Lots going on today in light of yesterday’s results. A brief rundown:
- Nancy Pelosi, unlike some other superdelegates, is sensibly calling on the supers to keep their mouths shut and let the electoral process continue to play out. Good for her.
- Clinton continues to talk publicly about the “dream ticket” of either Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama (obviously, she’d prefer the latter). IMHO, that is the best thing that could happen for Democrats. Question is who’s on top, and whether either would settle for second banana. Maybe enough negotiating would lead to a pretty sweet deal — a Cheney-style VP position without Cheney.
- Obama remains ahead in the popular vote tally — but not by much. (And not at all if you count MI, which you probably shouldn’t.) From NBC, via TPM:
DNC-Sanctioned Contests
Obama 12,920,961
Clinton 12,322,695Including Florida
Obama 13,497,175
Clinton 13,193,681Including Florida And Michigan
Clinton 13,521,832
Obama 13,497,175
So excluding FL and MI, 600,000 votes separate the two out of over 25 million cast. Pretty amazing, really. I do think the “will of the people” question becomes very muddled if, as seems likely, Obama retains a lead in pledged delegates but, as is possible, Clinton overtakes him in the popular vote.
- National horserace polling shows Clinton ahead of Obama for the first time in a while — and these polls were before yesterday’s victories. Expect Clinton to claim bragging rights (which is all those polls are good for, really) for a while, since her lead will almost certainly widen in the next round of polls that take into account yesterday.
This thing really is not over yet, however much some wish it were.
Please share widely!
though I wish it was, not for the reasons some Obama partisans want but because I don’t see how this thing continuing is, on balance, a good thing for the party and the eventual nominee. On the other hand, it’s clearly a good thing for McCain and the Republicans, at least if it goes beyond April.
<
p>As for Clinton raising the possibility of a ticket, it’s a smart political strategy and I’m surprised she wasn’t using it before. By raising the possibility, it encourages people who like both Clinton and Obama (i.e. most Democrats) to vote for Clinton to get a 2-for-1 special with Obama. As far as the substance goes, I agree with you that there could be a type of negotation that allows for a Cheney-type powerful VP spot — but I have a hard time seeing how Obama would offer Clinton the VP. It would have to be Clinton/Obama, and of course it would be difficult at this point to convince Obama to give up given that he’s winning in delegates. The only way I see him taking a VP is if Clinton wins PA and a re-do of MI and FL.
<
p>Of course, that possibility is far more likely now than it was 48 hours ago.
based upon the Paul/Huckabee votes. Now would be a very good time for the Dem candidates to come to the aid of their party vs. the party coming to their aid. Combine a ticket now, everybody gets to vote for their favorite Dem, and we win. Start the McCain smackdown early. Build up the war chest for that battle. Combine strengths and put egos aside and we get rid of the craziness and the clean up begins. Now that would truly be “Together We Can”, but I’ve reached the point of disgust with all of it. It’s politics du jour and it’s been on the menu many times before. Don’t Dems ever learn?
<
p>I agree that this is the best outcome — probably by far — but clearly the problem is less of “egos” and more of the simple question of who gets to lead the ticket? Both candidates have, in my mind, a virtually equal claim to the nomination, so why should one give up?
You ask:
<
p>
<
p>Answer:
<
p>
<
p>If one candidate or the other really cared the most about “us” vs. themselves and their egos, they would bite the bullet. Flip a coin, let it go. Put some damn meaning and action behind the words. Barack could be the hero since he talks so much about the meaning of “words”. Hillary could do so as well (and has been talking about it). Good for her. Why can’t the Dems, just once, do what’s right for us? Do you really think encouraging the pissing contest is going to get us anywhere? I don’t.
I’m not entirely sure why an immediate conclusion is better for the Democrats.
<
p>We are about eight months out from Election Day. Even if this isn’t decided until after the final event in Puerto Rico, we’ll have 4 1/2 months to:
<
p>-get lots of money from incredibly energized Democrats;
-turn the vibrant primary organizations into vibrant general election organizations (making the great better)
-compose a playbook to expose McCain’s unpreparedness to lead America
-start harassing the undecideds in swing states;
-filming commercials;
<
p>Meanwhile, McCain & Co are looking at two very, very different campaigns. What you run against Hillary is different than what you run against Obama. It’s tough to build a narrative against an unknown target. There’s a reason coaches like to keep their starting lineup a secret as long as they can.
<
p>I don’t get what the hurry is. Bush Sr turned the polls around 20 points in 2 1/2 months. Four months is plenty of time to run a campaign, but for know let’s allow the people to decide.
the problem is that the Democratic campaigns will be spending huge amounts of money attacking each other rather than attacking McCain. I don’t see how that’s a good thing. There’s no guarantee that the money we see coming in from Democrats now in the primary will be duplicated in the general — there may be many Dems who are tapped out by that point.
<
p>Additionally, it would be nice to start attacking McCain now, as opposed to him getting free reign to attack the Dems while they attack each other. The “defining” part of the campaign is probably the most important, and McCain now has the opportunity to define the Dems while they are concentrated on winning the nomination, rather than defining McCain.
…there are lots of people who will give money to attack Hillary or OBama, but not give it to attack McCain? While there may be, the party is better off without them.
I think she acknowledged that as a possibility in response to a question asked by a reporter. It really was the reporter that brought up the issue.
<
p>I think if the race remains close, than it will probably have to be a joint ticket to avoid pissing off the other candidate’s supporters.
<
p>This is especially important if Clinton is the nominee. I don’t think Clinton can realistically win more pledged delegates than Obama at this point, so the only way she can win is by making it up in superdelegates. But if she does that, it will really upset African American voters who will likely stay way from the polls in November if Obama is not included in the ticket.
unless it is forced upon the winner as a condition of victory. That seems unlikely–who does the forcing? Party leaders? Don’t hold your breath.
<
p>More likely that–though not a sure thing either–is the veep slot buys the winning chunk of delegates.
<
p>Apart from that, consider that while Clinton would make a classic vice foil for Obama, the reverse is not true. I have trouble seeing him as the attack surrogate–do you want Bill back in that role?–and frankly does not make her look good by comparison. I’m not saying the ticket wouldn’t work, it has obvious strengths too, just that it would not fit the mold.
<
p>The winner will win by virtue of working the superdelegates. Unless that involves a commitment for vice president, the candidate will then make his or her pick in the usual way. At least I’m sure that what each of them would prefer.
I really don’t get where these popular vote figures come from and why anyone quotes them. Most caucus states do not release (or have) tallies of how many voters caucused for each candidate.
link to
<
p>
<
p>To all who think this is destructive to the Dems chances in the fall then I say hey……
<
p>Look at the recent Russian election……. that was destructive.
<
p>This is Democracy in action.
Or be decided by superdelegates.
<
p>Forget popular vote, it’s all about the delegates. A fun little tool is Slate’s delegate calculator. You can make your projections either way.
<
p>Push all the states from now until the finish to 100% for Clinton and she winds up with 1,841 to his 1,368. Do the reverse and he’s at 1,979 to her 1,230. Neither one will get to 2,025 even if they win every single contest with 100% of the vote from here on out.
<
p>Now let’s throw out a few scenarios just for my own personal edification. I’m just having fun here, and all numbers are totally made up, but I’m basing them on my own sense of how, roughly, you could see these states going. Again, all make believe:
<
p>Wyoming (Mar. 8): Obama 65%, Clinton 35%
Mississippi (Mar. 11): Obama 57%, Clinton 43%
Pennsylvania (Apr. 22): Obama 42%, Clinton 58%
Guam (May 3): Obama 65%, Clinton 35%
Indiana (May 6): Obama 35%, Clinton 35%
North Carolina (May 6): Obama 57%, Clinton 43%
West Virginia (May 13): Obama 34%, 66%
Kentucky (May 20): Obama 44%, Clinton 56%
Oregon (May 20): Obama 65%, Clinton 35%
Montana (June 3): Obama 65%, Clinton 35%
South Dakota (June 3): Obama 70%, Clinton 30%
Puerto Rico (June 7): Obama 23%, Clinton 77%
<
p>That’ll yield: Obama 1,655 delegates, Clinton 1,555… in other words, exactly the same place we’re in now, with Obama up about 100 or so delegates. I know it’s a little closer than that now.
<
p>In other words, no matter what, we’re in for a brokered convention unless there’s a deal made, somebody wins in super delegates, or something really, really weird happens.
could include MI and FL being counted or having a do-over.
If people are interested here is some actual polling in the remaining states, though some were conducted too long ago to mean anything. Date indicates date of poll.
<
p>PA: Clinton 46, Obama 42 (Feb. 26)
IN: Obama 40, Clinton 25 (Feb. 18)
NC: Obama 45, Clinton 31 (Feb. 21)
WV: Clinton 37, Obama 22 (4/2/07)
OR: Clinton 36, Obama 28 (Jan. 29)
<
p>I have not seen polls for other states or any of the non-states. It’s interesting to learn that this will now absolutely require superdelegates.
none of those add up to 100%, so it’s hard to plug them in…
normalizing is easy! đŸ™‚
by the Bush Administration. Today’s Globe reports KBR (aka Halliburton) avoided US taxes on its “work” in Iraq by hiring employees through a shell company in the Cayman Islands. An excerpt from that article (below) indicates that the Administration knew about this practice since 2004, but chose to allow it because it “saved” the Defense Department money. (Is this not the same reason that the underground economy uses when working for cash?). In any case, I would like to point out that this is effectively another way that this Administration has transfered wealth from the Social Security Trust Fund to support its operations in Iraq while simultaneously providing the richest among us with tax breaks. I’m happy to see that Senator McCain is tying himself to this self-serving Administration.
<
p>”The Defense Department has known since at least 2004 that KBR was avoiding taxes by declaring its American workers as employees of Cayman Islands shell companies, and officials said the move allowed KBR to perform the work more cheaply, saving Defense dollars.
<
p>But the use of the loophole results in a significantly greater loss of revenue to the government as a whole, particularly to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.”