Okay, I don't usually do this (oh, who am I kidding), but I totally called this Tuesday morning.
And then the momentum falls apart when Obama wins Mississippi.
Really, though, a win in Pennsylvania would be really good for Obama. And an Obama loss in Pennsylvania keeps Clinton in it until enough supers tell her it's over.
This is what I've been saying all along. Winning this or that state really only means something if you win it better than 2-1.
Napi is right. Again. Also, I can do my dance if people want to see it one more time. But white people can't dance. So maybe not.
Well, look, we all knew that the delegate spread wouldn't change, right? The point here is that "Clinton wins Ohio and Texas" makes for a far different media frame than "Clinton and Obama split Ohio and Texas." If the latter were being reported since Tuesday (and I don't entirely blame the media for not reporting facts that aren't yet in hand), the pressure for Clinton to drop out would be much greater. I think it was Open Left that pointed out that a nominee who goes into the convention on a losing streak is much weakened; I think that's right, and it would suck if Obama has to win the nomination that way.
Meanwhile, HRC again notes that she and McCain are credible C-in-C's, while Obama is not. I eagerly await digby's ten part series on how this is wrong and reinforces Republican frames. Oh, wait....
My understanding from the NPR story I just heard while driving (so take with a grain of salt) is that the count won't be completed until the end of March -- that the count (of what exactly is unclear to me) has been halted at 40%, something to do with the later-occurring Senate count, so that they don't have to do it twice. At that time, Obama will likely come out the winner, but it's still unknown, and my sense from the story is that the weirdly combined primary plus caucus system in Texas did make it look like a Clinton win.
Where is JesusMcQ going on about this?
The media narrative is chasing the latest ooh-aah dramatic story.
Expecting fairness from the media is kind of like commanding the tide to stay out.
Ban me for the analogy, but it's really all I've got.
There was an AP story today about how it is essentially impossible for Clinton to catch Obama. That's what his camp had been saying, so I'm sure we'll hear about how this is just a biased story from the Hillary-hating media.
Interestingly, it noted that she's contesting Wyoming and Mississippi, and that her team admitted it was a mistake to focus on only a couple states and let him rack up huge wins in others (which is the only way to really move the delegate count.)
the pressure for Clinton to drop out would be much greater.
Where is this pressure coming from? Not from rank-and-file Democrats, it would seem. In a poll conducted over the weekend, two-thirds of Democrats said Clinton should stay in the race if she won either Ohio or Texas. It's pundits and bloggy people who want (and expect) her to drop out, and who've been calling for her to drop out for several weeks now (even before Texas and Ohio). But many Democrats want (and expect) her to stay in.
That they still don't know who won the caucus is ridiculous.
I think "many Democrats" don't understand that she can't win without what my Irish ancestors would have called "shenanigans."
Obama's also leading in the UADs, which nobody has much mentioned. But the numbers are actually a little worse for Clinton than they appear in most tallies.
5: More than that, the Clintons are clearly trying to set up the argument that caucuses are undemocratic and the delegates so pledged are somehow illegitimate. Such fucking bullshit. And the media is going to help them out. Again. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck.
11: It has something to do with their system. No oddity suggested.
12: I think the idea is that many Democrat(ic) voters actually support her candidacy. They are not very savvy about the delegate system.
I'm not sure this is a vast Hillary-wing conspiracy. It's just more incompetence. Two things are at work here:
-When the popular vote and delegate count are based on different things (which I think they are in most states), the media always goes with the popular vote. To do anything else would be too complicated.
-When a narrative is established, as a narrative was established Tuesday night, the media is loath to change it. Al Gore still says he invented the Internet by most accounts.
As for caucuses being less democratic, I think by most common standards that's just true. When Gore lost in 2000, his supporters were correct to point out that the process that gave Bush the election was less democratic than just counting the popular vote nationwide.
I think you'll see that, as with Gore, the "more democratic" argument won't be dispositive here either.
The fact that Hillary won the primary fairly easily and lost the caucuses just shows how manipulable caucus systems are.
Why would it be "shenanigans" for Hillary to win using superdelegates, and totally kosher for Obama to win with caucus-selected delegates? Both are within the rules, both are less democratic than primaries.
And why is it that all internet supporters of Obama start to become annoying?
Where is JesusMcQ going on about this?
Here, parsimon. Whenever the Texas Democratic Party gets around to finishing the count, I'm guessing the story will be buried unless the Obama campaign really presses the issue.
When Gore lost in 2000, his supporters were correct to point out that the process that gave Bush the election was less democratic than just counting the popular vote nationwide.
Yeah, I always hated that argument. It's just nutty. You can't separate our democracy from the rules we use to regulate it, and there isn't a platonic form of American Democracy out there against which to measure it.
The fact that Hillary won the primary fairly easily and lost the caucuses just shows how manipulable caucus systems are.
Or the reverse. Cripes, we're talking about Texas here. Didn't we just discuss LBJ earlier today?
And why is it that all internet supporters of Obama start to become annoying?
I don't know, why is it?
What's weird to me is why Obama supporters somehow feel their man is entitled to the nomination because he happens to be ahead by a few dozen delegates right now. There are hundreds of superdelegates and neither candidate can reach the majority without them. Including Obama. If Hillary can win them over, based on, say, taking a majority of all the votes actually cast in this primary season (which it's quite possible she'll do), then she deserves to win within the whacked-out rules of the nomination.
Hillary is losing by a razor-thin margin right now because her campaign was disorganized, not because there's any evidence that the Democratic electorate clearly prefers Obama to her.
Party bigwigs who are chosen by party bigger-wigs (superdelegates) seem qualitatively different to me from enthusiastic party members (folks who go to caucus). But that isn't what I'm thinking of as shenanigans, anyway. Seating the delegates chosen by the Pyongyang single candidate election in MI -- that would be some shenanigans.
I think "many Democrats" don't understand that she can't win without what my Irish ancestors would have called "shenanigans."
Why can't she win without shenanigans? I'm asking in all innocence here -- I don't get it.
Both are within the rules, both are less democratic than primaries.
FFS. Leaning on superdelegates is as democratic as voting in a caucus? Break me a fucking give.
taking a majority of all the votes actually cast in this primary season (which it's quite possible she'll do), then she deserves to win within the whacked-out rules of the nomination.
If she can do this (excluding Michigan and (maybe) Florida) I wouldn't think the superdelegates are doing anything particularly wrongful in putting her over the top, but I wouldn't say she deserves to win. If winning the popular vote were the only way to deserve the nomination, presumably the campaigns would have strategized differently.
There should be a do-over in Michigan and Florida. I agree it would be unfair to seat those delegates.
Party bigwigs who are chosen by party bigger-wigs (superdelegates) seem qualitatively different to me from enthusiastic party members (folks who go to caucus).
Most superdelegates are elected officials. They just as fair, IMO a fairer, claim to represent the party than the people who go to caucuses. Hillary's caucus organization was messed up and not prepared to contest the things properly in smaller states.
What gets me is that you know, with total certainty, that if Obama and Hillary's positions were exactly reversed -- if he had taken most of the public primaries in the big major states but was slightly behind because Hillary's field operation had outorganized him in obscure caucus states -- the Obama supporters would be yelling and screaming about what an undemocratic conspiracy that was. Making dark but evidence-free insinuations about conspiracies, etc. In fact, it would be an easier case to make if the positions were reversed.
I'd probably prefer Obama to win. It would help the party if one of them dropped out, and I'd prefer it to be Hillary. But it's silly to say that it's illegitimate for Hillary to be contesting this thing.
If Hillary can win them over, based on, say, taking a majority of all the votes actually cast in this primary season (which it's quite possible she'll do), then she deserves to win within the whacked-out rules of the nomination.
The primary system doles out delegates; those are the points of this game. Whoever gets the most points wins. The superdelegates are to step in and correct obvious error. But majority of the votes? Please. It's not hard to construct a hypothetical Presidential election in which the Republican wins every state but CA by one, and takes CA by 100,000K. So the Dem gets the Presidency? Yeah, that'd fly.
"They have just as fair a claim as"....my passion is destroying my typing abilities.
The fact that Hillary won the primary fairly easily and lost the caucuses just shows how manipulable caucus systems are.
"Manipulable" is a loaded word here. In other contexts, I have defended Hillary for her willingness to work the system when that's required. Her poor performance in the caucuses is a result of her failure to work the system. That's a point for Obama, if you ask me.
The superdelegate system was explicitly created to have no connection to reality - at least, reality as represented by primary or caucus results. In retrospect, perhaps a suboptimal choice.
25: Clinton simply cannot get a majority of delegates without superdelegates. Neither can Obama. But Obama will have, barring sudden death or truly extraordinary scandal, a plurality of the delegates going into the convention. Many feel that the distinction between majority and plurality isn't worth much, and that winning on superdelegates while not having a plurality of ordinary delegates would be shenanigans.
But even ordinary delegates are only bound for the first few convention votes (though the campaigns do get to pick them, and are surely screening for die-hard loyalists), so if this goes to convention undecided, expect some real shenanigans.
What gets me is that you know, with total certainty, that if Obama and Hillary's positions were exactly reversed -- if he had taken most of the public primaries in the big major states but was slightly behind because Hillary's field operation had outorganized him in obscure caucus states -- the Obama supporters would be yelling and screaming about what an undemocratic conspiracy that was. Making dark but evidence-free insinuations about conspiracies, etc. In fact, it would be an easier case to make if the positions were reversed.
Sure, but so what? People tend to have stronger allegiances to preferred politicians than to abstract issues of political organization. Nothing unusual about that.
As per usual, I'll be the contrarian here. I like caucuses, precisely because they're less democratic. Given the generally abysmal level of political knowledge in the population at large, a process that skews toward involved, well-informed voters is a feature, not a bug.
222: same reason PGD's been so annoying about Obama supporters, I'd wager.
People, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC ELECTION. This is a nomination, conducted according to the rules -- democratic or not -- of a private institution, the Democratic party.
If it *was* a public election, then there wouldn't be caucuses OR super-delegates, and there wouldn't be crazy delegate apportionment rules. Without any of those things, Hillary would likely be winning right now. If all these things were winner-take-all primaries, I believe Hillary would be winning.
It makes no logical sense, none, to say the undemocratic rules of this crazy nomination system that benefit your guy are legitimate and wonderful and the ones that don't are awful dark sinister manipulations of the power elites.
Superdelegates are the duly selected leadership corps of the Democratic party. Most of them have gone out and put their careers and reputations on the line to win elections as Democrats. If we're going to give an extra voice to local party enthusiasts willing to take hours and hours to hang out and caucus -- something which is easiest to do for starry-eyed college students with no family and no job -- then we can damn well give a voice to superdelegates. Besides, it's the rules.
I wouldn't call it illegitimate. I would call it fucking annoying and dramatically undemocratic -- in a way that caususes, not being made up of national political figures with specific backroom interests, are not.
It makes no logical sense, none, to say the undemocratic rules of this crazy nomination system that benefit your guy are legitimate and wonderful and the ones that don't are awful dark sinister manipulations of the power elites.
This only makes sense insofar as it is factual.
Most of them have gone out and put their careers and reputations on the line to win elections as Democrats....Besides, it's the rules.
That seems right. Look, if she wins, she wins. I think people are expressing what HC says well: "Many feel that the distinction between majority and plurality isn't worth much, and that winning on superdelegates while not having a plurality of ordinary delegates would be shenanigans." That doesn't seem like a crazy view to hold, either. If the superdelegates think it's worth whatever risk there is to their own careers and livelihoods, then they do. Not much we can do about it.
Backroom interests are part of politics just like inspirational charisma is. Sometimes they're corrupt, but sometimes they aren't. The Democratic backroom includes union, local politicians trying to fix their cities, etc.
What's really annoying about this process is how badly it was designed. What exactly was gained through a system that makes it so hard for one candidate to pull ahead? How does the party gain by dragging it out and not having clarity about the winner? It's like they didn't think there could actually be a close race.
What makes my mood worse is that it looks like Cleveland got worse with this big trade -- Chicago is beating them right now. That's fucking annoying.
Why can't she win without shenanigans? I'm asking in all innocence here -- I don't get it.
She can (realistically) only get ahead in pledged delegates by seating the MI and FL delegations, which any fair-minded person has to concede is shenanigans. (She could get darn close if MI and FL re-vote, which would probably be the least shenanigan-ish possible resolution to that whole debacle.)
She can get ahead in the total delegate count by persuading enough super/automatic delegates to her side, which is not strictly speaking shenanigans (as per PGD's 37) but could give off a pretty foul odor (esp. if, as is now the case, Obama ends up winning more pledged delegates, more votes, and more states).
What exactly was gained through a system that makes it so hard for one candidate to pull ahead?
Well, it hasn't produced that result in quite a long time.
Obama ends up winning more pledged delegates, more votes, and more states
I have to admit that I don't really get the "more states" thing. That seems like the least important of the criteria listed.
I really do think there needs to be a do-over with Florida and Michigan. For Hillary to try to muscle those delegates in based on the uncontested election would really cloud the whole thing very badly.
Probably Dean and other party bigwigs would need to step in to make sure that happens.
The ideal solution would be to line up Florida-Michigan-Pennsylvania and have a clear winner of at least two of those three states to give some kind of mandate.
Cavs have no fucking interior defense at all. Ben Wallance is useless.
The ideal solution would be to line up Florida-Michigan-Pennsylvania and have a clear winner of at least two of those three states to give some kind of mandate.
Fuck it. Whoever, wins Puerto Rico, wins.
Who's with me?
I have to admit that I don't really get the "more states" thing. That seems like the least important of the criteria listed.
That's true. Except insofar (and I'll concede this is a stretch) as it indicates the potential to improve the situation in the Senate (Sausagely had something along these lines earlier today).
Michigan, at least, has pretty much indicated they'll have a do-over caucus (but more similar to other primaries than caucuses- show up and vote, but technically a caucus because it's run by the party instead of the state.) There's word of a possible primary by mail in FL- yeah, that will be nice and clean.
Sausagely had something along these lines earlier today
Et voila: "I would note that there are Democratic Senate pickup opportunities this year in Oregon, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Virginia where the polls show Obama winning and Hillary losing, but there are no such races in Arkansas, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan or New Jersey where the map shows Hillary winning and Obama losing."
The larger point on which we can all agree is this: Hillary Clinton is a seekrit Shi'a and in the pay of the Iranian terror masters.
47: dance contest!
44: The standard delegate system really wasn't designed to produce a winner in a tight race. Proportional allocation was selected to be "fairer", and let everyone feel their vote counted. It's working as designed.
The superdelegate system was designed to produce a winner in a tight race - which this is - and isn't presently functioning as designed because it assumed that there would be a strong consensus among the establishment.
47: There was speculation for a while that PR was functionally winner take all, prompting all kinds of speculation. Unfortunately for political junkies, it looks like it will generate the same grinding proportional allocation as all the rest.
Haven't the governors of both Florida and Michigan gone out and said that their delegates should count and that they won't be paying for another election?
Has anybody put a dollar tag on what the 2nd primaries would cost? Just let the two campaigns split it 50/50. They're both rolling in dough.
Florida and Michigan present a really interesting tactical issue for both candidates. Leaving aside the merits of the case (which I think clearly favor a re-do of some sort), I'm not sure how I would advise either candidate if it were my job to help win an election.
PGD gets it right in 28 and 37.
PGD's 28 and 37 seem to be at odds with each other.
"There should be a do-over in Michigan and Florida. I agree it would be unfair to seat those delegates."
and
"This is a nomination, conducted according to the rules -- democratic or not -- of a private institution, the Democratic party."
Haven't the governors of both Florida and Michigan gone out and said that their delegates should count and that they won't be paying for another election?
Yes, but in the case of Florida, at least, Dean has said the DNC won't pay for one either.
57: No contradiction at all. Florida and Michigan broke the rules set up by the Democratic party, the party officially decreed that candidates should not campaign there and the delegates would not count, Hillary campaigned there anyway and won. Making the delegates count from the original primaries would be breaking the rules retroactively to benefit Hillary.
And it seems pretty clear that the DNC isn't going to seat the delegates from the unrecognized elections already conducted.
Just let the two campaigns split it 50/50. They're both rolling in dough.
The states should pay, they are the ones that broke the rules to move their primaries up. They should suffer a penalty.
The campaigns need the money for the general.
57: No contradiction at all. Florida and Michigan broke the rules set up by the Democratic party
So why unfair to not seat them?
The states should pay
The states or the state parties?
63: ??? I said several times (28 and 46) that it would be unfair to seat them. They broke the rules, they should not be seated.
I said several times (28 and 46) that it would be unfair to seat them. They broke the rules, they should not be seated.
So why should there be new elections?
64: I guess it would have to be the state parties, unless they can lobby the states into doing it. It's up to the state parties if they want representation in the convention.
If they don't pay, they've in effect been rewarded by getting to decide the election anyway. Ironic that this whole thing started because the states thought that late primaries hurt them...
TPM says Dean says the DNC won't pay for them.
55: ~$10m. Each. Not cheap.
56: Get out in front and call for them to be seated or redone. You'll want those voters in the general. Win the battle to set expectations - Obama will outperform his earlier results; Clinton will probably win the vote but not significant delegates. Make sure that the media thinks that this is a victory for your side, and make sure that the superdelegates think so too.
And it seems pretty clear that the DNC isn't going to seat the delegates from the unrecognized elections already conducted.
My guess is that's correct. Which at least arguably makes it tactically wise for Hillary to favor a re-do and for Obama to oppose it.
On the other hand, Hillary might figure her best shot is to sweet-talk enough super-delegates to support seating those delegations. And therefore, Obama might be well-advised to support a re-do.
Hmmm.
Of course, all of this is irrelevant from Obama's point of view, because we know that he a man of principle who would never support the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan for political reasons.
I think it's pretty clear that Clinton should want a revote. If she strings together primary wins in Pennsylvania-North Carolina-Michigan-Florida going into the convention she's going to look pretty good. Right now she's getting no benefit from those delegates, they won't be seated.
I said several times (28 and 46) that it would be unfair to seat them. They broke the rules, they should not be seated.
What Teo said. You're still calling for another election in those states. I assume that would lead to seating the delegates.
So why should there be new elections?
Because it would disenfranchise over 2 million Dems who had no say whatsoever in the decision to move the primaries and break DNC rules.
Among other things, FL is, as you may have heard, kind of important in national elections. Suffice it to say that if no one finds a way to seat FL and Obama is the nominee, you can give those electoral votes to McCain in September.
Of course, all of this is irrelevant from Obama's point of view, because we know that he a man of principle who would never support the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan for political reasons.
Oh SNAP!
66, 72: the violation was the timing of the original primary. Having to run a do-over primary after everybody else, and paying extra to do it, seems like a reasonable penalty to me. Plus, it would solve the deeper unfairness problem that Obama did not get to compete in those states, which even beyond the rules violation makes it totally unfair to seat the delegates.
If you think it's still not enough of a penalty, I guess you would disagree. That's a judgement call.
Bottom line, it would be useful for the party to know how those voters would go, because the election is just about a tie right now. That weighs in the balance too.
Pennsylvania-North Carolina-Michigan-Florida
I would be shocked shocked shocked if Clinton won North Carolina.
I assume that would lead to seating the delegates.
What would be unfair would be seating the delegates selected back in January - everyone agreed that such delegates shouldn't be seated, and in MI, no one else was on the ballot. In FL, at least, everyone was on the ballot, and Obama and HRC just happened to fundraise there in the weeks leading up to the primary.
Someone - maybe at TAPPED? - suggested that Obama should offer to seat the already-selected FL delegates (for the ostensible reasons above) and offer to split the cost of an MI caucus - it would make him look great and democratic, yet ensure that the run of states listed in 71 won't happen.
Excuse me, I believe you mean "7777".
73.3 is just sillytrue.
Sorry, Tweety. Obama is already projected to lose FL. Do you think that pissing off half a million Democrats is his secret plan to defeat McCain there?
Pennsylvania-North Carolina-Michigan-Florida going into the convention she's going to look pretty good.
Not really. She'd still be behind by 50 or more delegates. But she'd lose NC and likely Michigan, anyway.
Having to run a do-over primary after everybody else, and paying extra to do it, seems like a reasonable penalty to me.
Ah, ok. Reasonable, probably unlikely though.
Because it would disenfranchise over 2 million Dems
Oddly, I call giving people the chance to take part in a contested election which counts enfranchising them.
BTW, I just want to throw out a hypothetical. There are 12 votes left. If HRC sweeps them*, but ends up down, say, 15 pledged delegates, will y'all still be so righteous about superdelegates? Where's that threshhold?
* I know she won't; that's why it's a "hypothetical." Also, for these purposes, presume that she doesn't sweep by destroying Obama with Secret Muslim attacks; he just keeps having bad weeks the way he did last week
82: Say, hypothetically, she did win those four before the convention. Even if she were behind by a few delegates, she'd have won primaries representing the great majority of the U.S. population, and presumably the majority of all the primary votes cast. She's have a reasonable argument to superdelegates that Obama could not reliably close the deal with voters and was not even clearly electable in a Dem primary.
84: Is this just a grammar thing? I was responding to the implicit negative in teo's query, but obviously should have written "to do otherwise would disenfranchise...." in 73.
87 is true, and explains neatly why the next couple months are already so totally, totally retarded.
81: no, it's silly. They won't hold it against him.
Amusingly, you have no more ability to defend what you're saying than I do what I'm saying.
I misunderstood and thought you were saying a revote would disenfranchise people (the voters who voted the first time and for some reason won't be able to in a hypothetical revote).
89: retarded, annoying, and yet somehow irresistible if you are a political junkie. Let's just flip a fucking coin and put the nation's CNN viewers and all of our relatives out of their misery.
You know, we're stuck with a system of superdelegates, but one hopes that if it comes to Obama being up by 100+ delegates, that it wouldn't come to seating MI and FL and then deciding that HRC was the better candidate against McCain (assuming polls hold constant.) And while I understand how the superdelegate business works, it still would feel like a giant fuck-you to anyone who voted for Obama.
82- Well, I can't see that happening, but that's the hope if you're Clinton. North Carolina won't go for Clinton. And Michigan would be really tough and seems at best a slim victory (only 12% seniors) for her. I think the delegate math is just a stubborn thing now.
There is no good solution to the Florida/Michigan problem which shows how stupid the DNC was to take all their delegates away in the first place. It would have been much better to do what the Republicans did, take half the delegates away.
Amusingly, you have no more ability to defend what you're saying than I do what I'm saying.
Eh. As you say, it's all retarded. That doesn't make statements that run counter to what facts we have just as likely to be true as statements that agree with the facts we have. The facts we have say that McCain is more likely to win FL than Obama (and less likely than HRC). It's hard to see how BHO gains votes in FL by opposing attempts to seat delegates from there.
I would never claim that he would go from winning FL to losing on this issue - that would be silly - but it's pretty fucking absurd to claim that he'll gain FL votes from this issue.
Electability!
93- 100+ does seem to be where this is heading. I have no idea how Florida and Michigan should be resolved, but if there's a re-vote, they wouldn't be a significant source of delegates for Clinton.
95: yes, James. There's much the Democratic party can learn from the GOP. Great point.
96: which facts are those?
93- I see the super delegates overturning a pledged delegate lead as next to impossible. How in the world do you send the nominee to the general on that basis and expect to compete?
99: clearly you are not a diehard Clinton supporter.
98: Consistent polling + BHO's voter demographics to date + the last two elections.
I know you dismiss all of this, but if you're going to comment on it, you don't get to step back and say it's all nonsense. If it's not worth discussing, don't discuss it.
JRoth, bringin' the bold. Tensions sure are running high right now.
99: why? That's only true if you accept the Obama-ist frame that all pledged delegates are inherently more legitimate than all superdelegates. True if enough diehard Democrats accept that frame and refuse to vote for Hillary in a general, then that's a big problem. But I can't imagine it swaying independents or swing voters, it's too inside baseball.
Christ, I hate Florida. Can't it be made into an Israeli or a Palestinian homeland or something?
Can't it be made into an Israeli or a Palestinian homeland or something?
Or both! That'll show 'em.
Clearly, the only way to settle this is to hold an Unfogged primary and send some delegates to the convention.
Or better, some kind of internet caucus where we comment to each other until 1 AM and try to sway people over to our side.
103- Simply because the Republicans would be the party of the people and Democrats would be the party of party officials. There'd be no argument against it.
I've always figured that the Israelis could work something out with Cuba, if they were willing to take our Florida problem off our hands.
104- It would have to be Palestinian since the Israelis have a homeland already.
103: I think the regular delegates are perceived as more legitimate. That's not true, but this is also the first primary in recent memory where 'superdelegate' has been talked about a lot.
So there's a perception that whoever wins the primaries is the nominee. Rightly or wrongly. And I think it would take incredible political skill to convince the average voter that a 100+ delegate lead being overruled by MI/FL and some shadowy superdelegates wasn't tossing out the election because the guy they didn't want to win ended up ahead.
Simply because the Republicans would be the party of the people and Democrats would be the party of party officials. There'd be no argument against it.
Yeah, if how it's going to happen, it's going to be extremely maddening.
The Democrats are the party in which, for the first time in the history of the democratic candidate selection process, nearly all the states had a say. The Republicans are the party where the inevitable candidate was crowned 1/3 of the way through the process. Plus, which party is it that has winner-take-all primaries?
Also, the estimate I've heard for a full-on primary in Florida - not mail-in - is about $18 million. Crist was on CNN saying the DNC should do it; Blitzer kept pressing him by saying that an election would be great for Florida's economy, so why not invest some Florida money in it. Crist was also presenting it as a "non-partisan" issue: it's about enfranchisement and democracy and all that good stuff.*
*And, of course, about fucking with the Democratic party primary.
110: From Feb 18, today.
Both of these show improving numbers for the Dems, but the both show FL as decisively better for HRC. Note that the earlier source specifically identifies the delegate situation as hurting BHO - he only gets 55% of registered Dems. The later one has McCain and Obama quite close - but it shows HRC blowing McCain away. And SUSA has been spot-on accurate this year, so I take their trends, at least, pretty seriously. FL is a better state for HRC, and BHO will likely be hurt there in the general if no one from FL gets a say in Denver.
Personally, I think the "electability" argument is dumb because I feel quite comfortable that either Dem can win (presuming no shenanigans). But that doesn't mean I don't think it would be dumb for BHO to hurt himself in FL by failing to find a way to get them to Denver. He's winning handily in pledged delegates, and FL won't really change that.
I was serious above when my hypothetical was a 12 state/territory HRC sweep - that's the only way I see her winning, and I don't think it can happen. BHO can afford to give up FL (whether the existing vote or some re-vote), so I think he should. He might want to wait until he wins MS by 20+ points, though.
117: I read $10M apiece today - pretty sure that was for a primary, not caucus.
The campaigns could clearly afford to pony up half the cost, with the other half coming from the chastened state parties. It's not ideal to take that money out of the state party coffers, but it's actually not a huge amount for each state - presumably they could sell it to their members.
I thought Miami already was the Jewish homeland?
Blitzer may not be the most reliable source, but he definitely said $18 million.
I thought Miami already was the Jewish homeland?
Yep. Maybe give the Palestinians Tampa.
Blitzer kept pressing him by saying that an election would be great for Florida's economy, so why not invest some Florida money in it.
Did he have any evidence for this, or was he just being an idiot?
123: Retirees love to vote, and they love early bird specials. Profit!
Just think about the coming economic gain for Pennsylvania which holds its primary on April 22. This is one of the best things to happen to that state in a long time.
Hey! We just won the Superbowl 2 years ago, dammit.
Also, the Bassmaster Classic was in Pittsburgh a couple years back. That was HUGE. Stick that in your beard and smoke it, "Wolf."
I'm actually pretty psyched about the primary coming here. I'm looking forward to taking my daughter to see HRC; she's a big fan.*
* I would note that my daughter's preferences are wholly her own. All I told her was the salient characteristics of each candidate: HRC's a lesbian, BHO's a Muslim, and McCain's a horrible, horrible old man.
Retirees love to vote, and they love early bird specials. Profit!
They already live there, though. Wouldn't most of them be going for the early bird special anyway?
Oh, now I see why this thread went utterly dead.
Wouldn't most of them be going for the early bird special anyway?
You're underestimating how cheap old people are. They only splurge for the Early Bird on special occasions. If not for the extra primary, that $4.95 apiece (plus $0.75 tip!) would just sit in their bank accounts, destined for ingrate children in other states.
126.3 Yeah and hardly anyone caught shit. Unfortunately, it was a bad fishing week on the rivers.
Michigan's Kevin VanDam brought a five-bass limit to the scales that weighed 4 pounds, 13 ounces. The limit -- rare for this Classic, which established an all-time record low final weight
