Redstate

There is no way they would do that, and there is no way that Obama supporters would simple accept it. The Democratic Party would alienate black voters as well as young ones in one big swoop. They'll lose Presidential elections for the next 20 years if they do that.

While the party makes dumb decisions, I can't fathom they don't have some grasp on what happens if they screw Obama over.

The MSM are the ones coming up with this garbage about some big 'scary' backlash. Its hogwash. Do you think for even one moment that the Republican party would ever let itself be hijacked by college kids and one single demographic of the public? Why would the Democrats be that stupid?

Sure you'll get some boneheads out jumping around for the cameras but by the time the convention rolls around they'll look as stupid as Code Pink does now. The black voters will still vote Democratic and the youth vote will still do what it has done in every election before: stay home and watch TV.

This "backlash" isn't a MSM thing. It's reality. Ask people you know who are voting Obama. I've had almost every one of them say they'll vote McCain if Hillary steals the nomination from him.

I think this is a unique election year, especially on the Democratic side. People are much more passionate about this election than any I can ever remember. I just don't see how you can tell 50 some odd percent of the Democratic party that this whole primary thing was just for fun and your vote doesn't matter. You'll have a lot of people on the Democrat side sitting out or voting McCain instead. Don't underestimate the high negatives Hillary has and what this would do to that number.

Obama supporters would be deeply disappointed if they lost an election thisclose legitimately. To lose on shady superdelegates and on the seating delegates of FL and MI would be a snow job. If that happens I hope DNC funding goes up in smoke, and Hillary deserves to be labeled as a power monger and nothing else.

The Clintons' penchant for the good fight isn't so charming when it destroys their own party.

To them it's all a means to achieve their own ambitions. They left the Democratic party in tatters the last time around they had the White House. Infact, once they steal the nomination they have their own infrastructure to fight the election, largely bypassing the DNC.

The Democratic party is going to have to drag the Clintons out kicking and screaming.

By the way the danger of youth and AA votes being lsot in case Hillary gets nominated is very real. Given the mudslinging by the Clintons Since late Feb, it's already too late. Even if Clinton legitimately wins pledged delegates and overcomes Obama's lead, there are already enough pissed off democrats to cost her the general election. I know people who will write in Obama or vote for Nader, and have sworn never to vote for a Clinton, ever.

...to pretend that no, you really didn't see the warning.

But then I saw that little attempt at a smear job against the Governor of Louisiana, and I thought to myself: Hell, Moe, the little twerp probably grits his teeth at Bobby Jindal's last name every time he reads it anyway.

So scram.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

of the Black vote and a big Black turnout to be competitive in Virginia, Florida, Missouri or Ohio. They need the same to hang onto Pennsylvania and Michigan. With a very poor Black turnout they would need to worry about New Jersey.

So changing the rules at the last minute to disadvantage the first credible Black candidate for President would be an unwise move.

Of course, screwing over Florida and Michigan is not likely to help them put together much of an electoral coalition either.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

A recent PEW survey (non-political, scientific firm) showed that if Hillary gets the nomination 10% of Obama supporters won't vote for her. Now here is the big number. The same survey showed that if Obama gets the nomination 25% of Hillary's supporters will not vote for him. That number is rising steadily and will really get big if he loses the last battleground state of Pennsylvania. At that point it will be painfully apparent that he isn't a viable GE candidate. Including Florida and Michigan will be smart because those states deserve a voice and it wasn't the voters fault that they were disenfranchised.

This will only go to the convention if Obama pushes the issue. My guess is he won't because he'll know the Democratic establishment will turn against him and his career will be over. If he does push it he will still lose.

A recent PEW survey (non-political, scientific firm) showed that if Hillary gets the nomination 10% of Obama supporters won't vote for her. Now here is the big number. The same survey showed that if Obama gets the nomination 25% of Hillary's supporters will not vote for him.

That's interesting, though I don't, to be honest, put much store by it. Both numbers undoubtedly include some people who are bluffing and others who are feeling angry now but would change their minds when actually facing a ballot paper with one Republican and one Democrat on it. We had the same arguments here, with people pledging undying hostility to one or other of the candidates - more than anyone, perhaps, the man who is now the nominee. While both groups (the anti-Clintons and the anti-Obamas) undoubtedly include some people who would follow through, I do not believe there is any way of measuring how big either of those groups is.

Add to that the problem of polls being inherently inaccurate this far from an election, a possible (in my view likely) Bradley-Wilder effect in Obama's numbers, and the big unknown of just how bitter the fight is going to become between now and the end of August and, kapow, this one is very hard to call.

The fact is, they are both flawed candidates, and they both have six months to keep telling us about the flaws of the other.

:)

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

He can stay in the Senate, or he can run for Governor of Illinois, which, unless he's caught frolicking with a woodland creature, is his for the asking. Either way, he's now unofficial National Spokesman for All Things Brown.

He really does need more of a resume.

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

When Oprah went out and told the black voters to move en masse to him and then the MSM misrepresented the Hillary critism of his lack of experience as racism, Obama just went with it. Now it looks like the white vote is deserting him in droves. Live by the sword die by the sword.

He'll go back to the senate and start preparing for the governor run. We already know he isn't actually interested in doing his job in the senate. After this debacle he'll never get another chance at the presidency. He draws roo many radicals. The only way you'll see a black president in the next twenty years is if they are Republican.

The way he spoke turned more and more to a Sunday morning preacher tone. That sing songy rhythm has been sneaking out.

Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite

Even if Florida and Michigan were to be seated, he would still be leading in the pledged delegate count, the overall delegate count, and the popular vote. By no standard can one consider Clinton to be leading.

Even if she were to win Pennsylvania, it is extremely unlikely that she could win by enough to even dent Obama's lead in any way (especially given that he's favored to win almost every other contest this spring). Remember, her "big wins" in Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas only netted her 5-10 delegates.

Hillary is hoping that the superdelegates will hand her a victory despite her pledged-delegate loss. I doubt that will happen, but it's the only shot she has.

...on total delegates (barely) and is effectively tied in the popular. Link. I don't think that the formal resolution of the Colorado caucus votes will change that statement, but at worst it will turn the total delegate vote into a tie.

And before you confidently answer that, confirm something for me: were you one of the folks just as confidently telling me that Hillary would be dropping out 03/05? :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

We've already had this discussion; the Green Papers doesn't have full results for several states that have already held their contests. RCP (what I've found to be the best compromise between punctuality and accuracy) has Obama up by 122 without FL and MI. If you factor in FL and MI and assume that the "uncommitted" delegates elected in Michigan break 50/50 (a very optimistic scenario for Clinton given that they were elected as essentially "not Clinton"), Clinton gains a net 120 delegates--still down by 2.

I was not one who said that this would be over after 3/05. I've consistently said late March/early April. I don't see that happening now unless super-delegates start jumping (which I thought would start by now), but I still don't see Hillary winning.

By the way, do you really want to call someone on bad predictions? I seem to remember a statement of yours calling it a "polite fiction" that anyone besides Hillary would be getting the nomination.

Which others did I miss?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

But most other projects have Obama taking a net +20 delegates or so from the state; Green Papers has him at a net +10. If you take the Green Papers numbers, assume that other projections are close, and add 10 to Obama's column, you get and Obama lead of 117. Five delegates fewer than RCP.

Assuming that number, if Florida and Michigan were seated as is (not likely, probably a revote in Michigan, if not both), and Michigan's uncommitted delegates were to break 50/50 (not likely, since uncommitted=not Hillary), then Hillary would currently lead by 3 delegates. To hold that "lead" she would have to win Pennsylvania by enough to offset her likely losses in nearly every other state. That's a lot of "if"s between Hillary and the nomination.

That's why her plan is to play the "I'm more electable" card and to get the superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegates and the popular vote rather than actually running up a lead among pledged delegates via seating FL and MI. I don't see it happening, but obviously she thinks there's a chance.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

You'd be better off twitting me about FISA. I seriously underestimated Pelosi's willingness to try to escape the inevitable. Ach, well, that'll teach me to expect basic political competence from a Democratic politician. :)

Moe

PS: You guys don't have to seat Michigan at the convention in a manner pleasing to them, of course. They also don't have to give you their EVs in November.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

As one who enjoys nothing more than confidently predicting political events, I completely sympathize with failed predictions.

Just ask me about President Kerry...

'Course, we ended up effectively winning that one anyway.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

...plus the seating of Florida and Michigan means that Hillary could be leading in the popular at the end of the day. Then you have a situation where Obama has more pledged delegates, but Hillary has more popular votes. What do the super-ds do then?

Second, "pledged" delegates aren't really pledged. Hillary just the other day alluded to the fact that if need be, she will be going after Obama's PLEDGED delegates at the convention.

Finally, the racial polarization of the Democrat party is getting worse every day. Obama lost more than 70% of the white vote in Mississippi, and he has consistently been losing the Hispanic vote 2-1. I expect that trend to continue in Pennsylvania. That is a very troubling sign for Obama in the general election, and believe me, the super-ds are paying attention.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Florida and Michigan are both counted. The latter is problematic, since Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. Including Florida but not Michigan gives Obama a current popular vote lead of 405,000. In Ohio, a state with similar demographics and total population, Clinton netted around 230,000 popular votes. Clinton isn't going to double that in Pennsylvania.

If one includes both Florida and Michigan, then Obama currently leads by 77,000 votes. Clinton could overtake that with Pennsylvania. If so, there will be a revote in Michigan (and possibly Florida), and Clintons 300,000 net votes that she got in Michigan would be drastically reduced, merely by virtue of Obama's name being on the ballot this time around.

Finally, I think you overestimate the importance of white people voting for the white candidate and black people voting for the black candidate in a historically racially polarized state like Mississippi, especially since Obama hasn't been losing the white vote to nearly that degree elsewhere.

...to withdraw his name from consideration? :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I'm just saying that if Hillary can only declare a "victory" in the popular vote by including 300,000+ votes that she gained in an uncontested race in Michigan, she's going to have a hard time selling it as the "real" metric that should decide who wins, especially with Obama winning by every other metric.

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/11/pa-democratic-primary-clin...

SurveyUSA has been by far the most accurate pollster this year. Of note in the internals is the continuing racial divide: 61% white voters for Hill, 76% black voters for Barack.

Also, women going 2-1 for HRC (not really surprising here) and women make up more than half of the Democrat primary voters in PA.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

See every other state that Hillary has won: Two weeks out she leads by 20, but Obama closes the gap and she wins by 10 or so.

But even assuming she wins by 20, she would only gain a net of around 20 pledged delegates, not nearly enough to close the gap. She's more likely to win by 10 and pick up a net of 10 delegates or so, though, like she did in Ohio.

The RCP average only has her up by 13.2.

Where do Obamawannabes come up with this stuff? They just all randomly make up facts and accept it as gospel. Kind of like his campaign. If Florida and Michigan were counted, she would be ahead in the popular vote. She would probably also be ahead in the pledged delegate count - without knowing the exact breakdown, I can't be sure. It would be close. Pledged super delegates would give her a huge edge not counting the undecided super delegates. Her big wins in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas didn't amount to much, true. Part of that can be accounted to the ridiculous "vote twice" policy in Texas. She clearly won the popular vote, but then loses the caucus handily. All this indicates is that the very large young "fan base" of Obama had no familial commitments or work commitments and could stay out at caucused until midnight. While those of us with families to care for and get ready for school and had jobs to got ot in the morning could not caucus, but did our duty of voting in the primary.

Some other things to consider - if the primary was winner take all like the Republicans, she would have a sizeable lead over Obama without Florida and Michigan. Furthermore, if you could equate Primary wins to General Election wins, like a lot of Obamatons want to do, then you lose again. She would be winning 219 to 202 in electoral votes. 263 to 202 if Florida and Michigan were counted. It takes 270 to win. Remember, the General election is winner take all.

One other thing to consider - 13 of Obama’s 27 wins come in Caucus states. In some of those states, the ridiculous some of several hundred or a few thousand people showed up. I do not believe that this is a significant statistical sample under any concept of statistics. As an example, 109,000 people voted overwhelmingly in support of Hillary in Rhode Island. She received 13 delegates, he received 8. In Alaska, 300 people voted for Obama, for which he received 9 delegates. Could somebody please explain that one to me? It doesn’t even matter, because in the General election, all 3 of Alaska's electorate vote will go to McCain.

One final gripe - I keep hearing Obama and Plouffe say today how he has won OVER twice as many states as Hillary. Over and over again I have heard this. Well by my count, Hillary has won 14 states. Obama has won 26 states. By their assertion, he would have to have won 29 states to have won over twice as many states as her. Even if you count DC, which is not a state, he has 27. Which is stil 2 shy of "More then twice as many". Furthermore, if you count Florida and Michigan, he would actually need to have won 33 states.

Why count Florida and Michigan - the Obamatons cry in fear? Well, lets see, Florida had a record turn out. Both candidates were on the ballot and neither candidate campaigned there. Seems like a pretty fair ballot to me. Also, it is not the fault of Floridians that their committee had a disagreement with the DNC. Michigan is less clear cut, but then nobody told Obama to take his name off the ticket. Again, a large number of people voted, nobody campaigned. Even if you give him all of the "uncommitted" vote, she wins handily. Realistically though, probably half of the uncommitted would have voted for Edwards in Michigan

Obama and his campaign know they lost Florida fair and know they lost Michigan because of stupidity. Although realistically, he would have lost both states anyway.

Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, all in Obama's camp, although IA and CO were caucuses.

Say it like "Oh, no, what if the Dems gang up against us and both of them run? They could win twice! Oh noes!"

--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

to this party and you are threadjacking.

There is no way they are just going to seat the delegates as is. I seldom find myself in agreement with Al Sharpton (as a matter of fact, I think this is #1), but he is right about this. You can't have an election while the party in charge of the election is saying the election doesn't count and then make the election count afterwards.

Just imagine what we would say if Congress moved the 2008 election up to October and the Supreme Court said, No, that's not going to work. Congress goes ahead and holds an election in October and the SC says, Ok, we'll count it then.

I'm thinking I wouldn't be the only rank partisan who disapproved.

The democrats, whether the national party, the state party or some combination of the two are going to have to hold another election. If they can't afford a real primary, they'll have to come up with another way, whether caucuses, mail-in, or some hybrid. But if they seat those delegates, call out the National Guard.

And as an aside, What is it about those goofballs in Florida and an inability to hold an election?!?!?! It's not like this is a brand new concept or anything!!

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

This is all technically a private issue between the various members of a social club. That the club has an active membership in the tens of millions (and a formal membership above 100 million) doesn't signify. :)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

and it is possible to have a private cause of action against private social clubs who don't follow their own rules---particularly when such clubs are soliciting significant sums of money and making all sorts of representations that could constitute fraud in light of the rules violations.

Am I the only one hoping that this issue causes a feeding frenzy from the plaintiff's bar?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

there is blood in the water.

I stand by my original desire, "Lots of small but heavy objects at the convention. They can be disguised as campaign paraphernalia.(The obama obowling ball, The hillary whip) and absolutely no bolting of furniture to the floor."
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Well, yeah, for you and me -- No problem. For them -- I'd say on a scale of python vs. garter snake, it's a T-Rex.

A riot involving 10 power hungry, money-crazy democrats, small problem. A drunken party in Denver involving 1 million power hungry, money-crazy democrats...

National Guard kind of problem. Maybe US Marine Corps.

We won't need popcorn, we'll need bomb shelters, protective gear and fast cars. :) And I can smile, 'cause I'm far enough from Denver I don't think it can spread this far.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

Any yet even though they said the election did not count, they had a record turn out in Florida. You cant just disenfranchise 1.7 million voters in Florida alone. The DNCis responsible for this mess, not Florida. The DNC needs to fix it. The whole rule of Iowa having their caucus before anybody else is ridiculous and Florida and Michigan tried to challenge that. And they were right - less then 2500 people voted in Iowa! 2500 - why should we care about Iowa????

It is very nice of Obama to however, offer an even split of the votes, knowing that as the vote stands, he would lose his pledged delegate lead and popular vote lead and have nothing left to stand on.