Will it all be over when Texas and Ohio (and Rhode Island and Vermont!) vote on Tuesday (Wednesday Australian time)?
By the way, for those who thought that Obama wasn’t a player like any other well-moneyed Democratic candidate, consider this:
Finally, the decision could be delayed until the party convention in Denver in August and lie in the hands of the 795 “super-delegates” whom both sides are now frantically wooing.
Not least, alas, by financial inducements. The non-partisan Centre for Responsive Politics says that Obama has doled out $698,200 to the campaign funds of super-delegates (via his political action or campaign committees) since 2005; 43 per cent of those pledged to support him have been recipients of Obama funds. Clinton’s team has handed over $205,500 to super-delegates, meanwhile, and received only 13 per cent of pledges from recipients.
Change, or small change from the Obama coffers?
The author of that passage, Andrew Stephen, has copped some for actually writing stuff negative about Obama (OMG!)… Maybe that’s because most of the people writing about this thing fit into a certain demographic, apparently a rather excitable one about inspirational campaign oratory. The reception people get for actually putting Obama under legitimate scrutiny does seem, well, weird:
Those earning less than $50,000 a year are consistently voting for Clinton, while Obama is scoring resoundingly with the so-called “millennium generation” earning over $150,000; the journalists who have been so starry-eyed about Obama fit neatly into the latter demographic bracket themselves…
I reckon Hillary was on to something when she said that “change” wouldn’t magically occur and a utopia be ushered in just because a candidate made a few speeches. It’s not as though Obama has come out of nowhere as a political cleanskin, either. While Hillary is often slammed (with a lot of misogynist overtones) as calculating and overly ambitious, publishing your first memoir when you’re 34 says?
Just sayin…
I mean I’m 34. Is there a market for the story of my life?
Sigh, I’m almost certain that this won’t be the last Obaton/Clibama thread…
That quote from above is a little weird in that the time-period covered includes last years Congressional race. Obama shelled out a lot for other Dems during the race whereas Clinton didn’t. It’s one of the major reasons that Obama got into the position where he could be running for President. I also gather that Clinton has been (sometimes unfairly) attacked for not sharing her donor money around. It’s all messy.
Oh, and is that under 50K demographic holding for Clinton? I gather that was just a whole bunch of spin to begin with. I read somewhere (and it’s about impossible to work out where as there are SOOOOO MANY posts about this stuff and most of it is complete tosh) that the two were polling pretty much evenly in the under 50K bracket.
It wasn’t a bunch of spin to start with, mick – it held through most of the states which voted on Super Tuesday, from memory. It’s started to change more recently, according to Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2184689/
But it really depends on how much credence you give to exit polls, I guess.
Also, I don’t know that Hillary’s alleged parsimony compared to Obama with doling out funds to other candidates necessarily invalidates the point Stephen is making.
Do most American political journos earn over $150k (US)? Jesus, I’m in the wrong profession …
Mark – I’m not suggesting that Hillary Clinton’s “alleged parsimony” invalidates Stephen’s point. I would guess that Obama dolling out the cash has a lot to do with his rise to prominence. I gather that a lot of his support from superdelegates is a result of his fundraising success over the last several years.
I am suggesting however that this story was given emphasis by many of Clinton’s supporters in order to suggest that Obama has been using his recent fundraising success to “buy” superdelegates. Those figures detail spending since 2005, why would anyone release them or talk about them now? Why go back so far when Obama didn’t start seriously fundraising for a Presidential bid till midway through last year?
As for the <50K a year demographic I wasn’t sure about that. I gather now that Obama has taken over that demographic now anyway. Well, at least till tomorrow…
Really I’m finding the whole race kinda fascinating in a train-wreck kinda way. Obama and Clinton are tearing each other and the Democratic party apart to the point where I’m beginning to believe that if the Republicans had a decent contender they’d probably walk away with it in November.
Hmmm. That’s not the sense I’m getting, Mick, at least from the US plogs.
I get the impression that most on the Democratic side will be content with either Obama or Clinton.
There was an interesting article, I think in the Fin Review Friday section, about Obama. Essentially, it contended goes that over the last 20 years American society has fractured to the point where even the idea of government working towards common goals has become a novelty. Hence the power of Obama’s rhetoric, even if people who are politically involved find it ridiculously naive. Obama knows this because of his relatively recent experience in community organization; Clinton has been out of that arena for too long to pick up on it.
Clinton is apparently not goinbg to give up aqfter Texas anbd Ohio, which can only mean a Republican win. To be slightly hyperbolic, this woman is beginning to look like Lady Macbeth.
Mixed Metaphors
I read an animal metaphor recently on the Huffington Post for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. She’s the fox who knows lots of small things while he’s the hedgehog who knows just one big thing. The micro politician being upstaged by the macro one.
My preferred metaphor is automotive.
Hillary as the second-hand station wagon. Reliable. Lots of miles on the clock and lots of baggage. And a passenger who used to do all the driving.
Barack is a brand new Four Wheel Drive/SUV. Low miles, in fact hardly run-in. Plenty of room for all those who want to get on board. Video display, GPS, good vision all round. Yet to go off road.
For more please visit Democrat Decision Day: Primary Reflections Linked text
Robert – I wasn’t very clear I guess, I said if the GOP “had a decent contender” which I don’t think they do. I just don’t like that Obama and Clinton have beaten up on each other so much to get to this point and that most of the fight has been about fluff not substance.
Some of the US plogs I’ve been reading have had supporters of each of the contenders throwing it at each other. If you wade through the comments at TPM or the Huff post you’ll see a hell of a lot of negativity out there.
It’s great that Obama and Clinton have managed to mobilize so many but I wonder to what extent they are mobilized against one another and not the GOP?
Slightly off-topic, but maybe not as much as you might think: I notice Diebold (the company who make most of the electronic voting machines) is in serious financial difficulty.
That’s kinda funny when you consider that ATM’s are a core part of the business. What’s not so funny is that they are now the target of an unsolicited takeover by United Technologies, which has deep roots in the military-industrial complex (they make engines for planes and helicopters).
Mick, there was lots of vitriol flying around in the last primary season as well, much of it relating to Howard Dean.
Whatever the reason why Kerry didn’t win in 2004, I don’t think it comes down to lack of turnout or effort by solid Democrats, who voted in droves; it was just that the Republicans did even better.
Andrew Stephen can write what he likes – I prefer Obama to Clinton, but would take either over McCain. But some of the people he quotes sounds like patronising asshats:
So people don’t vote for Obama over Clinton because of their own reasons… like (say) her initial support for the Iraq war. Or that her campaign has been run into the ground in a mere three months by incompetent, overexpensive hacks like Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson. It’s just that Obama is political Prozac!
It’s what annoys me about a lot of political commentary (Australian, American and otherwise) – shitehouse metaphors as a substitute for analysis.
Robert – Yea, I guess you are right. Maybe I’ve just got pre-late-super-Tuesdayitis?
Does anyone else think that this thing won’t be decided tomorrow? I see that the latest Ohio polls show that Clinton is pulling ahead…
i am pretty sanguine about the contest between Hillary and Obama going down to the wire, it will eat up colunm inches, this is after all the real contest, and if it continues it should sideline McCain to some extent. also the repub attack dogs will continue to be distracted and will not be able to focus on a single target and the “swiftboaters” , etc will have to fight for column space and will not have as many slow news days to propagate their evil.
of course this has been a relatively polite contest so far, if it gets nasty between the candidates, the eventual winner will be weakened.
Seems to me that if it is still unresolved after Texas and Ohio, the party should pressure both camps to run on a joint ticket.
Who would lead the ticket? Scissors/paper/rock time!
Would it matter? An Obama White House will be full of former Clinton staffers, you can be sure of that. And the VP job is pretty powerful these days, I hear.
Stop funding the terrorists!
No more Oil Wars!
Energy Independence Now!
Drill in Anwar.
Build more nuclear power plants
Use More coal.
Use more natural gas
Turn trash into energy
Double the efficiency of windmills and solar cells.
If France can do nuclear power so can we.
If Brazil can do biomass/ethanol power so can we.
If Australia can do LNG power so can we.
Domestically produced energy will end the recession and spur the economy.
Stop paying oil dollars to those who worship daily at the altar of our destruction.
Preserve our Civil Rights and defend our Freedom by ending dependence on foreign oil.
Obama v Clinton is in reality a contest to construct a new ‘liberal centrism’. If Obama is successful in November (because he will win the nomination), then the meaning of the ‘centre’ will have changed. This is important for the long term challenge of contructing institutional and popular popular resistance to the current dispensation. The Right in the US and alsewhere will be forced to make some concessions if the US electoral system delivers the possibility of populist mobilisation which will be a wake up call for a ruling class that believed tactical victories meant they had won the long war.This does not mean I think Obama is a ‘left candidate’ any more than Clinton is simply a reformist. They are both experienced at working within the frameworks they have to, but the one thinks he can do better at pushing it forward on a basis of popular mobilisation, while the other believes that the past is a better guide to the future. Obama I think is right about that ,and Clinton is simply relying on the past
“beginning”?
I hope Obama gets up in the primaries because he’d be an honest choice by the Democrats. Like Howard Dean (who they really believed in) would have been in 2004, but instead they chose Kerry because they thought he was more electable. i.e. They sold out. Even if they lose because of Obama (I don’t think he has much clue myself), at least they’ll know where they stand in the marketplace of ideas.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the DNC and GOP both ended up with candidates with only lukewarm popularity within their own parties. Turnout figures will be interesting this time around.
Paul at 7: “Clinton is apparently not going to give up after Texas and Ohio, which can only mean a Republican win. To be slightly hyperbolic, this woman is beginning to look like Lady Macbeth.�
Yes, Paul, Hillary has buckets of warmongering blood on her hands. Hope the mothers, wives and sisters of the dead Iraqi civilians don’t adopt “misogynist overtones� in their attitude towards the fading presidential hopeful, as have some of those Mean Mr. Mustards in the MSM and Drudge-osphere.
Kim, of course the uber right wing hate machine is going to slag Hillary along misogynist lines. It’s what the bastards do. Obi has copped as bad or worse from them for allegedly being a “madrassa-trained Osama-loving raghead�. Neither form of abuse is justifiable in a civilised world, but unfortunately we don’t inhabit one. Nor do the women of Iraq.
Go ahead and publish, I’d read it as I read all your posts. Bet HRC’s effort at 34 was air-brushed beyond credibility (no I havn’t read it) but at least your story would come straight from your heart and soul. So….errrr, are there some things you’ve held back on at LP over the last couple of years then?
Suggest cf. Sat March 1 cartoon, for a bit of what HRC’s Dem. opponent has been copping lately. Nothing’s fair in love, war or politics, but how one rolls with the punches sure counts. So does character.
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20080301/cx_tr_uc/tr20080301
Saigon at 12: hear, hear!
Gandhi, the swine who are about to take over the Dodgies at Diebold will require close monitoring. Ohio 04 still sits heavily in one’s craw.
Latest Board Odds from Cbet:
OBAMA, Barack 1.67
MCCAIN, John 2.95
CLINTON, Hillary 4.75
Mark,
The best source I have found for the exit polls is CNN – example here for Virginia. The exit polls are available state by state and there is the usual analysis of them as well. In Virginia Clinton really only won the elderly white Protestant vote. Very little else.
As you said, though – it depends on how much weight you put in exit polls.
Craig Mc #18:
Turnout figures will be interesting this time around.
They always are. Funny how the “greatest Democracy on earth” cannot get 50% of voters interested, innit?
Ah, the miracle of voluntary voting. Italy tops the list, but that’s probably including all their prime ministers.
The caveats down the bottom are illuminating:
EC, re Hillary/ Lady Macbeth was sort of referring to her ambition. (and probably being a smartarse, something I don’t do too often. Will reserve further comment on HRC till I see what she does after the results of the Ohio and Texas Primary come in. But it would appear from perhaps unreliable press reports she does intend to continue campaigning regardless of the result. The only advantage would be the Republicans still wouldn’t hgave a Presidential target.
Paul,the GOP mightn’t have a target but while HRC and Obi are at each others throats, Johnny Bomb-Bomb gets a flak free ride. Anyway, it’s almost Showtime in Lone Star and Buckeye, VT and R.I. We’ll have a clearer picture by sparrows’.
“(and probably being a smartarse, something I don’t do too often.)”
Amazing really how the human condition charts us between humility and smart-arsedness. But rarely does the passing parade induce ennui, only infinite Madelbrotian complexity. When the bees’ buzz no longer dazzles and the whip bird’s song cracks flat, then a beautiful world it would be no more.
The results are coming in and they are very interesting. In Texas (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX) it looks neck-and-neck, with Obama winning the cities (high black vote) and Clinton the countryside (high latino and elderly white). Ohio looks strongly Clinton (high white vote to her – mainly in the elderly category).
Looks like this is going to the convention…
Sorry – thought that would come out as a clickable link:
Texas
Ohio
Josh Marshall on Hillary: “In a day or two, I think those delegate numbers are going to sink in. And her path to the nomination still looks incredibly difficult.”
CNN’s Election Center has Clinton winning Ohio and Rhode Island, and leading Texas 50/48 with 64 per cent of votes counted. This may be the circuit-breaker she needs with some important primaries still to come.
Paul,
I still reckon this is going to go all the way to the convention. It will be interesting to see a political convention that is more than just a great excuse for the release of huge quantities of balloons.
Odds on McCain will probably be shortening.
Everybody: remember that popular vote isn’t everything in most primaries – and certainly not in Texas. This spreadsheet care of Burnt Orange Report shows the primary delegate breakdown: Obama 62 and Clinton 63, with 1 not shown. That doesn’t include the superdelegates (12) and the caucuses results (67). A near tie isn’t looking good for Hillary.
I hope it doesn’t roll all the way to the convention. There are two more big ones to go – Pennsylvania (lean Clinton) on April 22 and North Carolina (strong Obama) on May 6. If Hillary loses Pennsylvania, she’s a goner.
In the meantime, it doesn’t look like the last Obama/Clinton threat we have to have at Larvatus Prodeo.
By the looks of it Hillary’s narrowed the delegate count by 20-odd. The chances of her pulling ahead are now slim to nonexistant. Both candidates now have to focus on convincing the party they’re more able to beat John McCain.
What was disgraceful was that TV ad:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marc-cooper/its-3-am-and-hillarys_b_89936.html
Hillary Clinton believed that putting up with Bill’s philandering entitled her to the nomination on a platter. When that was proven not to be forthcoming, and Obama streaked ahead, out came the Republican style, “swift boat” sewer inspired attack .
We’re going to see a lot more of this.
If Hillary does win by way of the “super delegates” (her only chance, it seems) I predict the Democrats will self-destruct and McCain will win, easily.
The Texas exit poll is striking. In Latino state this is as good as it gets for Clinton. She is gone.
Peter Kemp,
Agreed, it was sad to see Hillary going the fear campaign, but it’s working for her (it always does, it seems, alas). That’s not good news for the Dems, and I hope it comes back soon to bite her on the bum.
Can you imagine the scenes at the convention, if it goes that far? Half the room is going to be badly pissed. They are going to want some clever stage management!
Leinad has a point. Clinton has done little to claw back the delegate count. Yes, she gets all the press about a comeback but the other reading is she hasn’t achieved anything. But the US media will go on about the Comeback Kid coz they are too lazy or drunk to do anything else (I’d prefer the latter excuse).
If Obama wins Pennsylvania it is good night Hillary.
Tomorrow’s The Daily Show will likely have a better analysis even with puerile joking that will outshine any MSM attempt at explaining the result. Jon Stewart will be essential viewing when the Presidential race heads to November.
Obama answers whether the charge of whether he really is a muslin.
Not entirely convincing, is it?
Muslimist. (I mean.)
Lots of commentary and links in the Pandagon roundup:
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/03/05/clinton-checks-off-big-wins-in-ohio-and-texas/
It should be pointed out that while McCain might have 1191 delegates it’s still a two man race for the Republican nomination as the Saintly Dr. (google) RON PAUL!!1!!!1 is still plugging away for Freedom and Gold-Backed Currency.
Also, Mike Gravel’s ads are awesome
I think all three remaining candidates are certifiable train-wrecks waiting to happen, but still, the election at this moment at least makes for an interesting look at a chess position.
Hillary has run a positively tone-deaf and politically incompetent campaign, and I think that says far more about her credentials than all the waving around of her questionable CV she can do. She has run a reactive and unimaginative campaign that conceptually follows Obama’s lead and responds meekly to an agenda set by him, and I think that alone disqualifies her to be president, much as the Dems disqualified their entire side in 2000 and 2004 on strict Darwinian grounds: their opponent was a shady, semi-literate ventriloquist’s dummy and everybody knew it, and they still couldn’t figure out how to beat him. And then they didn’t sit down and learn a good lesson about it afterwards.
Hillary simply does not look or sound presidential. She changes her tone and image to suit perceived marketing demands — and that is supposed to make voters deposit high trust in her candidacy? Bill Clinton could actually get away with being a sort of charming slippery chameleon because, ironically, that is truthfully what he really was, so he was really being himself when he did it, and I think voters could smell that authenticity about him, for good or ill. But Hillary Clinton, deep into a years-long (or maybe life-long) campaign strategy, said in public only a few weeks ago (!!) that she felt she had finally “found her voice”. Well, certainly good timing to find it before she takes the oath of office! Perhaps if she were a truly serious person, she might have put off running for president until *after* making this momentous discovery. Why is it we should give her the job, again? Because we owe her something? Or her husband? Or both of them? Or because there’s nobody else available? What?
(btw, following this logic, I wonder what a Michelle Obama run for the White House will look like in 8 or 12 years. At least we won’t worry about unemployment, because she will “require us to work”!)
If it’s down to McCain vs. Obama, I think there’s a decent chance that the voters will just subconsciously say, You know what, forget the issues, it’s pretty much always better to have a young optimistic guy than a glowering old guy, and then it’ll be Obama in a landslide. One way or another, the toxic Bush presidency needs to be not only defeated but exorcised, and an Obama victory symbolically cleanses the house of evil spirits in a way that either Clinton or McCain do not. Of course I think Obama will then proceed to merely truck in a whole house full of evil spirits of his own, but that’s a tale for another day.
On the other hand, it’s worth noting that the Dems are split almost evenly, and that’s just in-house. If the GOP stays united and really comes out to play (a big if), then that’s a solid 40-45% of the vote right there, and there’s bound to be a lot of Hillary voters who will cross over to McCain rather than drink the Obama Kool-Aid, in which case McCain wins by a bit more than a hair, there’s a ton of spoken and unspoken racial resentment, and everyone stays nervous and upset and unhappy for another four years, as the US continues down its extraordinary path of self-ruination.
As I’ve said before, what I want most (and what I think is needed most) is a genuinely boring president, but none of these jokers fits the bill. Of the three, Hillary is most boring, which is good, but I think she has the least chance, except in a sort of bitter backroom squeaker that leaves everybody unsatisfied. So the choice to me seems like either, let McCain continue to wreck America (and also as much of the world as can’t get out of the way fast enough) in the manner we already know, or else let the batshit-crazy Dems wreck it in even newer and faster ways, while also continuing forwards with most of the destructive processes we’ve got now.
Oops, I just re-read some of what I wrote above earlier, and unhappily it sounds a lot more splenetic than I really mean it to be, although that doesn’t mean I’ve changed my view. Just that I mean this stuff in a way that isn’t quite as bilious as I now see it looks onscreen. That may seem strange, but explicating the difference would take too long, so, maybe another time.
The exception is this: “there’[d be] a ton of spoken and unspoken racial resentment…”
That isn’t really true, I don’t think, upon reflection; or maybe, it’d be partly true, within circles that get smaller and smaller all the time. This is just one reporter’s opinion, but personally I feel that ‘race relations’ in America (by which I mean primarily black/white relations) are steadily and consistently improving, and have been for many years now. The very vitality of Obama’s candidacy has doubtless contributed to that, but it certainly can’t claim credit — this process of improvement has I feel been underway for quite a long time (for reasons that take too long to explain, and anyway, it’s just a personal impression, could be very different thru other eyes). I think overall that zany flareups like the Jena nonsense are the spastic flailings of an ever-dying source-code of racial bitterness. There’ll be some sporadic continued troubles in the future, to be sure, but fewer and fewer of them as time goes on, I feel. Don’t ask me why (I could tell you, of course, but it would take a month), and again someone in another region or in other circumstances might strongly disagree; but still, I felt the need to correct the impression I left previously.
j_p_z
“As I’ve said before, what I want most (and what I think is needed most) is a genuinely boring president, but none of these jokers fits the bill.”
So, if the Democratic National Committee were to agree with you on the requirement for 4 boring years, is it politically possible for them to draft the Nobel Prize winning Al Gore??… With Obama as VP candidate and Hillary to be put in charge of a revamped White House intern program
Looking at the mathematics unless Obama really slaughters Clinton in the next few primaries there is very little chance that this will be decided before the convention now. If a convention floor vote is to be avoided then one of them will need to be prevailed upon to stand aside.
I can’t see Obama doing this as he is in front – it would be silly. Clinton I can’t see doing it as she has been pursuing this for a decade or more. She probably also believes she can win it on the floor. This is going to be real fun.
McCain, meanwhile is out fund raising and laughing.
That said, it may be good for the Dems if they can stop Obama and Clinton attacking each other. They have two very interesting candidates, both unprecedented in their own way. Both have some interesting ideas (although I personally disagree with many of them) and present well.
I am genuinely looking forward to this election. It should be much more interesting than the last few.
Interesting:
Interesting that Clinton is the one saying it. Also interesting to rack up a count of former VPs who sent on to become Prez. It’s a well-lubricated passage.
Ewww.
From Talking Points Memo – reason #345 why the US should call in the AEC to run their elections:
Shakes head.
Clinton campaign still locked in bitter infighting despite win. Chief strategist Mark Penn popular as herpes in a can.
Perhaps the remarks about a joint ticket are a limp attempt to prevent what could be a destructive rift. Months of in-fighting until the Convention? I’m getting as pessimistic about a possible Democratic Presidency as I was a bout a Rudd win. Butr perhaps that’s a good sign, because I was wrong, wasn’t I? Still, I can’t say I’m at all impressed by the stance of any of the three candidates about the Venexuela/Ecuador/ Colombia crisis. All of them support the corrupt drug-running Columbians! (Anybody been following that? Don’t answer or we’ll end up completely OT.)
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. They is only one ticket that can unite a bitterly divided United States Of America.
Oprah/Letterman…
…or Oprah/Leno.
Oh what the hell, just replace Diebold with Endemol and put the whole thing on a professional showbiz footing. ‘Big Brother Survivor Presidential Idol’. At least the candidates would have some decent writers and props people or a change.
“…some decent writers and props people or a change.”
For! I meant “for” not “or’. Who designs these keyboards anyway? Sober midgets?
I felt I had to reply to j_p_z’s comment about “race relations” getting better in the States. rather than bother myself with an academic-style dissertation, I’ll choose the easy way out and reference popular culture.
so I ask, j_p_z, have you ever watched The Wire?
in cities throughout America, in the wake of the ‘white flight’ that followed the tumultuous events of 1968, to choose one example, African Americans have been confined and relegated to the periphery in physical, geographical, political and economic ways that give the bloody great lie to the notion of a “developed world.”
Eastern cities like Baltimore (where The Wire is set), Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc, contain ghettoes of unimaginable poverty. a young black man in America living in these neighbourhoods has only one choice: deal drugs, run with a drug crew, live hard and die young. in terms of rational choice, it beats working for a minimum McWage. the murder-rates for the ‘hoods i speak of is astronomical, yet it garners little press, much less political action.
school-age children are ‘educated’ in an ailing public system that regularly fails them, and in any case it’s only a matter of time before they’re out on the corner, slinging crack or heroin.
that’s all i’ll say on the matter of “race relations” in America.
except perhaps one more thing – whatever Obama’s weaknesses, foibles, etc, he is a genuine phenomenon, and definitely not something the States has seen before. I’m with him – just because.
i’ll close with a similar statement to your own qualification – i don’t mean this to sound harsh, i’m not looking for a fight – i just felt i had to bring it up, because the situation i’m describing bothers me, and i often wonder if Australians are aware of how dire it is in the U.S. and sorry about the lack of spaces between paragraphs – i don’t know how to do that.
The nomination is looking more and more like coming down to the convention for the Dems.
What I find interesting is that the states where Obama has done best are mostly solid Red states which a Dem presidential candidate will never win no matter how passionate local Dems are about one candidate over the other (cue also speculation that a lot of his wins have been swung by Repubs voting to “spoil” the Dem primaries because they think Obama will be easier for the GOP to beat).
Clinton has done best in the states which are traditional Dem states in presidential elections and in potential swing states i.e. the states that the Dems actually need to win in order to take the White House.
To my eyes that makes Clinton the candidate more likely to beat McCain in November.
As a Canadian/Aussie with family/friends stateside an ex-pat American partner (who I met when I was working in DC in 99/00) it has turned out somewhat nailbiting, huh? And very unusual – But to share some info
.
1: Down and Out of Sà i Gòn @ 46 about caucusing & primaries.
.
Presidential primary elections in formal polling stations, are paid for, and managed by the State govts election commissions, and usually only held in the bigger, more densely populated states, and to save money, they are held at the same time as state govt ballots.
.
Americans might say for example, that they voted that day, but skipped the Presidential candidate box on the ballot paper – but voted “downticket”. Downticket means they voted on the state, or other ballot election issues. Many states run their State federal Senate primaries at the same time as the Presidential Party primary.
.
In small states with populations the size of Tasmania, if you count all the cows as well, like Wyoming, way out in the boonies, it costs way too much to run a full formal election process, for what is after all – just Party pre-selection, with very small numbers of people participating.
.
So, in mostly small & red states, they run relatively informal caucuses, which are like Party branch meetings –
because these are small outer rural woop-woop areas — most election years, they usually only get the die-hard Party faithful showing up. A big caucus meeting would be 150 people.
.
Because its usually attended by small groups of faithful lifelong Party members, it is basically an informal discussion/feedback session, and then its an Open ballot, not a secret vote – they usually vote with a show of hands, ‘Ayes’ or ‘Nays’, or people write-in their names, under each candidate, or Party resolution, on a register. Its run by Party volunteers etc. They also discuss resolutions, on general Party policy platforms and matters, that they want to take from their Branch level to the State and National Party conventions etc.
.
This year it went totally ape-sh*t in many caucus states, overloaded with thousands in chaos and confusion, and small local Party branches, and Party volunteers etc – couldn’t cope with it very well.
.
And in caucus states, its only the first of 3 steps and no formal pledged candidate delegates are “officially” awarded at caucuses.
.
The precinct or district caucus, just elects delegates from among the attendees, to attend the next level, the County caucus.
.
And at the County caucus, (which is like a regional Party convention), they recaucus again, and the proportion of delegates awarded for each candidate at each caucus step – can change by Party rules, because the delegates have to keep showing up in person at each step. So the county caucus then re-caucuses, and elects delegates *again* from among the attendees, to attend the State Party Convention.
.
For example, in Texas in one district, the district caucus on March 4th came down about 55-45 for Obama, but not enough of those original Obama district level delegates, then showed up on the day, for the county caucus on 29 March – so all the County caucus delegates, went to Clinton by default. *shrug*
.
It is only at the State Party Convention that the final “official” awarding of ‘pledged’ delegates for each Presidential candidate is confirmed. These are the lucky ones who get their free ticket to Denver, to attend the National Convention as a member of their State Party delegations, to cast their vote for the candidate they are ‘pledged’ to (but only on the first ballot – if the first ballot shows no winner – then all delegates are free to vote as they will on subsequent rounds, and are no longer pledged to a candidate).
.
Reputable news outlets will not report “firm” delegate numbers from initial caucuses, for either Obama or Clinton, until the State Conventions have confirmed them.
.
What some do is report “projected” delegate numbers – based on projections of the proportional voting outcomes, and then adjust the ‘projected’ delegate totals after each round of caucusing. Most years it doesn’t change much from the initial forecast projections, some rounding up or down by a few here or there, but no major changes.
.
but this year? Who knows? But the Party rules state that the final State Convention totals, is the only number that is “official”. And most of those conventions from the smaller red states, dont hold their Conventions until June.
.
Remember primary is just another word, for political Party pre-selection, not official ‘constitutional’ elections – a political Party can select its candidates any which way it chooses, by throwing darts, flipping coins, or consulting the I-Ching, if it wanted to… the US Democratic Party has chosen this way to allow their Party supporters, in all 50 states to have some input into it.
.
In large states like California, New York etc – millions have to go to the polling booths anyway, so they throw in a Presidential Party-ticket voting ballot at the same time managed by the State government under formal election conditions. Small rural states, (and mostly red ones too) hold cheap caucus meetings in the local school hall, and are run by local neighbourhood Party-faithful volunteers.
.
rain, thanks for that detailed explanation,
cheerio
You’re welcome Ambigulous. Sorry for the length of it though. Just been bugging me no end – arrrgghh..coz so many people are getting confused by it. The MSM media hasn’t helped.
.
Numbers of delegates is the most useless measure, because the delegates are not proportional at all, but biased heavily towards small and red states. Its the Party’s way of rewarding loyal Democrats for fighting in regions where they always bloody lose, so they get extra bums on seats for the National Convention, and some extra voices in Party policy discussions. Obama’s campaign are pushing that measure though to “prove” they have “won”. Not so, it does matter precisely *which* states were won, *which* demographics in those states, and *how* their campaign messages were received by voters.
.
Tigtog @ 52 is spot on about electability though.
Clinton lead the nomination in ‘quality’ with Ohio on March 4th, with a bonus in Texas. Politically, it was quite an impressive slam-dunk, on “qualitative” if not “quantitative” in terms of convention delegates.
.
Also, on electability need to look at the head-to-head polling, although way too far out in time to be any way accurate – Clinton has consistently won more of the General Election state demographics against McCain. The best US poll outfit is SUSA (Survey USA), and one of the best electoral mapping psepholigists is at:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Mar31.html
.
One of the important measures is found in exit-polling on demographics. Clinton consistently wins the core ‘base’ Democrat voters, seniors, older women, blue-collar workingclass, and rural voters. In some places, 70% of confirmed Dem voters have rejected Obama, and in one poll up to 30% refuse to vote for him in the General Election in November if he wins the nomination. This is mostly on policy/political grounds, he’s too right-wing and Republican-Lite for many Democrats taste. This is alo suggested in major primary votes, where a majority of those voting for Obama, are also voting ‘downticket’ for Republicans, not other Democrats, in their congress or state govt positions.
.
The old rule of politics, don’t piss off the ‘base’, which is what I think Keating did back in 96. Obama seems to be doing that too, and is a problem in the Genral Election – if too many Democrats just stay home and don’t vote at all. In key swing-states, it takes only 1-2% to do this, to lose the state. Women in particular, but also for example, seniors when he said he would reconsider privatising social security, and the blue-collar workingclass in the “rust-belt” states, see him as an elitist, rich, yuppie, spoiled, Harvard college professor, who’s never done a hard-day’s work in his life, and lives in a mansion he bought cheap through his best mate, a sleazy slum-lord
.
That said, my partner who knows the other BigWig Party names that keep popping up in the media, ie precisely who is supporting Obama, and who isn’t. eg Bob Casey who recently came out for Obama, is pro-life, pro-death penalty, fundamentalist social conservative, and makes Tony Abott and Peter Costello look like tree-hugging lefties.
.
My partner reckons that there must have been a Party split going on for some time – ie an internal Party power-struggle between the left/centre and right factions and the primary season has brought it into sharper focus. The MSM has Obama as the favourite backed by big corporate interests, Obama also has strong numbers in the Party heirarchy. They helped him ‘game the system’ on delegates etc, and by taking two big swing-states out of play early in the season.
.
As Tigtog and others mention, it will have to come down to who has the numbers inside the Party heirarchy, (like it does in many other political Parties) probably behind closed doors in late June – the Party elders on centre/left and right-wings will draw sides, and the world will wait, and see how the numbers fall, huh?
.
Interesting Rudd supports Clinton (I think because on economic policy), and so do the Germans, apparently they disliked his position on NATO too, when he gaffed so badly in one of the televised debates. Some American psephologist pundits see him as ” At best? Another Reagan. At worst? Another Nixon”.
.
brief snatch on ABC radio this morning: Kevin Rudd to assist Hillary??? April Fool’s Day joke, surely????
I don’t know about “assist” ambigulous, I know he has confirmed holding a face-to-face meeting with Hillary Clinton (today our time I think), followed by a similar meeting with John McCain (tomorrow our time). Obama is too busy campaigning apparently to meet – but has agreed to a telephone call with Kevin.
“How much longer will I stay in the race?” she responded to a voter’s question. “Fifty years? How about one hundred years?”
Bodicea Brutusina Clinton, the high-profile Bosnian War heroine and Democratic Party presidential nominee hopeful, has personally discovered the secret of eternal life.
As a consequence, Mrs. Clinton has opted to run her campaign on Geological Time. The “True Grit” political performer will launch her Whitewater Mist Youth Dew before the Penn Primaries in a bid to “self-fund” her flagging campaign coffers, thereby courageously “raising her bar of beholden-ness” for potential Beltway donors and clarifying her “transparency index”.
Greater love hath no couple than to sacrifice themselves on behalf of their Party.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/patoliphant;_ylt=AmJu8fMA4cT8WihEt9RNHmol6ysC