would be "Si, lo podemos hacer," which is a mouthful.
Ah, 243 explains it.
"Sí se puede (Spanish for 'Yes, It can be done!' or 'Yes we can!') is the motto of the United Farm Workers. In 1972, during Cesar Chavez's 25 day fast in Phoenix, Arizona, he and UFW's co-founder, Dolores Huerta came up with the slogan. The phrase has been widely adopted by other labor unions and civil rights organizations and drew widespread political and media attention as a rallying cry during the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests."
I wonder, do they have polling places along some deserted stretch of highway, and, in that whole stretch when people could vote, someone showed up to work the polls, sighed, and went down to the truckstop for lunch? Surely there are polling places, and a few votes?
It doesn't look like there are any counties that didn't report any votes at all, just a bunch that only reported votes for one side or the other. Since the polling places are presumably the same for both parties, that probably just means that only people from one party bothered to vote. Pretty plausible, actually, since the Republican primary is a done deal and most of the counties in question are very sparsely populated.
The weirdest one is Loving County. No Republican votes, and neither Obama nor Clinton won on the Democratic side. I wonder what happened there.
I read 251 in this resigned, spiteful tone, like:
Of course the first woman to be President would be a victory for women. Sheesh.
It was funny.
The weirdest one is Loving County. No Republican votes, and neither Obama nor Clinton won on the Democratic side. I wonder what happened there.
Loving, maybe.
I just got back from the county convention. Al Franken's wife and daughter were both there, along with his two competitors in person (Ciresi and Nelson-Pallmeyer.)
Franken is the centrist around here. He's not that bad, but I like either of the other two guys better. We had a choice between a centrist national Democrat (Franken), a leftish Minnesota Democrat, and a perfectly wonderful Kucinich Democrat. I actually like all of them fine and wish that we could export candidates to other states.
253 just because the costs of something exceed the benefits it doesn't mean the benefits don't exist.
Yes, It can be done!
Oh fuck! Right! Because the "se" there makes it passive. Yes, it can be done (by someone, presumably us). Spanish is spoken here (by someone, presumably us). Not idiomatic. Perfectly grammatical passive voice.
Has any British political party been led by a woman at any time, other than Thatcher?
Amarillo's actually a pretty sizable place, with about 175,000 people. Not huge, but respectable, especially since the surrounding area is, indeed, virtually empty.
I actually like all of them fine and wish that we could export candidates to other states.
Maybe Franken should challenge Chuck Schumer in the primary next time.
255: Oh. I kinda thought people knew that.
So....still no caucus results flowing in? Any idea why?
The thing I like about Obama is that he goes with perfectly obvious themes that no other Democrat would touch.
Obama spent a big chunk of tonight's speech talking about how other countries view the United States. Democrats typically have run away from the idea that we should care about how others in the world think of us. Obama is not only sensible about this, he makes it sound politically viable.
Speaking of Thatcher, my mom and I had dinner with my Navajo cousin tonight and he said he voted for HRC because he wanted to see a female president. He explicitly made the Thatcher comparison.
265: Not everyone learned about the United Farm Workers in history class.
Yes. Margaret Thatcher being elected Prime Minister was a victory for feminism.
What Thatcher did as Prime Minister was not particularly feminist, and kinda evil, but the fact that a woman could be the head of the British Government was a victory for feminism.
If I stamp my feet and throw an adorable tantrum, can primary season either be over, or at least blanketed with a nonstop barrage of brain-erasing Muzak, such that I have no memory of anything political happening between now and (oh, say) September? This is so excruciating. It's making me forget the Red Sox ever won the world series.
"Si, podemos" invites a "pero...". Like if you asked a family whether they could do jumping jacks for an hour. Also, the reflexive is semi-universal, like, "Can a man who loves pancakes give them up for the love of a vegan woman?" "Si, se puede". It's the "Si," clause that makes all the difference.
Se puede is se impersonal, and not se pasivo. It's only passive if the object is specified.
Not idiomatic. Perfectly grammatical passive voice.
"idiomatic" ≠ "ungrammatical"
I kinda thought people knew that.
Yeah, me too.
Every speech that Obama gives from this point forward needs to mention that Hillary can't catch him in pledged delegates. Also, supposedly he's keeping his February fundraising figure in his pocket, along with a raft of superdelegates who'll declare for him late this week, to counter anything that happens tonight.
And finally, another friend, this time in the Obama camp, insists that he's going to come out of tonight with more delegates than Hillary. Because Ohio will tighten as we head to morning. Texas will be something like a wash, though he should come out ahead. Rhode Island looks bad but won't be when it comes to delegates. And Obama comes out of Vermont with quite a few delegates (seven?).
If I stamp my feet and throw an adorable tantrum, can primary season either be over, or at least blanketed with a nonstop barrage of brain-erasing Muzak, such that I have no memory of anything political happening between now and (oh, say) September?
You could try not watching TV or reading blogs.
260: Right, but that makes that "victory for women" pretty damn small. The first woman/black/latino/etc. president is a symbolic victory, and symbolic victories are important, but they're not as important as actual victories. A woman president is no good to women if she's Libby Dole; a black president is no good to blacks if he's Alan Keyes. It seems to me that in general, the importance of the "First Blank Ever" tends to be overstated. And yes, this is coming from a white guy who can't possibly feel as emotionally stirred as a woman or an African-American by this kind of symbolic victory, but still, when it all comes down to it, inspiration has a certain value and actual policy has another.
Displeased by tonight's results, I think I'll watch Funny Games (1997). With a title like that, how could it fail to elevate my mood.
269: I realize that. Actually, I didn't learn it there either.
274: I know what idiomatic means. I'm just saying, it's not an idiom. It's just a grammatical construct.
279: Also, most people don't know anything about history except what they learned in history class.
Why does Texas have both a primary and a caucus, for example?
The benign theory is that it gets people involved with the party. Caucuses not only elect delegates (which in turn gets those people more involved), but are where you vote on precinct chairs, the party platform, etc. Whether that's the Real Story, I don't know.
262: Um, do you mean the Liberals (LibDems), Labour and the Tories, or will you take the Women's Suffrage parties/other left/radical groups?
I think that the first Duchess of Marlborough was something important in the Whigs, if we're looking for early female leaders, but I'm not sure at all.
I'm just saying, it's not an idiom. It's just a grammatical construct.
And I'm just saying that it's a grammatical construct that can't be translated literally into English, therefore the translation is idiomatic.
256: a dozen friends conspired to become the only county in America to vote for Mike Gravel? Or Heywood Jablome?
Fuck. I keep doing this to myself. Obama's supposed to lose big with two or three weeks left, then it narrows and I feel content, given the delegate math, then we get a couple of screwy polls and I decide to believe that Obama's going to win just out of hope, and then my hopes are dashed when he outperforms reasonable expectations and still loses. Gawddammit.
Earlier today, my 6-year old son asked me, "Why hasn't there been a woman President?" Good question, kiddo, and how much time do we have before I give you the answer?
Interesting that he asked that question, though.
286: Could be. There were 22 votes total, out of a county population of 67.
symbolic victories are important, but they're not as important as actual victories.
Yeah, well, it'll be a cold fucking day in hell when an actual progressive feminist runs for president of the US, Stras. (And in point of fact, from the pov of feminism, Clinton *would* be an actual victory.)
It seems to me that in general, the importance of the "First Blank Ever" tends to be overstated.
Here's betting you don't fall into any relevant category. And, hell, if it's not HRC, it might be a Republican.
And, hell, if it's not HRC, it might be a Republican.
I would guess this is actually pretty likely. Again, Thatcher.
a raft of superdelegates who'll declare for him late this week, to counter anything that happens tonight.
I read that today, too. In the WaPo maybe? Anyway, seems like a long shot for Clinton at this point.
By the way, thanks for the green bean info, everybody. Sounds like a bit of a scam, but if the powers that be have decided to distinguish thin varieties from fat ones by using the French term, I suppose it can't be helped.
No, no, no. Haricots verts really are different. And delicious! I don't mind paying a little more for them. And sounding pretentious when I ask the produce stockers, "Where will I find the, how you say, haricots verts?"
Anyway, seems like a long shot for Clinton at this point.
From your lips....
277, I agree with everything you say, yoyo just said something absurd in 222 and I responded by disagreeing with that absurd claim.
Deaf Smith County appears to have voted overwhelmingly for Sen. Clinton. Noted without comment.
Axelrod is now hammering home the delegate issue. Good for him. And good for him for not being Mark Penn or Terry McAuliffe. On the other hand, Mathews and Russert are talking about the race going all the way to the convention as though that's a foregone conclusion. My head is going to explode.
Deep breaths, Ari. Paper bag, if necessary.
A woman president is no good to women if she's Libby Dole; a black president is no good to blacks if he's Alan Keyes.
Absolutely true, but the CW, which I generally agree with on this point, is that the first of either of these is likely to be conservative or center right. I thought the barrier-breakers were going to be people like Dole and Powell. I'm surprised and happy that we've got center-left instead.
inspiration has a certain value and actual policy has another
Which is why I supported Edwards despite his white guyness. But it's a little more than inspiration; it does help to open doors. "I guess a woman really can be commander-in-chief. Why not vote for Jan Schakowsky (sp) this time?"
On preview, semi-pwned.
A woman president is no good to women if she's Libby Dole; a black president is no good to blacks if he's Alan Keyes.
Disagreed, b/c of what Kraabb says: opening doors does good. It's just long-term, rather than short-term, good. At some point, someone is going to have to be "first."
Thanks, B. What are your thoughts on red wine? Or scotch? And what about if I put the bottle in a paper bag? Twofer?
Clinton gets to have her night tonight, but she didn't do what she needed to do. "Winning" a two-minute stretch of the fourth quarter by four points doesn't help much when you were down by 30 at the end of the third.
I kinda thought people knew that.
Yeah, me too.
Hispanics are a pretty recent phenomenon here.
Deaf Smith County appears to have voted overwhelmingly for Sen. Clinton.
It's pronounced "Deef," btw.
In other news, Clinton seems to have completed her sweep of counties named after Jefferson Davis.
Hispanics are a pretty recent phenomenon here.
But a major one, from what I hear.
Fastest growing Latino population in the US, yes.
304: It's all good.
306: Dude! Labor history!
in point of fact, from the pov of feminim, Clinton *would* be an actual victory.
Not sold on this claim. Not unsold, either, but it just seems simplistic. A refusal to elect a female leader strikes me as a symptom of a sexist society rather than a cause.
I've got a cousin in Raleigh. Real conservative, anti-immigrant guy. We're not in close contact with him.
MSNBC's delegate dweeb, Chuck Todd, says that Vermont and Rhode Island are a wash, that Clinton wins 5-9 delegates in Ohio (more likely 5), and that Obama, even if he loses the popular vote, will likely win the delegate count in the Texas primary -- which doesn't even factor in the Texas caucuses. In the end, says Todd, Obama possibly (likely?) comes out ahead tonight. But we likely won't know that before the weekend.
I don't mean in a simplistic sense; I mean (as I've said before) that she really *does* have a pretty good record on a lot of basic women's rights stuff.
It's pronounced "Deef," btw.
Noted. Now I feel like even more of a jerk for making that crap joke attempt.
OT: Continuing the saga of my muscle pain, some advice: the next time you apply Tiger Balm to your upper thigh, first apply a prophylactic layer of underpants. Bad tingle!
Loving County, Texas, is the least populous county in the country - it had only 67 people in 2000. Apparently, with 100% reporting, Obama won 7-5.
291 et al: Loving County is the least populated county in the country (67 residents). I actually spent some time there in a previous life (involved oil wells). It be velly, velly empty. I know it was the furthest west county to vote for George Wallace and the current strange results might be due to some residual effects from a recent effort by Libertarians to take over the county (via Wikipedia):
According to a website for Mr. Pendarvis' movement, their objectives were to "remove oppressive Regulations...and stop enforcement of Laws prohibiting Victimless Acts among Consenting Adults, such as Dueling, Gambling, Incest, Price-Gouging, Cannibalism, and Drug Handling." Additionally, the group sought "to ensure that the Sheriff's Office or the Town Police are never allowed to waste valuable Town resources...to oppress our residents by the investigation or enforcement of violations of Laws that punish Truancy, Drug Trafficking, Prostitution, Obscenity, Organ Trafficking, BumFights, and other Victimless 'Crimes'."
Now I feel like even more of a jerk for making that crap joke attempt.
Don't. At the very least, it gave me a chance to make my Jeff Davis comment, which I've been waiting to make ever since I noticed she won the other ones.
from the pov of feminim
Who is, of course, Eminem's less famous twin sister.
316: Tiger Balm should not be applied to sensitive skin under any circumstances. This is a lesson usually learned in early adolescence, no? Around the time that it becomes clear that cheap incense actually smells really bad. At least that's how it worked for me. Though the incense, because of its bad smell, did cover other odors that might have been a bigger problem.
BumFights, and other Victimless 'Crimes'
Wow.
I remember learning some labor history, but most of it was from between 1890 and 1930.
I never learned about anything more recent than the Korean War in any history class anyway.
319: Accept your destiny, Teo. Grad school awaits. Oh crap, I said I wasn't going to do that again. Sorry.
Caucus results seem to be coming in - Obama is ahead.
the incense, because of its bad smell, did cover other odors that might have been a bigger problem
How much incense does it take to cover the smell of a body in your closet?
Oh crap, I said I wasn't going to do that again. Sorry.
Don't worry, I never believed that for a second.
323 is the cherry on top of my lousy night. So: I'm taking the dog for a long walk and then trying to write a bit before going to sleep. Goodnight.
shit, next time i'm doing coke off of hookers' asses, i shoudl engage in some cannabilism too. any one have any good recipes?
320: Not to mention ratsonim, the mousy one who had a part in Midnight Cowboy.
316: Tiger Balm
Allow me to mention that Dengue Fever's "Tiger Phone Card" is an excellent tune.
shit, next time i'm doing coke off of hookers' asses, i shoudl engage in some cannabilism too. any one have any good recipes?
Just remember to move to Mentone, Texas first. I'm sure the locals will be glad to share some recipes with you. If not, feel free to challenge them to duels.
326: Boxes and boxes. Or cones and cones. And even then, the incense only covered the smell of putrification for a couple of weeks. But by then the flies had become so thick that nobody would come into the room anyway.
And now, off to walk the streets and weep for America.
And now, off to walk the streets and weep for America.
The streets of Mentone?
Allowing bum fighting? Bah. Loving County has nothing on Mexico and Peru. They let kids be matadors and shit.
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSN0447227220080304
And even then, the incense only covered the smell of putrification for a couple of weeks.
You can tell Ari is a n00b 'cause he says "putrification" instead of "putrefaction".
Ugh. The article in 335 has two pages. The second page has one sentence plus credits. Idiots.
My dad's landlady in Madrid used to say that all matadors were gay.
333: And now, off to walk the streets and weep for America.
Fido, Im lost, I said, though I should have been sleeping
Im empty and aching and I sure do know why
Counting the cars as we walked down the darkened streets
They've all come to weep for america
All come to weep for america
All come to weep for america
Ohio now for Clinton at 55%. Heading south, of course.
314: Point taken. I hadn't noticed a gap between C & O on gender-type stuff, but if you say so that's good enough for me.
Everyone:
With all the sturm und drang over the Dem race, isn't it a bit odd nobody's wrestling over VP? I can't imagine O & C together on a ticket, but no one else seems to be campaigning for anything. Are we so sure of defeat in 2012 that no one wants to sully their reputation? Are there opportunists waiting in the wings, waiting for the bucket of piss to get warmer? Please explain.
313 -- That Obama is going to come out ahead in the Texas primary delegate allocation has been pretty sure all along; and I'm not sorry in the least to punish Hispanics, and others, for having voted for GWB.
With Ohio, it's kind of interesting to think that in a 4 delegate district, Hillary has to beat Barack with 62.5% of the vote to get a delegate lead. As of now, she's falling short in the 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 15th districts which are, what do you know, all of the 4 delegate districts. Obama is winning the 11th right now with 65% -- and it's an 8 delegate district, biggest in the state. On the other side, the 17th is a 7 delegate district, and Clinton has about 2/3d of the vote -- say she'll win it 5-2. (Actually, one of you math whizzes ought to tell us what percentage Hillary needs to get 5 out of 7 delegates -- as I think about it, it's probably more than the 65% she's got right now.) The 9, 10, 13, and 14 are 6 delegate districts: Hillary is winning all 4, but only one with more than 54% of the vote.
On that cheery note, I'm going to head for bed, and see if I can dream about the Wyoming caucuses.
[this comment may be restored in the future]
And Ari saw by his outfit that he was a historian
This line should be:
"You see by my outfit that I am a[n] historian too."
342.2: Why would you expect any such wrestling to be carried out in a way that would be apparent to the public?
338: All the M'drid landlords say, every matador is gay
The bulls just let them slip away, out of kindness I suppose
343: Right. These are good reasons why Slate's delegate calculator is cute and fun, but not actually that useful for predicting what's happening on the ground.
Ohio is a bad place. They tried to divvy up the state between 70s style urban decay and 20s style utter hickdom, but Borders-Starbucks-Chilis type suburbia entered the breach and subdued both. Now, the exurban belt is sucking the life out of everything, turning the whole state into one big Pleasanton.
348: Because, Cheney excepted, it always has in the past.
351: Damn straight. Live by the first draft, die by the first draft, pink boy. That's how it works for the proles on the mean streets of Unfog-ged.
353 is a good description of OH. There are a couple of nice places in Columbus, though.
353.1: So what's your beef, at least it's ... pleasant.
Eh, Oh, way to go Ohio
353.2: By which you mean there have been news stories about likely VP nominees in past races that you're not seeing now?
NYT and CNN calling TX primary for Clinton.
Off to go vomit. Someone punch Capps for me.
Clinton wins 59-39 among Ohio voters who considered the race of the candidate important....This is why I thought the stupid fucking Muslim emails were a problem in Ohio.
The voting demographics in the Ohio and Texas primaries are incredibly depressing. There aren't any more "Voting Is For Old People" tshirts even available on Ebay.
343: How do they decide the breakpoints? From the percentage you gave in a 4-delegate district, it sounds like they make the halfway point between 4/7 and 5/7 of the vote the splitting point, and that would mean any percentage over 64% nets the 5 delegates.
Ok, now I'm even more depressed.
Well, It was fun to take a look at the Texas senate district map. The 31 is a huge swath of panhandle -- and gets two delegates. Probably one for each, since Hillary isn't going to get 75% of the vote (although definitely in the 60s, I think). The 14, same population as the 31, is most of Travis county -- that's Austin and surroundings -- and gets 8 delegates. Currently 62% Obama, enough for 5-3, right, and nearly enough for 6-2 (which would be 62.5)? Loving is in the huge 19th -- runs from San Antonio nearly all the way to El Paso -- which has 4 delegates. Hillary is winning nearly every county in the 19, but nowhere nearly by a margin enough to get an extra delegate out of it.
And now I really do have to head out. Later, all.
Nobody should let the press narrative get them down!!!
Obama was down 20 points 2 weeks ago. He fought Texas to a virtual tie and Ohio to half that.
It's all good.
Plus, McManus seemed agitated so that must mean something good happened.
360: I'm not sure the Muslim e-mails were necessary. At the end of the day, Obama can either survive the racist vote or he can't, but he's not going to change those people's minds.
With all the sturm und drang over the Dem race, isn't it a bit odd nobody's wrestling over VP?
Not really. The political calculus that goes into running mate selection can't be worked out until the nomination is a done deal. Plus, in the same way that people such as Edwards and Richardson have yet to endorse, interested parties want to keep their options open; once the nominee's decided, I suspect we'll see people showing their hands.
361: reminds me of the various ways fo structuring IRV voting
361.2 -- One last look before heading to bed, I see that Hillary is currently winning the Ohio 17 with 63.12% of the vote. That's 4-3 in delegates.
As long as you people are explaining basic politics to me, how is it exactly that Hillary is still in this thing? Sure, she did pretty well tonight, but either my math is fucked or she is. Yet everyone's still up in arms. What's the story?
365: Happy New Years.
Also, I believe Edwards has endorsed Obama.
On my walk, this is what kept gnawing at me: how can any of this be good for the Democrats? I know the a-close-race-keeps-the-candidates-in-the-spotlight argument. And I think it's fine. As far as it goes. But how are we not in for a series of mind-numbing process stories between now and summer? "The delegate lead is the most important measure of success." "No, the popular vote is." "Actually, it's which candidate can win the swing states." "Oh no, it's having an energized corps of new voters." "I beg to differ, you see, because the superdelegatses should be able to do this." "No, they shouldn't, they should do that." And on and on. It's horrifying to ponder.
And, worse still, the reason we'll have these stories is that those narratives will be key for the candidates. Neither will be able to win without his or her narrative carrying the day. So, we won't be talking about issues, or about McCain's age or bad health; instead we'll be talking about process. And not just because the press sucks. But also because process is what the campaigns will be spinning.
Again, am I wrong? And is there some way, any way, that this isn't terrible news for the Democrats? Maybe I need another walk. Or more wine. Or both.
I can't believe this primary is still going on. I'm going to bed.
Y'know, I should have kept the speculation in 370 to myself. My demons are my problem. Sorry about that.
Yeah, at this point, this far back in pledged delegates, I don't see how Clinton wins clean. I also don't see her dropping out.
Also, I believe Edwards has endorsed Obama.
Chet Edwards, yes. Donna Edwards, yes. John Edwards, not yet.
Happy New Years.
Eh? New Years isn't for three weeks.
369: I hadn't heard that about Edwards, but if so, it makes me feel better about caucusing for Obama today and being one of his delegates to the county convention.
Caucusing took four hours, but it was actually pretty fun, because even when I was standing in line, I was hanging out with cool people.
its not good for dems because of how hillary has campaigned the last few weeks. i really hate her now. first for making mandates important, then for arguing obama is too inexperience to be CIC, plus the he's lying about the NAFTA, and he's all talk, etc etc
373: It really does depend what you mean by "clean." What if she wins PA by a large margin, something on order of 10 points. And then she continues to press her process arguments: caucuses are anti-democratic, Obama can't win swing states, real Democrats support me. The superdelegates won't break for her, I don't think. But they won't break for him either in this scenario. So, then, we're talking about real discussions to re-run the FL and MI primaries some time in June. And those contests become de facto winner-take-all. Don't they? That would seem clean -- enough -- to me. And after tonight, it al just got a lot more likely. I'm not saying it's going to happen, mind you. But I wouldn't rule it out.
Again: demons. I'm trying to get them back in their cages. But it's not easy.
Happy New Years.
I don't get this.
Hmm. Google isn't backing me up on my statement here.
Because of the '365'. Kind of lame, but...
I humbly request that you all answer my damn question, as well as those following. Is this about superdelegates? Are we really prepared to put up with that kind of bullshit? Has there ever been occasion when voters did?
381: Ah, thanks. I was reaching for far more abstruse explanations.
why would they become winner take all? If she wins PA by 10 points she'll still be way behind in pledged delegates.
"Clean" meaning "legitimate" is just possible: re-run those primaries for real, win big in Pa. & PR, & get close enough in pledged delegates for superdelegates to act as a tie breaker. Okay.
"Clean" meaning "not very damaging to our chances in November" seems impossible, but that's how the cookie crumbles.
384: They become winner-take-all if, and only if, she goes into them with momentum. Meanwhile, they're a fiction. And I think he's still odds-on to win. And, on top of all that, I agree that she can't win clean. But tonight hurt that argument. Quite a lot, I think. Because he can't win the nomination solely based on pledged delegates either. So he needed to win it based on the pledged delegate lead and a popular movement. He might have lost his grip on the latter argument tonight. Which isn't to say he can't rally. But I do think Pennsylvania is going to be very important. Wyoming (not a Democratic state) and Mississippi (too black) just got a lot easier to dismiss.
If your argument for winning the Democratic primary depends on "too black" states not counting, it's not especially clean.
Let me just clarify one point that I've left cloudy: until tonight, I was a big advocate of the pledged delegate argument. He couldn't lose, I've been saying, because she can't win. If you follow. But that argument needs momentum behind it. And the momentum is gone after tonight. At least I think so. And now, the pledged delegate argument is much easier to rebut with the arguments that Hillary partisans have already been using.
387: Katherine, I agree. But see my 388 for further clarification.
Well, I think that's pretty stupid. Media-created momentum is illusory & not especially relevant. The kind of organization that nets you +10 to +20 from the polls before the campaign in that state begins to election day is relevant.
Clarifying again: Wyoming (not a Democratic state) and Mississippi (too black) just got a lot easier to dismiss.
The above are not my arguments; they are the arguments I imagine we're going to hear from Camp Clinton.
386: sure, but, as I mentioned in 295, I read somewhere (fuck, where?) that Obama has several superdelegates ready to declare after today. If that press conference includes an Edwards endorsement (as pdf is declaring without sourcing, ahem), I'm assuming the Obama folks have staged quite the bubble burst for Clinton's victories today.
And they're as stupid as they were yesterday, & don't affect the delegate count, & if the superdelegates buy them they're stupid too. I'd imagine you're not going to hear the Obama team arguing that Texas doesn't count because it's George W. Bush's state.
We've still got seven weeks until the Pennsylvania primary. A lot can happen in that time.
390: I'm confused now. What do you think is stupid? That Clinton partisans are going to argue that he can't win either without superdelegates? Why is that stupid? It's all they've got. And it's true. And, on top of that, if he can't win the popular vote in Texas, Ohio, or Pennsylvania, the three large states at the back end of the primary season, it's going to be hard for his partisans (read: me) to make the argument that he has momentum on his side. How is that stupid? I'm not saying I like it; I don't. Actually, I hate it. But it seems, if speculative, pretty smart. And very likely the strategy that we're about to see unfold from Hillary.
382: I think that 378 describes the scenario that answers your earlier question.
Is this about superdelegates? Are we really prepared to put up with that kind of bullshit? Has there ever been occasion when voters did?
a) It might be, b) we might be, c) it depends on what you mean by "that kind of bullshit." Unpledged delegates are kind of a new thing, but contentious conventions have resulted from procedural problems before.
"State X's results doesn't count because...." is a stupid argument. When it includes "it's too black," it is an argument that no one in the Democratic party has any business making.
Wyoming doesn't count because it's too white. Mississippi doesn't count because it's too black. Pennsylvania counts, though, because it's juuuust right.
394: This is true. And if he wins PA, it's over. Completely. She might try to fight on. But I doubt it. The pressure to get out will be too great. Again, my doomsday scneario is predicated on Clinton winning PA. Like I said: speculative.
I do think that, say, "Michigan doesn't count because there were no delegates & we weren't allowed to campaign & my name wasn't on the ballot" is a decent argument. Call me inconsistent.
394: Is it really seven weeks? Somewhere along the line I missed that bit of pertinent info. Gah.
And Wisconsin, of course, doesn't count because it wears part of Michigan like a hat. Like a hat!
397: Again, I agree with you. But don't you think that's the argument -- at least implicitly -- that Team Hillary is going to make after Obama wins Mississippi handily?
Is it really seven weeks?
Yep. April 22.
403: yes, they will make it, and it will be stupid, and superdelegates will be stupid to accept it & Obama supporters will be even stupider to find it plausible. None of which guarantees it couldn't work, because the Democratic party is, in my experience, stupid.
400: I honestly think that you're either a) willfully ignoring the substance of what I'm saying OR b) I'm totally wrong. I don't discount the possibility that it's b, by the way. In fact, past performance would suggest that's the odds-on choice.
While you people were worrying yourself silly over this election twaddle, I was butterflying and roasting a chicken, eating part of it with some leftover soup, writing about Aristotle, and listening to some swell tunes; now I'm going to relax with The Sot-Weed Factor and some of this shit. Who, I ask, had the more relaxing evening?
406 and 405 crossed. Now I'm understanding you. And we have comity. Except for this: I genuinely believe that it's very damaging for Obama to have lost both OH and TX tonight. And it might become crippling if he also loses PA. Being ahead in the pledged delegate count won't make up for that. Because, again, he needs the superdelegates to win the nomination. Just like she does. And if he gets them, absent clear evidence of momentum, it won't look good.
Ari's a drama queen. It's awesome, Ari.
Did you guys know that when a butterfly comes out of a cocoon, its head is at the opposite end it started from? That's not from wriggling around, either.
409 isn't usually true (about me, that is; I haven't a clue about butterflies). But it sure is tonight. I'm totally guilty as charged.
"Winning without the superdelegates" can mean "winning even if the nomination were decided entirely by pledged delegates" OR "winning if every single superdelegate votes for your opponent." Two very different metrics, the second of which doesn't seem like much of an issue to me.
So, what exactly is wrong with counting up the delegates and awarding the nomination to the candidate who got more? I guess I missed this part.
412: The superdelegates count too, they can vote for whoever they want, and there are a lot of them.
411 has left me confused again. Which is a sure sign that I need to go to bed.
407: Barth, huh? I guess you got it worse. Me, I'm drinking shit beer and ogling how close Messrs Coen adhered to the text of No Country For Old Men. It really is remarkable. Anyway, you'll be happy to know that your mockery has seen you promoted to 562nd against the wall.
413: And, because the pledged delegate count is now so close, and there are so few pledged delegates up for grabs in the remaining contests, neither candidate can win the nomination without the superdelegates. Who, as you say, get to vote for their candidate of choice.
409.2 is awesome. My daughters will be fascinated by that.
Why is the Times (like others, undoubtedly) declaring a win for Clinton in Texas when the caucus results have yet to be tallied?
Okay:
Say there are 1000 pledged delegates apportioned by state elections and caucuses and 400 superdelegates. So, you need 701 votes to win.
SCENARIO A: You win 600/1000 of the pledged delegates, and 101/400 superdelegates.
SCENARIO B: You win 301/1000 pledged delegates and 400/400 superdelegates.
Do you see why I'd evaluate those situations rather differently? And why I think that B creates legitimacy problems, and A creates none?
Edwards has asked his delegates to stay with him until the convention. I think it's pretty clear that, barring something crazy happening, he intends to use his delegates to try to get some platform assurances from Clinton and/or Obama in exchange for his support.
Superdelegates can suck my dick; it's a damn election. If they want to fuck about and pretend it isn't, more power to them if it amuses, but either people vote for you or they don't. I'm sure there are innumerable ways a candidate might be seated without a popular vote, but each of them is bullshit.
418: I do. But I would counter that the Clinton argument is going to be something like this: "We have every bit as much right to the superdelegates as he does. Actually, if we win PA, we have more. Because we have the momentum on our side. His pledged delegate lead, in other words, isn't as important as our momentum. Particularly because he won his pledged delegates in podunk states, Republican states, states with too many black people, etc."
Now here's where I'm returning: if Obama loses PA, that will put the superdelegates in a terrible bind. That's seems very clear to me. At that point, her argument won't be totally spurious. Because he will have lost the final three big states in the primary campaign. Which will mean that he likely won't have the momentum. And his path to the nomination will be clouded by all manner of questions about process. And then there will be tremendous pressure to re-run the FL and MI primaries. Which, again, will become de facto winner-take-all. Because the alternative, I think, is either to have the superdelegates side with Obama, absent his demonstration of momentum, or a brokered convention, which is too horrible to contemplate.
Sorry, I totally recognize that I might be wrong. But, if he loses PA, I really don't think so. Unless, by the grace of god, she decides to drop out before PA. But she won't. And, after tonight, why would she?
418: Also, your scenarios here aren't even close to what we're seeing in this election. The split in pledged delegates just isn't that big. And if Clinton edges even closer than she is now, that further complicates the equation, no?
Yes, that will be the argument, and it's STILL complete bullshit. Bigger states count more, but that's reflected in the delegate totals, and winning many more smaller states by much larger margins count. Media generate "momentum" is and always has been a stupid basis for deciding anything.
Yes, that will be the argument, and it's STILL complete bullshit. Bigger states count more, but that's reflected in the delegate totals, and winning many more smaller states by much larger margins count. Media generate "momentum" is and always has been a stupid basis for deciding anything.
423-424: Here we disagree. Momentum is a reflection of the trend in an candidate's support. It's not simply created by a fickle media. So: if Obama doesn't have enough pledged delegates to win the race outright (which he can't and won't), and he fails to win the popular vote in any of the large states at the back end of the primary campaign, he'll have a real problem, not simply something that the pundits will have manufactured. Actually, he'll have two real problems: 1) That the superdelegates are going to be hard-pressed to choose him. Because they'll worry that their choice will appear illegitimate. 2) That voters will question his ability to close out an opponent. Neither of those things is stupid, I don't think.
the scenarios were illustrating the same point as 411 since you didn't seem to understand it. The idea that it's illegitimate for superdelegates to support the pledged delegates winner because either: (1) he lost the states that are arbitrarily deemed to matter by narrower margins, or (2) the press has decided that he doesn't have "momentum" anymore, which erases the actual election results, makes less than no sense to me.
You can plausibly argue, "well, the whole things irrevocably undemocratic anyway because too many states caucused, the process is what it is, superdelegates can vote how they damn well please if the pledged delegates are close enough." But the idea that it's creates legitimacy problems for superdelegates to ratify the choice of pledged delegates because while he won 30+ states, he lost the three most recent big states with not too many and not too few black people, is very very very very stupid. If we're concerned with "momentum" as opposed to election results let's just let pollingreport.com's daily tracker decide it.
I apologize for my intemperate language, but I am frustrated, for reasons 421 expresses well. I've seen elections elided before, and a race thus decided is not only to the swift, so to speak. If this shit goes down to superdelegates overruling regular delegates, I will soon be on the streets, manning defensive emplacements that also inhibit all sorts of traffic. If only I could think of a name for these structures. . .
Okay, we disagree. In a race this close, for the superdelegates to fall his way, I suspect he needs to be able to win a big state at the end of the primary season. I don't think that's stupid; I think it's a reflection of a very tight contest, a contest in which the superdelegates, no matter what happens from here on out, are going to decide who wins and who loses. That's an awesome responsbility. And they don't want to screw it up. So: if he had the pledged delegate lead, and could demonstrate that his popular movement was still gathering steam, the superdelegates would support him. Absent one or the other, I think it's not a sure thing. Which is why PA will matter so much. Unless I'm wrong. Which I really hope is the case.
This process would be less maddening if there were a superdelegate election, and we didn't have to spend so much damn time imagining what the superdelegates at various hypothetical times are going to think as they try to read the minds of every other superdelegate at every other hypothetical time.
It occurs to me such an election exists, and it is called "a brokered convention." Shit.
Do we have to fix the primary schedule and get rid of superdelegates, now? Even as an Obama supporter I can't dream like that.
And one other thing: I still think he's likely to win. The pledged delegate count does matter. A lot. To me and, I'm guessing, to the superdelegates. But it's not everything. That's the essence of what I'm saying.
So basically the fact that Obama moved up only 10-15 points in the polls in TX & Ohio since Super Tuesday, and lost Ohio by about 10 points and Texas by about 5 shows that his campaign, shows that his campaign has stalled, & erases the 11 straight victories in states with a larger combined population by margins ranging in 17-50.
432: No, that's not what it means. But losing the popular vote in both states matters. He threw everything he had into those states. He outspent her, what, 3:1. And he campaigned relentlessly (until he left Ohio, a couple of days ago, for dead) over a long period of time. But he couldn't win the popular vote. That gives her real ammunition. Because it plants real doubts in the minds of the superdelegates. And I doubt that he's going to completely allay many of those doubts over the next few days by winning in WY and MS. Only a win in PA will really end this thing, I think.
Seriously, I'm too tired to carry on. I'm sorry, but I'm coming off the worst flu of my adult life. And I need some sleep. So, thanks for chatting. Hearing your arguments makes me feel much better. And I wish that I could hear more of what you have to say. But I've got to get a few hours of rest or I'll be more useless even than usual tomorrow morning.
yeah, me too. Two thinga:
(1) you don't get points deducted for campaigning too hard "my opponent campaigned too hard" is not a very good argumentCampaigning in a state does not give you a handicap. If he had shown
(2) As far as raw popular votes: his margin in the Wisconsin primary alone is larger than her current margin in Texas. His margin in the Virginia primary alone is larger than her current margin in Ohio (which will presumably narrow overnight, but I have to go bed too). Every state counts. Sure, big states get additional weight, but 30% v. 3% victories also get additional weight.
whoo!
Not too many problems with Obama supporters that I know of in Texas. The police had to get involved when one Obama lady assaulted one of our female Hillary volunteers, and other police were involved when a bunch of male Obama supporters physically intimidated a couple of our female volunteers and forcibly stole all of their materials and threw them around/tore them up.
politics is rough.
So basically the fact that Obama moved up only 10-15 points in the polls in TX & Ohio since Super Tuesday, and lost Ohio by about 10 points and Texas by about 5 shows that his campaign, shows that his campaign has stalled,
good spin!
but, seriously. Obama is the front runner, with 11 straight victories, and he WAS polling ahead of her in both places. Something happened, and the momentum swung back to Hillary. Despite the money disadvantage. I'm stunned, to be honest. I really didn't expect to pull it off. I've been expecting March 5th to be concession day.
dropped a "her" up there. Didn't expect her to pull it off.
my fave line from an Obama supporter, to me, "you really want a woman to be President? You're a sick puppy, man."
and he WAS polling ahead of her in both places.
Wait, what? I haven't been following all that closely, but my impression was that she's had substantial leads forever in those states, and that he managed to substantiially narrow the margin.
if we are talking about "bullshit", momentum is about the defintiion of bullshit.
of course, clinton tried to deride the big wins obama had as just 'momentum', and then claim narrow wins as 'momentum'
this obviously furthers the idea that most any argument she has, and the one's shes decide are best to foward, consist mostly of said bullshit
ari, your argument seems to be "obama can't blow clinton away, so he's pretty much lost"
please bring the goalposts back kthanx
437: "something" being "going negative"
Obama was ahead in Texas in the poll averages, but never by much. (And, indeed, that race was very close)
A few polls showed him ahead in Ohio, but he was never ahead in the averages, I don't think.
Certainly, Clinton managed to reverse the momentum a bit in the last few days and cling to victories in both states, thanks to negative campaigning, with an assist from our friends up north. But she needs to start actually closing that pledged delegate gap, and she signally failed to do that today. I suspect she will signally fail to get much in the way of delegates out of Pennsylvania, too. It looks to quite likely be the case that she's not going to close the gap at all, when all of the states are counted, unless something happens to really change the dynamics.
I suppose it's still theoretically possible she might win, nonetheless, thanks to superdelegates. This seems most unlikely, although we'll see if, in light of these latest events, the superdelegates continue to trickle over to Obama, as they've been doing at a fairly high rate since the Potomac primaries.
262: Has any British political party been led by a woman at any time, other than Thatcher?
Margaret Beckett was the Labour Party's temporary leader for several months in 1994 after John Smith unexpectedly died, before Blair was elected party leader.
Beyond that; the Greens had the German Green-style dual non-leadership thing until last autumn, and there's the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, which had 2 members of the first post-peace treaty assembly, and I presume its leader was a woman (but I couldn't guarantee it).
My own party briefly managed to appoint a man shadow minister for women, which was not our finest hour.
Much too late for the "Si, se puede digression. I don't like it. "Yes we can", vacuous as it is, at least implies agency by the people who are chanting it. We can. The great mass of Obamanauts will rise up as a single wave and achieve it (whatever it is). Si, se puede, by contrast, sounds like "with a bit of luck the man in a suit up there won't sell us too far down the river, but it's not in our hands".
The Allende anthem in 1970 was Venceremos, not Se puede vencer. There was a reason for that.
446: Dislike it all you want, but it's not like Obama's peeps chose that construction. Using "sí se puede" not only stems from Chavez & the UFW, but has been used extensively since, e.g., by immigrants rights groups and unions with large Latino & immigrant membership (esp. SEIU and HERE). Take it up with them.
436: Jesus, that's depressing. I heard some other stories of contenious caucuses, but not that bad. Everyone at my precinct was nice as pie, and the two campaigns worked together to try to deal with the disorganization and huge crowds. (I gave up on waiting for the delegate count. I think Obama won, but it was very hard to tell because everyone was mixed together.)
Good morning.
I just found out I'm in a mixed marriage. I'd been suspecting for a while, but after this election it's official. We are a divided Obama/Hillary couple.
Also, it is frozen hell out there. My classes were canceled, and I bet RTFS's classes were too.
Coming back online, I have to say that I think Ari has the better of it above. A decisive margin of the supers are going to go with what they think the trend is, at the end of the primary season. This is going to depend hugely on Pennsylvania. Obama isn't going to win the people voting based on fear, and can only get the knock-out blow he needs by swamping her with turnout.
Obviously media spin is a part of the picture, but I'd guess that most of the real action with the supers will be below the surface. There are prisoners' dilemmas, threats from a vindictive Bill Clinton (You think he'll ever forget a 'betrayal'? You think he won't still be a force to be reckoned with if Obama loses to McCain?), and general establishmentarian bias.
Just checked the incomplete caucus results. So far, Obama is winning Travis County/Austin 67%-32%. We did what we could.
The true winner this morning is Bob, since Goolsbee personally cost Obama several percentage points.
Obama is going to pick up delegates in states after PA, most notably NC, the largest remaining after PA. I think his pledged lead at the end will be larger than it is now, unless there are revotes in MI and FL. It's hard to argue that "momentum" trumps votes once there are no primaries left.
Anyone else see the sick CNN puppy video? That's some fucked up shit.
I knew that she was going to win Ohio, but I was really hoping that he'd take Texas and that Rhode Island would be a draw. Having said that I don't know what the numbers were in Rhode Island.
OK, looking at the Pennsylvania rules, it's 103 delegates by congressional district with a 55 delegate at-large set. The districts (which have roughly equal population, as we know) are unequal in terms of delagates: the 9th gets only 3, while the 2d gets 9. Five districts get 4, and five more get 7.
PA2 is in the Philadelphia area, while PA9 in a huge stretch in the southern third of the middle. PA5 is a huge swath of the middle also -- State College to Oil City to the NY border -- and only gets 4. You have to get 62.5% to get 3 of those delegates, so a hell of a lot of Penn State students are going to have to turn out for anything other than a tie. The 7 delegate districts -- 1, 7, 8, 13, 14 -- are nearly all in the Philly area: only the 14th, which includes Pittsburgh, isn't there.
The Wyoming caucus is this Saturday, followed by Mississippi a week from today. I can find no polling on either of these, but apparently "[t]he Clinton campaign is already downplaying its prospects in the two states, and instead pointing toward Pennsylvania." Good luck with that. Clinton needs to win something like 65% of the remaining pledged delegates to end up with a majority of pledged delegates; after that she has to hope that superdelegates overrule the voters. Are all of those delegates going to come from PA? How, exactly, is that going to happen? Meanwhile, Obama isn't nearly as far behind Clinton in PA right now as he started out in Ohio and Texas, and he's got seven weeks to work that state.
407: I'm going to relax with The Sot-Weed Factor and some of this shit. Who, I ask, had the more relaxing evening?
Ben, my dear fellow, we sit here on a blind rock careening through space; we are all of us rushing headlong to the grave. Think you the worms will care, when anon they make a meal of you, whether you spent your moment sighing wigless reading in your chamber, or sacked the golden towns of Montezuma? writing blog comments on priamry election results .... We are dying men: i'faith, there's time for naught but bold resolves!
momentum is about the defintiion of bullshit.
Yoyo is completely right here. Ari, ever since Iowa, you've been caught up in the "momentum" argument and it's meaningless. It doesn't mean anything; different states have different populations that vote differently. All the talk of momentum is just an artifact of which states go when in the schedule.
Only delegates matter, and Obama will finish the race with more than Clinton. At that point, he can win with a minority of the superdelegates.
458 -- Sure.
Elections aren't decided by bullshit? After nearly 8 years of the the very king of bullshit? Narrative matters, especially to the supers, who will have to live with their votes in a way none of the rest of us do.
458: Right on.
Does anyone know or know where to find the cumulative popular vote thus far?
458- This is right. What these victories do is give Clinton a solid platform to go negative against Obama, particularly questions about his readiness to protect suburban white kids from terrorists. That will probably hurt him going into the general.
Fucking NPR led into the election results by reporting that today is the anniversary of Hitler's coming to power by winning a national election.
Emphasis theirs.
455: At least the Congressional District weighting does play to Obama's favor in PA. If Ohio is a guide, PA 9th and 5th will be complete Clinton blowouts (especially the 9th, in the 5th a huge number of students will have to turn out to even get to a tie). These areas are essentially like SE Ohio which had high 60s to high 70s for Clinton on a per county basis. And I think the Philly area is much better for Obama than Pittsburgh.
NPR's coverage has been crappy.
Mara Liason, et al, just repeat spin. What cant they stick to facts?!?!??!
Fucking NPR led into the election results by reporting that today is the anniversary of Hitler's coming to power by winning a national election.
Just for today, I'm OK with any confusion between Hitler and Hillary. Gawddamit. I still want to vomit.
In Richmond, local radio keeps talking about Hillary being correct that the media was too kind to Obama. This same station spends much of the time kissing up to McCain. Apparently, they do not see the irony.
466: If the media were really that hard on Clinton, they wouldn't be so quick to parrot Clinton's line that the media's too hard on Clinton.
460: Cumulative popular vote is here, but this does not include Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine.
The media has also swallowed Clintonite spin on the following: on the significance of minor victories in Ohio and Texas; on the significance of narrow wins in New Hampshire; on the relative insignificance of major wins in states with large black populations, or in small states, or in caucuses; on the significance of primary contests as predictive of success in the general election; on the basic assumption that Hillary Clinton's marriage to Bill Clinton makes her unquestionably more experienced to be president than Barack Obama.
What these victories do is give Clinton a solid platform to go negative against Obama
Yeah, they'll go full-on negative now, and it will hurt her with the superdelegates. In the end, most of the superdelegates will go with whichever candidate they think matches up better against McCain, and the polling on that question is grim grim for Clinton.
Anyhow, when Obama rolls up huge victories in Wyoming and Mississippi, all the talking heads' knees will jerk and they'll blather on about Obama having recaptured the mythical momentum. It's just something to fill news hours, and best ignored.
Also, it is frozen hell out there. My classes were canceled, and I bet RTFS's classes were too.
Nope!
468: Very interesting. Thanks!
does not include Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine
And he won 3 of those. I hadn't thought before about how you include caucus-only states in popular vote totals. Is it reasonable to apply the % of delegates won to the population of registered Dems as a loose proxy?
In other news, Ohio was a key victory in my "whoever can cross the country in states they've won" primary. Clinton can now block Obama completely by taking Kentucky. Obama has to win NC and needs to win PA if Clinton gets the Kentucky block. But if he does, then it's a brokered convention.
Stras, I would caution against cherry-picking slight media swings to and from Obama and Hillary.
Overall media presidential election narrative:
Dem primaries: Bugs in jar. Shake jar; make 'em fight! Not fighting? Shake jar harder, we want bug fight! Bartertown want bug fight!!
Repub primaries: Nice froggy, so sleek, such beautiful skin. Nice tongue. Soon we give you wounded bug to eat. Yum!
Unqualified Offerings puts it into perspective:
* In a very short campaign window, Hillary's name recognition and establishment support trump. (NH and some Super Tuesday states.)
* In a "honeymoon-length" campaign window, the Obama campaign has time to work its magic - the rousing speeches; the grass-roots mojo - and generate a peak of enthusiasm that pays off at the polls. (South Carolina; the Potomac Primary et al).
* In a "marriage-length" campaign window, the Obama campaign has time to work its magic, then the magic has time to work off. That may be what we saw in the interminable two weeks between Wisconsin/Hawaii and Texas/Ohio. In particular, Obama's failure to win Texas after at least a brief time even or leading in the polls, and his lopsided loss in Ohio, would scare me.
By November, America will have a chance to be heartily sick of both major-party contestants. So I want to know Obama has staying power. Pennsylvania should provide a great test of this. Let the yinzers and Iggles fans and hicks endure both candidates for six weeks. See if Obama's appeal endures. If it does, he's your guy. If not, and you're an organization Dem, you really have to be leery of giving him the nod. If he can't overcome Sekrit Muslim Communist Agent smears and pseudocontrarian jibes about cultism in the primary of the somewhat liberal party, how is he going to beat the same tactics in the general election?
471: CA's are. The power is out and there are trees tucked snugly into houses.
Having said that I don't know what the numbers were in Rhode Island.
Here they are. Nothing about the result was a surprise. I've read some strange attempts at explanations as to why Hillary won RI, but the one that comes up the least, as far as I've seen, is that she and her family are just really popular here. People liked the 1990's, or at least the second half of them, and the Clintons spent a lot of time here over the years. RI is among the easiest state for a GOP administration to ignore, if not outright shit on. The Clinton years were a welcome break from that, so it's not surprising that a lot of people would have remembered that when faced with a choice between her and a new face. That said, people will be more than ready to vote for Obama should he be the candidate. He actually did rather well, considering her strength in the area.
on the basic assumption that Hillary Clinton's marriage to Bill Clinton makes her unquestionably more experienced to be president than Barack Obama.
This is the one that gets me.
Isnt it true that she didnt even have a high level security clearance?
478- She does have some pretty specific arguments for experience, but doesn't seem willing to raise them. Putting together the health care package was certainly great experience for congressional machinations, but it failed. I can't believe she doesn't bring up her immediate support at the WTC on 9-11. I guess it's too close to her Iraq, but I don't get it.
So she talks about her travel as first lady. That gets her some tiny points, but...
I'll try this one more time, even though I expect this thread is dead. My argument isn't about the actual validity of momentum. My argument is about superdelegates. Both candidates need superdelegates to win. That's a fact. And the superdelegates don't want to screw up what is an incredibly huge responsbility. Again, a fact. Or at least a fact for those superdelegates who are smart enough to tie their shoes. And now, the speculative part: Obama not winning a big state at the end of the primary campaign makes it very hard for enough of the superdelegates to break his way to end her campaign. That's why momentum and big states matter. That's why PA matters. And that's how we might end up with do-overs in MI and FL.
makes it very hard for enough of the superdelegates to break his way
I don't think this is correct, though. For Obama, "enough of the superdelegates" is going to be something like 40% of them. And the "incredibly huge responsibility" is to pick the candidate with the best shot to beat McCain. There isn't a superdelegate out there who can't read the head-to-head polls.
Once all the caucus counts are in from Texas, I suspect he's going to come away with Texas delegates than she does. Despite what the newscasters say, that is winning Texas.
477: Why did Rhode Island go for Clinton? Why wouldn't it? As blue states go it's fairly conservative, it doesn't have a very large black population, the party machine in the state owes the family all sorts of favors and has been behind them for quite some time, and most of Obama's resources were going to Texas and Ohio and didn't leave much time for campaigning in a small state where he'd been considerably behind in the polls for a long while.
From my point of view: he has trouble winning in: (1) Appalachia, where white voters vote against him in part because of his race and the pseudo-Muslim crap (check out the Ohio exit polls--10-11% of the electorate is (a) white Democrats (b) who said the candidate's race was an important factor, and (c) voted for Clinton. You would think exit polls would underreport that sentiment, too: more people will vote against Obama because of his race unconsciously than consciously). (2) northeastern states w/ a strong Democratic machine. Hello, Ohio & Pennsylvania. Those states count, but why he is now required to win one of two of his worst demographic bets in the entire country & her string of losses can be simply ignored is beyond me.
As far as Texas: also a good state for her demographically with the hispanic population. More to the point--yes, it's a big state, but he won by more votes than that in a large # of other states.
A re-vote in MI & FL is fine. I think he'd lose FL, win MI, & maintain an overall delegate lead.
I can't tell whether you're defending the "some states are more equal than others" and "white voters count more than black voters" reasoning or not--you seem to go back and forth. If so, I think you're: (1) substantively wrong; (2) inexplicably doing Clinton's work for her. If not, what are we still arguing about?
481: w-lfs-n is now saying "no do-over" for MI and FL -- he wants the delegations seated as the "vote" now stands.
481: Seriously, Ari, you're giving way too much weight to last night's wins. The handful of delegates Clinton just netted are going to get easily knocked back when Obama wins Wyoming, and then Mississippi will put Obama's lead back to where it was before Ohio and Texas. And superdelegates aren't stupid: they know that winning a state in the primaries doesn't say anything about winning it in the general, so the whole "he hasn't won a 'big' state" thing is meaningless. Clinton won Texas (narrowly) last night; I can promise you there isn't a single superdelegate who thinks that means Clinton can win Texas in the general.
442, 443, 458: Apo, I have no idea what you're talking about. If last night wasn't the first time I've used the word "momentum," I'd be surprised. Not shocked, mind you, but surprised. I think what you're talking about is our longstanding disagreement about the importance of the pledged delegates. And on that I continue to say that you're wrong. Not wrong in the abstract, mind you, but wrong on the particulars in this case. Pledged delegates won't decide the nomination this year. Why would anyone argue otherwise? So the question becomes: what will sway superdelegates? You say momentum and victories in big states won't matter. I say you're wrong about that as well. Neither of us knows. We'll both find out as time passes. But saying that what I'm saying is bullshit is wishful thinking; it's not argumentation. Same goes for you, yoyo. I genuinely hope you're both right. I really do. But you've done absolutely nothing to convince me that you are.
And while we're talking, let's play a little counterfactual game that might shed light on the question of the supposedly ironclad importance of the pledged delegate count. Let's say that Obama had won TX last night and had only lost OH by 2 point. But Hillary had won RI by more and lost VT by less. So, the overall pledged delegate count would somehow be the same as it actually is today. Follow me? If that had happened, the race would be over now. Or tomorrow. Or next week. Because Obama's upcoming wins in WY and MS would sway superdelegates to put too much pressure on Hillary to drop out. But now that's not going to happen. We're going to have a race through PA, where Obama will either land a knockout blow. Or not. Based on your argument, the idea that the pledged delegate count is everything, what I'm suggesting wouldn't happen. But momentum and narrative matter. They really do. They may not matter in a year in which superdelegates aren't important. But this isn't that year. This time around the superdelegates are going to decide the nominee.
485: this is (a) cheating (b) lousy strategy for the primary unless they're certain that the superdelegates & insiders on the credentials committee are in the tank (c) absolutely terrible strategy for the general election.
w-lfs-n is now saying "no do-over" for MI and FL -- he wants the delegations seated as the "vote" now stands.
The DNC is never going to let that happen. If a "do-over" happens, it would have to be a caucus - and the Clinton people are terrified she might lose in a caucus. As long as they keep demanding something that's never going to happen, this works to Obama's benefit.
Pledged delegates won't decide the nomination this year. Why would anyone argue otherwise? So the question becomes: what will sway superdelegates?
1. A lead in pledged delegates.
2. Polling against McCain.
Pledged delegates *alone* won't decide it, but Obama's lead in them will, I suspect, be enough all by itself to get the support of enough superdelegates to get over the top.
487 happened when I assumed nobody was paying attention to this thread. I was, I thought, shouting at the wind. I now see that others are still here. I'm not sure I would have put anything differently. But I might have cried a bit more (not a dig at Hillary), just to sway the judges.
Apo, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I get that a lot.
487: what last night proved is that she has a somewhat durable advantage in certain regions & demographics even when Obama gets a chance to campaign. That's not actually "momentum" at all. That's "holding your base in a couple states."
You are buying into: (1) the idea that some voters are more equal than others (2) the idea that there is no difference between a candidate winning because superdelegates ratify the voters' choices & overriding it. Both are substantively wrong and harmful to your candidate, so I don't know why the hell you insist on doing so.
484: I've never gone back and forth on those points. I've consistently said that I'm giving you the arguments that the Clinton campaign has and will use. If I'm going to be accused of doing their work for doing that, if, in other words, I can't talk about these things here, so be it. But I think that's a pretty scary kind of censorship, Katherine, and not a little beneath you.
490 is the most convincing thing you've said. And I super-duper hope that you're right. In a just world, you would be. But I fear that we don't live in a just world. Nor, I think, are the superdelegates as rational as you make them out to be.
One underreported note about Rhode Island: the board of canvassers totally fucked up the primary yesterday. A couple weeks ago they decided to cut the number of polling places, which of course meant that a lot of people ended up having their polling locations changed, and then they never really publicized it - they didn't send out mailings or anything, they didn't set up signs at the old polling locations redirecting people to the new addresses, etc. So a lot of voters ended up at the wrong location and walked away in frustration. I have no idea what candidates benefited, if any, but it's beside the point - the whole thing was a disgrace.
I've consistently said that I'm giving you the arguments that the Clinton campaign has and will use.
I definitely think this is true, but I also think that the Obama/anti-Iraq war voters are much angrier than the pro-HRC voters, and I suspect that will, somehow, influence the superdelegates.
"I've consistently said that I'm giving you the arguments that the Clinton campaign has and will use"
And I've consistently said: (1) you're right, they will make those arguments (2) those arguments are dumb & the superdelegates shouldn't buy them. If you agree with (2), we're arguing about nothing. If you don't, I remain bewildered, but we're obviously at an impasse.
493: Again, I'm not "buying into" anything, Katherine. So stop saying that. I'm telling you what I think may well happen. And, you know what, it's just fine for me to do that. My worrying in the comments section of a blog that several thousand people read will have precisely no impact on the race. Or, more accurately, it will have the same impact that my standing up and getting chips during a crucial moment of the big game has. Which, again, is none.
I don't resent being told that my arguments are bullshit. I don't resent being told that I'm a fool. Because both of these things may well be true. Indeed, I hope they are. I do, though, resent being told that I'm carrying water for the Clinton campaign, that I'm expressing preference for white voters over black, and that I shouldn't speak my mind. Because those things aren't true.
498: Sigh. That the superdelegates should or shouldn't buy into any set of arguments is totally beside the point. Because they'll do what they'll do, based on whatever reasoning or lack thereof that they use. Honestly, I think that what Apo has been saying is applicable here: the superdelegates will try to choose the candidate they think can win, and, perhaps, the candidate who is better for the party. Hillary's arguments about process are all about those issues. And they aren't dumb arguments. You might think they are. But they really aren't.
Okay then: my comments negative don't apply to you, they apply to the hypothetical superdelegates whose reasoning you neither endorse nor condemn.
My worrying in the comments section of a blog that several thousand people read
Several thousand people read this blog? No way, man. Several dozen people reload it several thousand times per hour.
Katherine! Listen to yourself: 'I trust Democratic elders to do the reasonable but slightly risky thing.'
To 500 I'll add again the fear factors. Fear of losing to racists, and fear of alienating Bill Clinton. These are non-trivial.
Or, more accurately, it will have the same impact that my standing up and getting chips during a crucial moment of the big game has. Which, again, is none.
Oh man, that was you? Don't tell Sifu.
Several thousand people read this blog? No way, man.
Depending on which stat program you believe, anywhere from 1800-2800 regular readers.
I'll add again the fear factors. Fear of losing to racists, and fear of alienating Bill Clinton. These are non-trivial.
The Democratic party: hostage to racists and DLCers. Plus ca change.
506:
eliminating those of us who read from at least two different computers in a day?
I suspect that most regulars read from work and then from home.
Fear of losing to racists
As opposed to losing to sexists?
fear of alienating Bill Clinton
This is a feature, not a bug.
Your readers are anything but "regular," Ogged.
501: You want me to condemn their reasoning? Assuming they use the reasoning I've outlined? Okay, I renounce, reject, condemn, and also mock their reasoning. Seriously, I'm totally with you on this point. Obama should win. He's run a better campaign to date. And, to the best of our abilities to know such things, he has a better shot in the general to beat Old Man McCain. But last night made the superdelegates' decision much more complicated. For real, not imaginary, reasons. Especially because Hillary can claim that her stupid-ass campaign strategy worked. This sucks, I know, but wishing it away won't make it disappear. We're going to PA, which is going to matter a lot.
483, 496: Whatevs. "Why wouldn't" Clinton win RI is precisely my point, although I accept that the reason lots of people like and support her carries a lot of weight. A lot of local politicians do as well, plus unions: she's popular! The idea that RI is at the conservative end of the blue states is pretty laughable, though. As for voting problems, the Globe reports that they were "minor and sporadic," and they occurred in the context of a primary contest with the highest turnout ever in the state. Shouldn't happen, I agree, but nothing that would have changed the outcome or to get worked up about.
The idea that RI is at the conservative end of the blue states is pretty laughable, though.
Dude, you live here. Do you read the fucking news? The state Democratic Party is run by supply-siders who've spent the last several years running up a multi-million-dollar structural budget deficit by passing tax cut after tax cut for the rich. The majority of the leadership of the general assembly is anti-abortion and anti-gay rights. By the standards of the national Democratic Party, the Dem Party in Rhode Island is right wing.
512: And your "Globe" link goes to a single throw-away sentence in an AP piece that isn't focused on voting problems at all. No displaced voters are interviewed, no canvassing board officials are quoted, no figures from the secretary of state's office. But it got mentioned as an aside by a wire reporter cramming to meet a deadline, so hey, it's got to be the final word.
510: Less swim-, more prune juice-blogging!
513: That the General Assembly can be corrupt is not news to anyone, I'll grant you that. And yet, that same body passed gay rights legislation years ago and will not be going back on it (the majority leader of the House, in fact, is openly gay--I bet being anti-gay rights is news to him, not to mention Providence's gay mayor), nor have I noticed any rush by the Assembly to take advantage of the Supreme Court's increased latitude on abortion. Given that we're talking about national politics as well, I think RI's representation and voting record tilt decidedly the other way. Yes, I know, Kennedy and, more frequently, Langevin have voting anti-choice positions on some legislation, but I think if one looks at their overall records, not to mention those of Reed, etc., it's not a very conservative record even when compared to that of other blue states.
516: JL, it's not just corruption. The Rhode Island Democratic Party is currently run by economic conservatives. These are the people who used their veto-proof majority to push through Carcieri's tax cuts and are paying for them now by slashing state services across the board. These are the people who voted to start trying 17-year-olds as adults because it was cheaper to send them to the adult prison than to send them to the training school - and only repealed that law when it turned out that it was costing them more money, because the people at the ACI had to keep the minors in protective custody. All of this is because of the reverse-Robin Hood tax policy endorsed by both parties in this state, a policy which is determined to eliminate the capital gains tax and give the rich a flat tax while slashing Rite Care, funding for children in the care of the state, school budgets and more.
the majority leader of the House, in fact, is openly gay--I bet being anti-gay rights is news to him
This is why I said "the majority of the leadership." One person out of four does not constitute a majority. And Cicilline isn't in the general assembly.
I know Cicilline isn't in the General Assembly--I mentioned him simply because he's one of the leading figures of the Democratic party in the state, and not at all in line with the picture you're painting of it.
I do fault the GA for falling in with the Governor's tax plans (and I don't think corruption, if not always in the form of illegal activities, isn't to the point--one problem with having such large majorities is the leadership gets too cozy) and their dealing with the resulting budget shortfalls has not been a model of good government. That said, budget deficits rarely play out any other way, and I doubt RI will be the only state government cutting back; and while the (Republican) Governor does want to slash RIte Care, the Lt. Gov's proposal for health care reform a la Massachusetts the support of the GA's leadership (Fox is the sponsor.) So it's not as simple a situation as that (though I must admit I'm not really competent to evaluate what the optimal health care reform plan would be, especially at the state level.)
As I said, looking to national politics--the actual context of this discussion--I still don't see any reason to consider RI particularly conservative among Democratic states. As far as I can tell, however, arguing any further requires getting into looking at rankings of voting records, which some people find suspect and I find tedious, or continuing with this sort of "yes it is" "no it isn't" debate, which I find even more so.
If he can't overcome Sekrit Muslim Communist Agent smears and pseudocontrarian jibes about cultism in the primary of the somewhat liberal party, how is he going to beat the same tactics in the general election?
there's sad truth to this. Anecdotal data from Texas is that the grassroots muslim smears hurt him a lot. I haven't seen that Obama has yet recognized how serious this is. I saw this before in Louisiana. Jindall figured it out on the his second run for governor. Obama I think needs to follow suit, and repeat "I'm a Christian, I'm a Christian, I'm a Christian" like a broken record.
Secondly, I want to say that caucuses ARE A RETARDED WAY TO PICK A NOMINEE. Probably the texas caucus was worse than others, but still. It's not how you vote in a general election, most importantly. You get a different type of voter. One with more free time and interest in politics, which just does NOT reflect the general voting populace. There's a also bit of a class divide b/w Hillary and Barack supporters, and I talked to a lot of Hillary supporters who couldn't caucus b/c they were working. I'm sure that happened to Obama supporters, too, but b/c of the general class divide, I suspect it hurt Hillary more. Elderly voters, too, are less likely to make it to a caucus (though we certainly had some! go great-grandma!!).
As I said, looking to national politics--the actual context of this discussion--I still don't see any reason to consider RI particularly conservative among Democratic states.
At the national level, there's very little support among congressional Democrats for eliminating the capital gains tax or introducing a flat tax for the rich. Just in case you haven't been paying attention.
520: I try to get out . . . OK, Sen. Jack Reed, currently RI's senior Senator (with several years prior service in the U.S. House and as a committee chair in the RI House) and longest-serving public official elected statewide: his voting record as evaluated by numerous interest groups. He's generally ranked as among the most liberal Senators (I know, such things can be manipulated, but he's up there), and the rest of RI's delagation isn't far behind him. He's not notably charismatic, and yet he's the most popular politician in the state. Obviously he relies on that conservative streak among the voters to get by.
Jack Reed isn't a state-level politician. Try again, JL.
WTF? He's a U.S. Senator. You advanced the alleged conservatism of the RI Democratic primary electorate in a statewide contest for federal office as the reason for Clinton's victory. That's the same pool that routinely nominates Reed, and includes his most ardent supporters. I've granted some of your points regarding the General Assembly (although you've stopped trying to advance others that I've pointed out were incorrect), but 522 is bullshit.
WTF? He's a U.S. Senator.
Exactly; he's working at national-level politics, not state-level politics. The United States Senate doesn't work the same way the Rhode Island General Assembly does.
Look: the Democratic Party in Rhode Island is considerably to the right of the national Democratic Party. The national Democratic Party has consistently opposed the Bush tax cuts, if impotently; the RI Democrats, on the other hand, have a veto-proof majority and passed a phase-out of the capital gains tax and an "alternative flat tax" for the rich. When this lead to a massive budget crisis, they didn't respond by rolling back tax cuts, but by gutting social services and cutting schools and sending minors to prison. A political viewpoint in which "tax cuts for the rich" outweighs "sending seventeen-year-olds to the ACI to get assaulted by hardened felons" is a conservative viewpoint.
although you've stopped trying to advance others that I've pointed out were incorrect
Such as?
Exactly; he's working at national-level politics, not state-level politics. The United States Senate doesn't work the same way the Rhode Island General Assembly does.
Look, I'm not going to bother with this much more. Yesterday's primary was at national-level politics. The repeated and widespread support of liberal politicians like Jack Reed (and numerous others over the years), reflects how the state's electorate (or that part of it that chooses to vote in Democratic primaries) indicates that there's something wrong with asking Why did Rhode Island go for Clinton? Why wouldn't it? As blue states go it's fairly conservative. How RI behaves regarding questions of national politics is exactly the issue, as I've been saying (As I said, looking to national politics--the actual context of this discussion, etc.)
Lastly, I notice now that I had missed your 514. It's true that the Globe article doesn't go into great depth. I cited it because it was the most extensive discussion I came across that wasn't some anonymous guy on a blog.
Such as?
I was specifically thinking of the fact that you didn't respond to my noting that RI had already passed gay rights legislation. I suppose in retrospect you may have meant that the current leadership opposes any new initiatives, whether legalizing gay marriage, civil unions, etc. Opposing the first wouldn't be all that conservative by the standards of Democratic politicians--sadly, it's the default position for most, but opposing the latter probably is. On that issue, I think that if we ever get a Democratic governor (and don't get me started on the trouble doing that) we'll probably get some movement there. Anyway, if you prefer to take the stand that you've not budged an inch, that's fine. All this business about the General Assembly is basically not to the point of what I was objecting to in your 483, as I've noted several times now.
I cited it because it was the most extensive discussion I came across that wasn't some anonymous guy on a blog.
How are Matt Jerzyk and David Segal anonymous? And again, you're not even bothering to respond to the fact that the Rhode Island Democrats, with a veto-proof majority, consistently pass right-wing economic policy year after year. This is not a liberal state. This is just a state where pretty much everyone, liberal and conservative, happens to be a Democrat. It's not that uncommon.
How are Matt Jerzyk and David Segal anonymous?
How did you expect anyone to know who you were relying on when you never mentioned a name or gave a link? Searching for news regarding yesterday's primary turns up a lot of results right now. If you have something specific, link to it. I now see this post, which is interesting, but hardly makes me think there was a big story. Perhaps there was, but so far I've just got an anecdote. My polling place was fine.
This is not a liberal state.
I'd note that this goes way beyond what you've argued previously in this thread, and that, again, in the context of national politics--the relevant one here--it's definitely not true. Even despite what the current Governor and General Assembly are up to, I doubt a statement this broad would really stand up for state politics, but that's another question.
This is just a state where pretty much everyone, liberal and conservative, happens to be a Democrat.
Now this is closer to the mark regarding state politics, and no, it's not that uncommon. I'd put it differently to say the plurality (at least) of the voters are Democrats, the committed Republicans are a tiny fringe, and the rest are independents. Which for all practical purposes means the GA will be dominated by Democrats coming from across the ideological spectrum, as independents pretty much by definition won't be able to coherently challenge the majority.
Holy crap, I missed a Rhode Island based stras slap-fight? Dang.
You did indeed. But he seems to be gone and I'm taking off now, so it's over. Just as well, as it mostly involved arguing at cross purposes (never happens on the internets, I know.)
Great news. Obama's success in the Texas caucuses may mean that he gets more delegates out of Texas, not many, but a few more, than Clinton.
