US Elections 2008

[bayoab]

Ignoring the fact of how meaningless* the popular vote actually is for a primary and how she is trying to instill feelings of 2000 in the Democrats, here are a few links addressing the current talking point of "I'm winning the popular vote" for the Clinton campaign:

My personal favorite when the topic comes up is the counts on realclearpolitics since they actually divide up the most popular ways of counting and show the differences between them. Currently, the yellow lines are the ones most accepted by the media while the light blue is what Clinton usually runs with. The dark blue is more theoretical.

However, it should be noted there are over 972 different ways to count the popular vote. (3 Choose 1 [^5] * 2 Choose 1 [^2] * 4 Choose 1 or 3^5*2^2*4 = 972) You can play with all the different ways to count the vote on the link above and find your favorite.

*Since the true popular vote in a primary is impossible to actually calculate, it is practically meaningless. You can get anywhere between +400k for Clinton and +400k for Obama in those 972 different variations.

Also, if crazed Clinton supporters and some right-wing blogs are to be believed, there is a video of Michelle Obama saying something to the effect of "The white man is keeping me down" surfacing soon. Note that it has been long enough since someone first claimed the video existed for someone to have made a fake if one does suddenly show up. Are there any people reading this thread who would actually care or would change their opinion if something like this surfaced? I personally couldn't care at all as long as Obama still gets the nomination as he should based on delegate counts.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Also, if crazed Clinton supporters and some right-wing blogs are to be believed, there is a video of Michelle Obama saying something to the effect of "The white man is keeping me down" surfacing soon. Note that it has been long enough since someone first claimed the video existed for someone to have made a fake if one does suddenly show up. Are there any people reading this thread who would actually care or would change their opinion if something like this surfaced? I personally couldn't care at all as long as Obama still gets the nomination as he should based on delegate counts.

Don't care. It's not an unimportant issue, but I just feel like the media has been targeting Obama big-time. First it was his link with the ex-Weathermen, then it was his link to Reverand Wright, and now it's his wife? Why aren't we getting scrutiny over Clinton's husband, or is that considered old news by now? McCain's links to lobbyists received a bit of coverage, and a few months back he had a supposed scandal with a female lobbyist... either Obama is really hot stuff or the people targeted in the other campaigns know how to keep a low profile and bore the media.

[Solace]

Numbers don't lie, but people do. No surprise that a politician, a job that is often considered to be at the epitome of lying, would pull something like this to grab a seat. Especially after the Bush/Gore election, people have a sore spot for numbers grabbing I think. So people really just don't care at this point - except for certain supporters holding onto the "dream", everyone has pretty much figured on Obama for the nomination. I honestly doubt even Clinton believes that words she's saying...but she has to put on a face because she's already dug herself this far.

I'm not really a fan of *any* of the candidates, but at this point any interest I've had in Clinton has gone poof. I'm not even sure who I want to vote for anymore, certainly not McCain but even with Clinton out of the picture I'm still not comfortable with voting for Obama. No, not because of race, but because his lack of detail in what he'll do as President bothers me.

Perhaps he was waiting for the nomination to go into more detail about what he'll do if elected, dunno. But he hasn't earned my vote, so far anyway. I'm not hopping on the "change" bandwagon with false hopes and empty promises to regret later.

[Autumn Demon]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

but why those 4 states? what makes those 4 states so special?

the 08 primary aside. 90% of the time the candidate who wins the first few states will win it all.

Why iowa and California? Why Sout Carolina and Not Florida? Why NH and not New Mexico?

Yes, it is unfair that Iowa and New Hampshire get to vote first every time. On the Democrat side, South Carolina and Nevada were also chosen to be allowed to vote early this year; South Carolina for its large black population and Nevada for being a Western state with a large Hispanic population and large unionization force.

New Hampshire is a special state for being the only red state in the Northeast (though it went for Kerry in 2004), but I don't see anything special about Iowa. No state should be allowed to vote early every time for whatever reason.

Hopefully after this long and bitter Democratic primary DNC officials will wake up and reform their primary system. Michigan and Florida were brave to defy party rules and risk losing all their delegates to bring attention to the unfairness of the same states voting early every time. Of course, mathematically it is insignificant when a state votes, but in reality primaries are usually decided before any super Tuesdays occur because the an immense number of voters just support whoever the front runner is. Somewhat ironically, that makes the system of allowing only a few states to vote early all the more important because otherwise the national front runner (who usually only has that position because of fame and not merit) would win every time.

Early voting states should be rotated every year, with Iowa and New Hampshire at the back of the line for a long time.

Also, hopefully the position of super delegates will be abolished after this year. It's wrong for a party called the 'Democratic' Party to give certain people two votes, one of them being worth a thousand times more an ordinary primary goer's. However, I fear that not too many people care.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

Yes, it is unfair that Iowa and New Hampshire get to vote first every time. On the Democrat side, South Carolina and Nevada were also chosen to be allowed to vote early this year; South Carolina for its large black population and Nevada for being a Western state with a large Hispanic population and large unionization force.

New Hampshire is a special state for being the only red state in the Northeast (though it went for Kerry in 2004), but I don't see anything special about Iowa. No state should be allowed to vote early every time for whatever reason.

Hopefully after this long and bitter Democratic primary DNC officials will wake up and reform their primary system. Michigan and Florida were brave to defy party rules and risk losing all their delegates to bring attention to the unfairness of the same states voting early every time. Of course, mathematically it is insignificant when a state votes, but in reality primaries are usually decided before any super Tuesdays occur because the an immense number of voters just support whoever the front runner is. Somewhat ironically, that makes the system of allowing only a few states to vote early all the more important because otherwise the national front runner (who usually only has that position because of fame and not merit) would win every time.

Early voting states should be rotated every year, with Iowa and New Hampshire at the back of the line for a long time.

Also, hopefully the position of super delegates will be abolished after this year. It's wrong for a party called the 'Democratic' Party to give certain people two votes, one of them being worth a thousand times more an ordinary primary goer's. However, I fear that not too many people care.

New Hampshire has it in their state constitution that they have the first primary in the nation. They can't go to the back of the line. Further, I'd like to think that this year's primary had killed off the idea that a state has to go first to be meaningful.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

New Hampshire has it in their state constitution that they have the first primary in the nation. They can't go to the back of the line. Further, I'd like to think that this year's primary had killed off the idea that a state has to go first to be meaningful.

1 year out of how many? As someone form California, i like to see the candidate spend more time campaigning in Cali then fund raising. Candidate come to cali for the cash but never spend that much time to campaign. i would like to go to one of those townhouse meetings and ask the candidate questions.

I think California should have a law tieing the amount of money a candidate can raise to the amount of tiem they spend campaigning in state.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

New Hampshire has it in their state constitution that they have the first primary in the nation. They can't go to the back of the line. Further, I'd like to think that this year's primary had killed off the idea that a state has to go first to be meaningful.

Who cares if its in their state constitution. States Rights do not overrule the rest of the country. And this year's primary did not by any means kill off that idea, in fact I think it augmented it.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Autumn Demon

Hopefully after this long and bitter Democratic primary DNC officials will wake up and reform their primary system. Michigan and Florida were brave to defy party rules and risk losing all their delegates to bring attention to the unfairness of the same states voting early every time.

It isn't just the DNC. Most states hold both primaries on the same day because it is far cheaper than holding two separate ones.

Early voting states should be rotated every year, with Iowa and New Hampshire at the back of the line for a long time.

Iowa you might be able to get, but NH has been doing it since 1920 even though it hasn't been in their constitution that long. I don't see this part changing anytime soon because people know what to expect out of Iowa and New Hampshire. It would be dangerous for the party if other states went first since the party doesn't know how the people in the states would treat it. The first primaries are expected to be serious business and are treated as such in NH and Iowa.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

1 year out of how many?

The problem with comparing primaries between years is that every primary is different and the primary season has been getting longer and longer and yet shorter and shorter. The primary used to start back in March and end in June. Now the primary starts in January and ends in June. However, the majority of the delegates can be obtained in under a month and thus it is considered "front loaded".

Also, some of the primaries are over before they even start and it wouldn't have mattered which states went first. Everyone had thought this primary was over before it had even started too and look where we are six months later.

[Autumn Demon]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

New Hampshire has it in their state constitution that they have the first primary in the nation. They can't go to the back of the line. Further, I'd like to think that this year's primary had killed off the idea that a state has to go first to be meaningful.

This shouldn't matter, but sadly it does because (after this year) the DNC will probably be too afraid to strip all the delegates from a state for holding their primary too soon.

It's wrong for a state to claim the first primary in the nation every year, and the Democratic Party is in no way obligated to adhere to a state constitution clause of that kind. New Hampshire, however, is a swing state and its doubtful that the DNC would risk stripping all of NH's delegates for the sake of fairness. What may happen in future primaries is the DNC will take away half a state's delegates if they don't follow party rules, like they decided to do with Florida last Saturday. But that will have little effect on how influential NH and other early voting states are that only have half their delegates; they'll still decide the eventual nominee more so than a later voting California with 30 times the delegates.

Some people seem to be infuriated that the DNC decided that Florida's delegates' will only have half a vote, but that's essentially the exact same thing the Republican party did to Florida and every other state that held a primary before February 5th (New Hampshire, Michigan, South Carolina, and Florida). How many people even know that those four state violated GOP rules and consequently were only given half their delegates? Certainly stripping away half the delegates from a state doesn't matter that much, because John McCain only won three of those illegitimate primaries before February 5th (Nevada and Iowa had early caucuses and given all their delegates, both won by other candidates).

[Neki Ecko]

Today is the final primaries in Montana and SD. As of right now, Obama only need about 30 delegrates to secure the nomination tonight and also Clinton say that she would like to be his VP if he choose her.

My feelings about that is, that if Clinton can do good as his VP but I think there is too much bad blood between them to even work together but at the end, to defeat McCain (who btw, is behind Obama in the polls) you will need her support and help plus then those so-called Clinton votes doesnt defect to McCain camp.

But today will be history in the making.

[nanafan]

i was shocked when i heard about clinton being willing to be Obama's VP, and apparently Obama wants her on the ticket with him. I admit that I don't know much about politics, but wouldn't it be awkward to have someone who ran against you be chosen as VP? Wierd that's all I got to say, but I guess they are doing it to show that there isn't any hard feelings and would rather have clinton with them than against them?

[Xellos-_^]

not the first time it happen

kerry/edward 2004 - hopefully Obama/Clinton 2008 workout better.

Politically this would make Obama competitive in Fl - If it is just Obama and no Clinton, he wouldn't have a shot at winning FL. He still might not win Fl but it make sit more competitive and forces the GOP to spend money in Fl that it could elsewhere.

it also makes more certain win OH and solidfy his numbers in Penn. Obama needs both states to win.

personally I am more surprise Hillary was willing to accept being vp then Obama was willing to offer it to her.

[bayoab]

There has been a flood of super delegate endorsements the entire day. Obama is currently at the time of this post less than 10 delegates away and will be presumptive nominee* for the Democratic Party since he is expected to win Montana. There are number of people who are not being included in that count who are going to announce for Obama tonight.

There are a lots of issues with the Obama/Clinton ticket. The Obama campaign isn't that pleased about her offer, but they aren't unhappy either. People are worried Clinton would be thinking "co-presidency". There are also issues about it possibly stirring up the republican base, especially if Bill Clinton gets in on the campaigning.

*Called by the AP around 2pm today. (Eventually the rest will follow.)

[Neki Ecko]

ABC News and MSNBC has predicted that Sen. Obama will win the Demo Nomination with the end of the SD and Montana voting. Congrads Sen. Obama and hopefully President Obama.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by bayoab

There has been a flood of super delegate endorsements the entire day. Obama is currently at the time of this post less than 10 delegates away and will be presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party since he is expected to win Montana. There are number of people who are not being included in that count who are going to announce for Obama tonight.

There are a lots of issues with the Obama/Clinton ticket. The Obama campaign isn't that pleased about her offer, but they aren't unhappy either. People are worried Clinton would be thinking "co-presidency". There are also issues about it possibly stirring up the republican base, especially if Bill Clinton gets in on the campaigning.

Obama's camp better think this through very carefully before he turns it down. There is a sizeable percentage of Clinton supporters that are ready to jump ship. If he turns clinton down she isn't going to work very hard at getting them to vote for Obama and Obama will need those votes in OHio, Fl and Penn. He can win the popular vote and lose the election if he loses 2 of those 3 states.

[nanafan]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

not the first time it happen

kerry/edward 2004 - hopefully Obama/Clinton 2008 workout better.

Politically this would make Fl competitive in Fl - If it Obama dn no Clinton, he wouldn't have a shot at winning FL. He still might no win Fl but it make sit more competitive and forces the GOP to spend money in Fl that it could elsewhere.

it also makes more certain win OH and solidfy his numbers in Penn. Obama needs both states to win.

personally I am more surprise Hillary was willing to accept being vp then Obama was willing to offer it to her.

that's what i thought too, i didn't think that she would offer herself on the same ticket as him. but, could bill really have power if she becomes Vice President? how much influence would he have?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by nanafan

that's what i thought too, i didn't think that she would offer herself on the same ticket as him. but, could bill really have power if she becomes Vice President? how much influence would he have?

He already has influence just by virtue of being a former president. I'm not sure if he actively makes use of it, but former presidents are allowed to have access and updates regarding government secrets - so it isn't like they're thrown out of the loop and become ordinary citizens afterward. I don't think that's the concern, though. Rather, the Republicans already have a file on Bill Clinton, and as they've shown in their remarks against Michelle Obama they're not against targeting people's spouses. Bill could be a potential drag on Hillary when it comes to mudslinging.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Politically this would make Obama competitive in Fl - If it is just Obama and no Clinton, he wouldn't have a shot at winning FL. He still might not win Fl but it make sit more competitive and forces the GOP to spend money in Fl that it could elsewhere.

it also makes more certain win OH and solidfy his numbers in Penn. Obama needs both states to win.

Obama does not need Ohio if he can win one of Virgina, North Carolina, Michigan, or Missouri + (1 other small state or NE-1/NE-2). All of these are potentially winnable according to current polls.

On the VP topic:

Exit poll on MSNBC:
South Dakota - Hillary Clinton as VP?
Clinton voters 70 yes/30 no
Obama voters 40 yes/60 no

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by nanafan

that's what i thought too, i didn't think that she would offer herself on the same ticket as him. but, could bill really have power if she becomes Vice President? how much influence would he have?

Cheney is a exception, in most cases the VP has no power. As a senator in NY, Hillary would actually have more influence and political power then as Obama's vp. The pay off comes form when your boss's term ends and you can run on his record for the job.

In Clinton's case if she becomes Obama vp she just tie herself to Obama's admin and if it sinks, it will take her straight to the bottom along with her political future. Of course if her gamble pays off she takes a vacation the next 8 years and becomes Pres in 2016.

Originally Posted by bayoab

Obama does not need Ohio if he can win one of Virgina, North Carolina, Michigan, or Missouri + (1 other small state or NE-1/NE-2). All of these are potentially winnable according to current polls.

Obama will NOT win any of the confederated states. I will put money on it. Virgina, Missouri and North Carolina. If Obama has to win one of these states to win the election, he might as well pack his bags now and the candidacy to Clinton.

as for Mi, unless he do something stupid he should win it but he will need more then Mi to win the general election.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Obama will NOT win any of the confederated states. I will put money on it. Virgina, Missouri and North Carolina. If Obama has to win one of these states to win the election, he might as well pack his bags now and the candidacy to Clinton.

as for Mi, unless he do something stupid he should win it but he will need more then Mi to win the general election.

This is only if he were to win with the current map setup without Ohio and Florida. If he gets either of those or Michigan, then it's a moot point.

Currently Obama is statistically tied with McCain in Virginia and down 3 points in Missouri. It should also be noted that Missouri historically votes for the party that ends up winning. Both Clinton and Obama are losing by 3 points in Michigan.

We are also still four months away and things can change. Last year Kerry looked like he was going to run away with the election at this time and he ended up losing.