Redstate

...Dad's thinking of Huckabee, and darned if I know why, either. I also have no idea how they're going to handle the primary. Possibly they won't show up, or do a write-in.

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

Who is the last Democrat they voted for?

In 2006? Menendez for Senate, Frank Pallone for the House. Mom's a former teacher; Dad's a former union president (UTU Local 1440, IIRC: whichever one handles SIRTOA).

:smile: But, hey, anecdote ain't data.

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

...help their cause, what's the alternative, but Kerry in 2004.

Who's they go for in 2000 Bush or Gore?

Just curious. Not trying to inflame. I rescind my right to tell you what party YOUR parents are affiliated with.

...Dad was a lot more disinterested in voting, so I don't know. They take the whole thing more seriously now.

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

neither of my (Democratic) parents is voting for you next Tuesday.

I'd be curious to see what happens in the fall.

I'll just say - and I think people who much redder than I might agree with me - that people who would shift from Edwards to McCain either don't know much about Edwards or don't know much about McCain. They're pretty diametrically different.

have been beat up pretty badly on liberal blogs the past several months. There is a lot of animosity between them and Clinton and Obama supporters.

I still find it surprising, like you, that an Edwards supporter would switch to McCain.. velly interesting...

let me try to explain this with some "straight talk". The Edwards supporters I am intimately familiar with are not happy with the apparent glee with which the remaining Democrats have vanquished the "white male". Does this make them "racists" or "bigots"? I'll let others decide. But, I seriously doubt that the 2 I am familiar with are the only 2.

My friend and her husband are both democrats. She called the other day to ask me who to vote for in the R primary because, "We don't want a woman or a black president."

I said Romney. She said, "Isn't he the" --pregnant pause-- "Mormon?"

(End of anecdote, but I will say that I explained to her that I wasn't joining his church and Bill Clinton was a Baptist. She laughed at that.)

Dick Morris was nearly assaulted by Alan Colmes because he said that Edwards' supporters included a lot of bigots and no one knew where they would go. I wonder if there aren't more 'black sheep' --tee hee hee, interesting opportunity for a pun-- in that particular family than some of them want to acknowledge.

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

I am not surprised that there's a handful of people in the world who supported Edwards because they dislike the idea of a black or female President. I assume that's a pretty negligible segment of Edwards' support and, by that logic, a negligible segment of the party as a whole, 78-80 of whom are voting for a black or female candidate in the primaries.

I can't imagine the set of people who are in the Democratic party but reflexively dislike having black or female leaders and make that their primary voting determinant is very large*, and I don't think it'll be large enough to change the course of the election.

I hope that I'm right about this.

*(Nor is this demographic very bright, I might add; they've apparently been voting blindly for a party that elects a fair number of same to governorships, is led by a woman in the House, has a lot of black House committee chairs setting policy, etc.)

....every cent I own and my house that story is utterly and completely false.

Not that there aren't bigots in both parties, but that your democratic friend did not call up and say "We don't want a woman or a black President."

I dialogue for a living and that's about the worst bit of negative wish-fulfillment being past off as non-fiction.

your house and ever other cent you have. It's the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

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

...by the way a Republican friend of mine just called to ask who he should vote for in the Democratic primary because he said he did not want a "really old guy or a Christ-hater" to be President. It REALLY happened, just like that. And when I told him to vote for Obama, he said "Isn't that the guy from Africa." It just happened and it was... duh-duh-duh... a Republican friend of mine.

...were I writing the scene in which a "friend" of mine from the other party called me and said something as idiotic and bigoted as "I don't want a woman or black President" instead of calmly giving them a suggestion, thereby admitting that I too was idiotic and bigoted, I would have told them that I was certainly not going to help make up a mind that had so little to offer.

But since it never happened, you're safe.

...we don't like it when one regular accuses another regular of being a liar.

So please stop doing that.

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

Point made.

Back off. Now.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

...understood.

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

was being a little "flexible" with the truth.

In Vino Veritas

...that Obama's job is to (to paraphrase Bob Heinlein) be like Harvard: IOW, he was to fight fiercely, then lose. That should make the next few months fun.

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

....analysis of Super Tuesday, which predicts the following fallout from Super Tuesday:

845 Clinton
833 Obama

If that happens, I'm pretty sure he'll win the nomination in the end.

Here's the link to the breakdown and, YES, its on Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/31/75516/0667/643/446831

he loses. 40% of all Dem delegates are super delegates, and not pledged to a candidate via the primary system. Most, if not virtually all, of these will go to Hillary.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Yeah. For what it's worth, Real Clear Politics estimates almost a 2-1 superdelegate advantage of 208-118-38.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...Guliani and Romney were killing in endorsements up front, but those folks will all line up behind McCain after next week. Superdelegates are like cattle, they'll go were the votes are.

Clinton may not win 2/5 in a landslide, but she'll pad her lead. You don't think she's going to peel off some more at that point?

Especially if McCain ends it on 2/5 on our side, your guys may decide it's in your best interests just to put Obama away.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

admittedly, pre-Super Tuesday, so it's meaningless, but Obama has a lead in actual pledged delegates.

...how Clinton can. In Obama/McCain its a fight for the center. In Clinton/McCain its the left versus the center/right. That seems like a winner in the house and the senate, but a loser nationally. Just my take.

Obama/McCain is a battle for the center, because Obama is in the center and a moderate? I guess voting record aside and solely considering unchallenged rhetoric, perhaps.

...right, both from a rhetoric standpoint and from a positioning standpoint. Now once we get to the general election both parties will try (and sometimes succeed) at repositioning the other's candidate farther from the mainstream, but, YES, that'll be the election.

means "center of the far left."

Look, I get that Obama gives rhetorical nods to centrism. But on the substance, here's the challenge, if you wish anyone to believe that:

Name three issues of any significance on which (1) there is a fairly well-settled consensus position among liberals and Democrats and (2) Obama has staked out a position identifiably disagreeing with that position, and not disagreeing by being further to the left.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Has the "Sure he's got charisma... but let's talk about SUBSTANCE!!!" argument won an election in recent memory?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

McCain is killed here and yet he's still conservative on enough issues that the Democrats will go out and try and paint him as a "crazy winger". Republicans will do the same to Obama, who will continue to talk kindly (if non-specifically) about Reagan and bi-partisanship, etc. The FIGHT will be for the center, with the great differences being on the war (advantage Dems) and taxes (advantage Reps). Who wins.... long way to go.

He's a fairly doctrinaire liberal. Which is fine, as far as it goes - but he's also trying to woo the independents and the left side of the GOP, and as the closest thing to a representative of the latter, let me tell you: impressive, he ain't.

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

You shifted from "Obama is in the center left" to "Obama, who will continue to talk kindly (if non-specifically) about Reagan and bi-partisanship, etc."

If you said in the first place that Obama appeals to center-left voters, I would agree. But Obama himself, his positions and his record - we agree that he is a down-the-line liberal, don't we?

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

We're sort of hooked on that out dated linear European idea of one man one vote.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Superdelegates are like endorsements or Mitt Romney's position on abortion, they can change sides whenever its convenient.

(I kid because I love.)

Meaning, when the time comes... most all will line up behind the winner of the most elected delegates.

Each get one vote too. And all of them are elected in one way or another - either to an elected office (House, Senate, Gov), their state Dem committee, or both.

Both parties appoint their official pledged state delegates by caucuses, which I'd argue are more undemocratic than giving the Governor a vote at the convention. More people voted for Obama in South Carolina - in a real honest-to-goodness election - than voted overall in the weirdly-structured Iowa Dem caucuses.

are presuming to lecture me on something I know by way of showing you can't be bothered to read.

Yes both parties award pledged delegates by way of caucus or primary. Yes the Democrats pad the number of delegates with superdelegates who are not pledged to the extent that the number of delegates won via voter preference is marginalized. No the Republicans don't do this.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

nt

"If this ain't a mess, it'll do until one shows up." -Sheriff Bell, No Country For Old Men

They can't not seat Florida - well, not seat them and hope to keep them as an in-play state. And they can't seat Florida without seating Michigan. And the State parties both know it.

I understand that some people are trying to come up with an alternative way of seating a delegation that doesn't take the primaries into account, but it'll probably fall apart on the elemental issue of who gets to pay for it.

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

...everything that's happened in the election, she got the support EARLY and he's getting it NOW. So, if he runs the table, he'll start getting the bulk of the still 400+ uncommitted suprdelegates. Regardless he/she who goes into the convention with the most elected delegates will likely get almost all of the superdelegtes.

Dean had a proverbial rearendload of superdelegates pledged to him at one point but they jumped when they saw which way the wind was blowing.

I've no doubt that if Obama runs the tables on Super Tuesday, those Superdelegates will treat the Clintons the way the Clintons treated the Democrats.

If it's a 50/50 split, Hillary will keep the superdelegates, of course... but of Obama runs the tables? Bill will be lucky to get the Education Secretary.

(That last part was a philandering joke, I'm not very good at making them.)

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

...look it up using an online dictionary ("is it Latin, I wonder") before getting a clue.

This strike has GOT to end.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Dean pulled out of the race before the convention so we don't know how his pledged delegates would have voted if he had been an active candidate.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Is a clue that we don't know how "Hillary's" Superdelegates will vote if Obama sweeps Super Tuesday.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Dean wasn't a candidate at the convention so they couldn't vote for him. I'm fairly certain that Hillary will be a candidate at the convention.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I don't know the answer but it would surprise the (redacted) out of me if they stay pledged no matter what.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

very closely but the real question is when was the last time they had a convention where the candidate was in question?

This could be the first real convention on either side in decades.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I say: a majority of the superdelegates at the the Democratic national convention will be pledged to the voter with the most elected delegates.

Also: the Democratic nominee will NOT be chosen by superdelegates negating the will of the elected delegates. Meaning a number of superdelegates will change their "endorsements" so as to vote for and elect the person who has the most elected delegates going into the convention.

Are available here. Maybe a third have endorsed so far, and they're unpledged; they'd go to whoever the leader is come convention time. Clinton does have the lead now.

wherever it is to their advantage to go. They are under no obligation to go "to whoever the leader is."

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

...if she's trailing in the elected delegate count?

Look, I'll give you this... IF they do all go to Clinton AND she's trailing in elected delegate count, then we're dead in November.

It'll be '68 all over again.

I don't think it will happen, but you can hope...

That's why Moe has repeatedly said that while the Republican party was at risk of a brokered convention, that was fine because Democrats are at risk of a disputed convention.

The rest of the field not running in Michigan and Florida just might hurt the party badly. Though I doubt it becuase, again, I think 2/5 will clarify things.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...there's no way on God's green earth that Florida and Michigan will get seated first ballot and happily Clinton's take in those two states is not so much greater than Obama's and uncommitted where it should mean that much... again, given the Superdelegates. As you know, they were put in place because of 68 and the assumption is that they are there to act as adults during a food fight. But... again... as I think I've typed to you... the only way the Democrats fritter away the situational advantages of this election is to melt down at the convention, which is still, in my book, unlikely but ever present.

There's always some way of getting done what you want done. I can't begin to tell you how in this particular case: but then, I'm not being paid to sift through DNCC rules to figure it out*. Unlike, say, somebody in the Clinton campaign right this very moment...

Moe

*Mind you, If someone wants to give me ten grand, I will.

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

...and if Hillary is ahead in elected delegates, but can't get there in the first ballot, they'll seat them second ballot and let them put her over the edge. And if she has already gotten to the 50%+1 threshold they might even seat them first ballot. But Obama has lawyers too and he's not going to get beaten (if ahead on elected delegates) by Florida and Michigan.

Look at this:

Unless I'm mistaken, the stading committee decisions aren't binding on the convention by my reading of the call for the convention:

The Credentials Committee shall determine and resolve questions concerning the seating of delegates and alternates to the Convention pursuant to the resolution entitled the “Relationship Between the 2008 Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee and the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules,” which includes the “Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee of the 2008 Democratic National Convention” hereby approved and adopted by the Democratic National Committee, and set forth in full in the Appendix to this Call. The committee shall report to the Convention for final determination and resolution of all such questions. This committee does not have authority over the allocation and distribution of convention credentials, including passes for delegates, alternates, guests or press.

So isn't this saying that the Convention will decide any seating disputes, and therefore the Clintons, Michiganders, and Floridians will work to ensure this is the first thing taken care of?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...(if Obama is ahead on elected delegates) will make sure they're not seated. Everyone is giving the Clintons WAAAAY too much sway in the party. Big Bill really did himself in when he decided to become a partisan for his wife in the way that he did. Had he stayed supportive, but positive, he'd have held onto a lot of his grip.

Michigan is a swing state, and Florida has the possibility of being one. Some in the establisment will surely be able to be swayed to try not to make the Democrats look well, undemocratic in the eyes of voters in those states.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

They're not going to seat the voters if it changes the nomination. They set up the rules before hand and have that to fall back on. If the nomination is already locked for Clinton, they'll do it. If its locked for Obama they'll do it. If it somehow were the margin to get Clinton over Obama (and he had the lead in elected delegates)... they just won't. Dean has the key to the castle and he's... if for anyone in his heart... for Obama.

Edwards dropping out helps Obama's delegate totals - I suppose the campaign did the calculations and decided that they weren't going to hit 15% in enough places - so a disputed convention is looking less likely for them.

Obama's better off running for Governor of Illinois anyway.

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

On one hand Edwards's exit could reduce the proportionality of Clinton's post-2/5 lead, but on the other hand it also helps Clinton's delegate count, too.

That's where superdelegates come into play. Obama might not have time to catch up before Clinton hits 2025.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

...there seems to be the perception here that the establishment wants Hillary, but if you look at the way its falling into place, with Kennedy, with George Miller (who is Nancy Pelosi's second in command), with the way endorsements are starting to flow I think you'll find its going to be Hillary and Bill against the machine. Now, does that HELP Obama or take away his message. No way to know.

I've been thinking, pretty much since 2006, that 2008 will be the Republicans' realization that they are, in fact, in the wilderness. They'd be wondering why they lost the voters, why they didn't get Ohio this time around, why they lost...

The Social Conservatives would argue that the Republicans weren't Socially Conservative enough, the Fiscal Conservatives would argue that the Republicans weren't Fiscally Conservative enough, the Hawkish Conservatives would argue that the Republicans weren't Hawkish enough, the Libertarian Republicans would argue that the Republicans weren't Libertarian enough, and the PETA Republicans would argue that the Republicans didn't spend enough time talking about animal testing.

But now... I suspect that the split indicated by the Huckabee vs. McCain vs. Romney vs. Giuliani vs. Thompson fight is small potatoes compared to what the Democrats are slugging out with Obama vs. Clinton.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

...not race and its about style, not substance. Its hard to find deep positional opposition between the candidates. We're not really fighting about what we think, just how we express what we think. Look, if Obama wins the nomination there will be no fight at all. 90% of the Clinton supporters will come over without much of a fight. If Clinton wins, its a longer process, and we will likely make LESS gains in the House and the Senate (because her coattails aren't as long). Then again, McCain has almost no coat-tails as well so McCain/Clinton might be a wash where the house and Senate are concerned.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.