for awhile it seemed as if it couldn't be better. democrats were turning out for primaries in record numbers. the republicans? not so much. to date there have been nearly 7 million more democratic votes than republican.
there are two, and at one point were three, presidential candidates that I would be happy with. voters are enthused and passionate about the candidates they support. one way or the other we're getting a candidate poised to win in november. all good things in my mind.
but now its too close. the chances of a candidate reaching the 2000 plus delegates needed to secure the nomination are more unlikely than some may realize. and so the democrats could end up in a situation where one candidate is going to get screwed out of being the nominee. the florida and michigan penalties could prove to be disastrous. the democrats are very close to fucking up a perfect situation.
just to illustrate - imagine this. let's say one candidate, hilary or obama, wins EVERY primary that's left by a 55 to 45 margin, they still wouldn't have enough delegates to secure the nomination. of course if they carried the majority of superdelegates too they would get there, barely, but again this is assuming one wins EVERY primary from here on out. that's very unlikely.
I hope the democrats find a way to work this out without pissing off half the party. and I hope it works out in barack obama's favor.
quickly from dream to nightmare.
Moderator: DBacks
A sample size of three occurrences is no reasonable basis for a prediction of future results.
McCain will be getting hit by two candidates, while having to split his own attention. Additionally, if one candidate is polling stronger against McCain than another, a choice still remains, rather than having a candidate already anointed and no way to change out.
McCain will be getting hit by two candidates, while having to split his own attention. Additionally, if one candidate is polling stronger against McCain than another, a choice still remains, rather than having a candidate already anointed and no way to change out.
I can live with Obama if he's elected. Clinton scares the shit out of me because I don't see how being married to the president qualifies you to be president and if you think we're a divided country now, wait till you see how it is after 4 years of her, which hopefully won't happen. And if I'm Obama, there's no way I pick her to run as my VP because if I get elected, I'm not entirely sure she wouldn't try to have me killed
august is very late for a nominee to be named, especially if its unclear or contested when the nomination is decided. whoever gets named has to make peace and gain the support of the other half and if you think that's going to be easy, or that its not important, you're wrong.
a split party late in the game is not a good thing, no matter how you spin it, and the potential for this to end badly makes it even more nerve wracking.
8 weeks out you gotta worry about mccain, not the members of your party that are pissed about their guy getting screwed.
a split party late in the game is not a good thing, no matter how you spin it, and the potential for this to end badly makes it even more nerve wracking.
8 weeks out you gotta worry about mccain, not the members of your party that are pissed about their guy getting screwed.
Gabe, I wouldn't worry so much at this point. The momentum has swung in Obama's favor. Sweeping what, the last 8 states? Hillary firing her campaign manager? She's been on the fence walkin a high wire since South Cackalacki, and it doesn't appear the bleeding has stopped. If she hadn't tripped up, Obama may very well be further behind rather than the position he finds himself in.
"Hating the Yankees is as American as pizza pie, unwed mothers, and cheating on your income tax."
How many of Hillary's supporters do you think are going to vote for McCain over Obama? Hillary's base is in the party faithful, they aren't going to vote for McCain. Similarly, I keep hearing pundits say McCain has to win over the religious right... uhm, Why? They're sure as hell not going to vote for Obama or Hillary and no way they sit at home on election day and let the 'damn liberals' run away with the presidency.
if you think the dems get a record turnout in nov after a nomination scandal in august, you're wrong.
and yes, people will stay home. they might talk like they're not going to, but if they're not excited a lot of them will end up skipping the polling place on the way home.
the dems have a golden opportunity here, but they could easily blow it.
and yes, people will stay home. they might talk like they're not going to, but if they're not excited a lot of them will end up skipping the polling place on the way home.
the dems have a golden opportunity here, but they could easily blow it.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... _traction/
So this whole Florida/Michigan thing is kind of a mess. The mail in ballot option really does seem like a decent one but the big issue is paying for it. What i would very much like to see is for Obama and CLinton to step up and say "These votes should count, we the candidates will split the cost for this out of our own campaign funds." I'm not sure how that would jive with campaign fund-raising rules, but I think it would a great way of resolving the situation. Plus, it's not as though Obama didn't just raise $55m in the month of February, the highest total ever (with 90% of it coming in donations under $100).
So this whole Florida/Michigan thing is kind of a mess. The mail in ballot option really does seem like a decent one but the big issue is paying for it. What i would very much like to see is for Obama and CLinton to step up and say "These votes should count, we the candidates will split the cost for this out of our own campaign funds." I'm not sure how that would jive with campaign fund-raising rules, but I think it would a great way of resolving the situation. Plus, it's not as though Obama didn't just raise $55m in the month of February, the highest total ever (with 90% of it coming in donations under $100).
How is this Dean's fault? The party set up rules regarding the primaries then the states, in an attempt to grab power/attention/influence, chose to ignore those rules. In the case of Florida, it was a Republican controlled legislature forcing through the legislation. What did they care if the Democratic candidates don't get their delegates?
Election season is already WAY too long, a line had to be drawn, kudos to them for drawing that line and sticking to it.
Election season is already WAY too long, a line had to be drawn, kudos to them for drawing that line and sticking to it.
-
Nationals
- Posts: 1908
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 8:00 am
- Location: West Hartford, CT
- Name: Ian Schnaufer
In Florida, the bill passed 118-0 in the House and 37-2 in the Senate. Hardly a Republican-forced bill.RedSox wrote:How is this Dean's fault? The party set up rules regarding the primaries then the states, in an attempt to grab power/attention/influence, chose to ignore those rules. In the case of Florida, it was a Republican controlled legislature forcing through the legislation. What did they care if the Democratic candidates don't get their delegates?
Election season is already WAY too long, a line had to be drawn, kudos to them for drawing that line and sticking to it.
It's Dean's fault for not coming up with a solution, and for generally being too weak to solve this problem. He's the party leader, party rules are at his discretion. The Republicans smartly compromised by taking half of the delegates away, if the Democrats had gone with that solution I'm sure it wouldn't be the mess it is today. Party rules are by no means set in stone, and are mostly such a mess because there hasn't been a need for them in 2 decades, its downright irresponsible of the party leadership to let this happen. If Al Gore is the only person with the political clout to solve this problem then why isn't he the head of the party?
Changing the rules to accomodate Florida and michigan would have undermined the rules in the first place. You're basically saying 'Here's a rule, don't break it or X will happen." Then when someone DOES break it saying "Ok, you called our bluff, all we're going to do is X/2."
The republican 'solution' isn't any better a solution, they aren't having a problem because they've already annointed their candidate. it's not Dean or the DNC's responsibility that the states themselves deliberately created. This is Florida and Michigan's mess, it's theirs to clean up, not Dean or the DNC's.
The republican 'solution' isn't any better a solution, they aren't having a problem because they've already annointed their candidate. it's not Dean or the DNC's responsibility that the states themselves deliberately created. This is Florida and Michigan's mess, it's theirs to clean up, not Dean or the DNC's.
The problem is that you can make a strong counterargument that not seating the delegates is unconstitutional, as it disenfranchises those two states. Is that a legal argument that will actually fly? Probably not. Is it a strong enough case that it could push Michigan and Florida into the red column in November? Damn straight. The Republican solution cuts the knees out from a disenfranchisement argument, it says "Hey, you thought you were going to be more influential, well now you're less influential, paybacks a bitch." Also, the Republican nominating process is so much better as a whole, and frankly the Republican party is so much more effective as a whole, that like I said it makes you question the fitness of this crew of Democrats to effectively govern this country (as in 24% approval rating bad). Proportional representation as effected in the Democratic primary process is an awful idea. When you consider that the Democrats really invented party politics as we know it in the 1820's (yes I know there were Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans before that, but it was Jackson and Van Buren who really perfected party machinery), its sad that they can't even nominate a presidential candidate today.
Regardless, i don't see fault lying with the DNC in this. As far as constitutionality... is there anything in the constitution about party primaries? To my recollection, no. The DNC and RNC did the right thing in trying to address the continuing advance of the primaries, if they didn't take a stand, we'd start seeing primaries being held in November, a full year before the General Election.
As far as the proportional representation goes, guess what happens if you hand out the delegates on a state by state basis right now? You get almost exactly the same result in regard to delegate count as we have now, a very close (1-200 delegates) ace with Obama in the lead. I don't see the method the Republicans are using as better. one candidate could win a state by 1% and the other candidate win another state which has the same number of delegates in a landslide and the end result would be an even delegate count. Except that doesn't accurately represent the will of the people. That's how the Republicans are doing it.
As far as the proportional representation goes, guess what happens if you hand out the delegates on a state by state basis right now? You get almost exactly the same result in regard to delegate count as we have now, a very close (1-200 delegates) ace with Obama in the lead. I don't see the method the Republicans are using as better. one candidate could win a state by 1% and the other candidate win another state which has the same number of delegates in a landslide and the end result would be an even delegate count. Except that doesn't accurately represent the will of the people. That's how the Republicans are doing it.
OK fine, you got me to go ahead and actually check it out specifically state by state. I know not all Republican states are Winner-Take-All, but I don't have the energy to look up which and so I just treated them all like Winner-Take-All, and by that math you would see:
Hillary Clinton - 1553
Barack Obama - 1392
A 161 delegate lead for Clinton. Now the magic number is 2025, so lets see how (based on current polls and demographics) the race would play out in the upcoming states.
Obama wins Mississppi - +33 1425 Total
Clinton wins Pennsylvania - +158 1711 Total
Obama wins Guam - +4 1429 Total
Obama wins North Carolina - +115 1544 Total
Clinton wins Indiana - +72 1783 Total
Now suppose that the Democrats had followed the Republican example and awarded 50% delegates rather than zero. Florida's 211 missing delegates become 106 added to Clinton's total, while Michigan's 156 become 78, which gives her an additional 184 delegates.
Clinton gets Michigan and Florida - +184 1967 Total.
So going into the last bunch of states and Puerto Rico, Hillary Clinton has a 1967-1544 lead (that's 423 delegates) and is only 58 delegates away from the nomination while being a heavy favorite for Puerto Rico's 55 delegates, West Virginia's 28, and probably Kentucky's 51 as well. Meanwhile, Obama is 481 delegates away with only 217 left in play. Unless he starts doing the Hucka-Math, he's finished. In fact, if you really went back and looked at the math you'd figure out that the race was over (meaning Obama couldn't reach the magic number) once Clinton won Pennsylvania. No superdelegates, no re-voting mess, and on April 22 you have a candidate instead of August. I used the Democrat delegate numbers because those are allocated based on the population in the state. Maybe if I'm bored later I'll do it based on Republican delegate totals, but I bet the results will be similar. Also, since the general election is done using Winner Take All electoral votes, seems like it makes more sense naturally to go winner take all in the primaries.
Hillary Clinton - 1553
Barack Obama - 1392
A 161 delegate lead for Clinton. Now the magic number is 2025, so lets see how (based on current polls and demographics) the race would play out in the upcoming states.
Obama wins Mississppi - +33 1425 Total
Clinton wins Pennsylvania - +158 1711 Total
Obama wins Guam - +4 1429 Total
Obama wins North Carolina - +115 1544 Total
Clinton wins Indiana - +72 1783 Total
Now suppose that the Democrats had followed the Republican example and awarded 50% delegates rather than zero. Florida's 211 missing delegates become 106 added to Clinton's total, while Michigan's 156 become 78, which gives her an additional 184 delegates.
Clinton gets Michigan and Florida - +184 1967 Total.
So going into the last bunch of states and Puerto Rico, Hillary Clinton has a 1967-1544 lead (that's 423 delegates) and is only 58 delegates away from the nomination while being a heavy favorite for Puerto Rico's 55 delegates, West Virginia's 28, and probably Kentucky's 51 as well. Meanwhile, Obama is 481 delegates away with only 217 left in play. Unless he starts doing the Hucka-Math, he's finished. In fact, if you really went back and looked at the math you'd figure out that the race was over (meaning Obama couldn't reach the magic number) once Clinton won Pennsylvania. No superdelegates, no re-voting mess, and on April 22 you have a candidate instead of August. I used the Democrat delegate numbers because those are allocated based on the population in the state. Maybe if I'm bored later I'll do it based on Republican delegate totals, but I bet the results will be similar. Also, since the general election is done using Winner Take All electoral votes, seems like it makes more sense naturally to go winner take all in the primaries.
Jake, you're using some REALLY faulty information there. If the Dems HAD only taken away half the delegates, two things would have been different. One, you would have actually had candidates campaigning in those states (Clinton was the only one to make an appearance in Florida) and Obama would have actually been ON Michigan's ballot. That's why you can't just go back and give those delegates out, much as Hillary would love for that to happen.
Yes, the numbers have changed since I last did the math, which I think was right before the Ohio/TX primary and your math shows EXACTLY how screwed up the winner take all method is. Obama is winning the popular vote, yet would be losing by quite a lot in the delegate count. There's no getting around it, that's fucked up (that's also why the Electoral college is such a joke, but that's another discussion).
Yes, the numbers have changed since I last did the math, which I think was right before the Ohio/TX primary and your math shows EXACTLY how screwed up the winner take all method is. Obama is winning the popular vote, yet would be losing by quite a lot in the delegate count. There's no getting around it, that's fucked up (that's also why the Electoral college is such a joke, but that's another discussion).
Get off your high horse, Obama ran television ads in Florida too. Because of all the New Yorkers and Cubans Florida was always going to go to Clinton. As for Michigan, demographically its more like the states she's been winning and the group she appeals to. She beat both Edwards and Obama combined (that's who uncommitted was, as Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel were on the ballot) by 15 points.
Also let's talk for a second about what winning the popular vote means (ask Al Gore, not a whole hell of a lot). First of all, Hillary has a reasonable chane of catching Obama in the popular vote, which is not an unbeatable margin unlike the arbitrary pledged delegate rule. Obama is winning more, but first of all many are states that he has no chance of winning in November, particularly in the Deep South, the Great Plains, and Alaska. In the grand scheme of things, many the states Obama is winning (with a few exceptions like Illinois) just don't matter in elections, and winning states is a misnomer about winning elections. Check out an election map, in 2004 Bush won 33 states to Kerry's 17, yet the election was so close that had Kerry won Ohio (that would be only 18 states to Bush's 32) he would have been the President. In fact, if you want to see something really freaky then check out the county-by-county election results of that election. In this so-called razor thin election check out the surface area that went for Bush (in that map red areas were 70%+ for Bush, blue areas 70%+ for Kerry, purple areas fall in between):
My point is that if Hillary Clinton catches Obama in the popular vote, which medium-big wins in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky and Puerto Rico could do for her, his argument is basically going to be based on a flawed system, see Bush, George W. in 2000. I'm not saying I completely buy Hillary's argument on that score, I'm just saying that its there and its fairly compelling. I also think it's sad that the supposed candidate of change is deciding to do so based on fuzzy math, it doesn't get more old school politics to me than fuzzy delegate math.
Also let's talk for a second about what winning the popular vote means (ask Al Gore, not a whole hell of a lot). First of all, Hillary has a reasonable chane of catching Obama in the popular vote, which is not an unbeatable margin unlike the arbitrary pledged delegate rule. Obama is winning more, but first of all many are states that he has no chance of winning in November, particularly in the Deep South, the Great Plains, and Alaska. In the grand scheme of things, many the states Obama is winning (with a few exceptions like Illinois) just don't matter in elections, and winning states is a misnomer about winning elections. Check out an election map, in 2004 Bush won 33 states to Kerry's 17, yet the election was so close that had Kerry won Ohio (that would be only 18 states to Bush's 32) he would have been the President. In fact, if you want to see something really freaky then check out the county-by-county election results of that election. In this so-called razor thin election check out the surface area that went for Bush (in that map red areas were 70%+ for Bush, blue areas 70%+ for Kerry, purple areas fall in between):
My point is that if Hillary Clinton catches Obama in the popular vote, which medium-big wins in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky and Puerto Rico could do for her, his argument is basically going to be based on a flawed system, see Bush, George W. in 2000. I'm not saying I completely buy Hillary's argument on that score, I'm just saying that its there and its fairly compelling. I also think it's sad that the supposed candidate of change is deciding to do so based on fuzzy math, it doesn't get more old school politics to me than fuzzy delegate math.
