Primaries

Remove all ads!

Hillary won the Texas primary, which allocates 2/3 of Texas's delegates, netting a (projected) gain of only one delegate. The Texas caucus, which allocates the remaining 1/3, is expected to go for Obama. We're probably looking at another Nevada situation, where Clinton carries the popular vote but Obama nets the delegates. It's not really accurate to claim Texas as a win for either. There's also some confusion about the timeline for the caucus results--it seemed from the news stations last night that we would have them pretty quickly; now it sounds like it's going to be more like New Mexico, where we waited for a week.

The big winner in the Democratic primaries last night was McCain.

 

Yes, but then he was "endorsed" by GWB. There's nothing like negating your gains for party loyalty.

Says me. Yuk, Yuk, Yuk.

 

T2B,

From the beginning, there has been talk of how Florida and Michigan will be brought back into this. Both Clinton and Barack have stated they want to be the President of 50 states - not 48. The question has always been how. Florida and Michigan will have delegates at the convention this summer. (I mean, they were still going to have super delegates anyway - I think the penalty only applied to the elected delegates.) So one way or another, something is going to get done, even if it is to seat delegates after they work everything out with Barack and Clinton prior to the convention.

As far as McCain calling them out on that, if he was going to, he already would have, as everyone has already said that Michigan and Florida will be welcomed back into the fold. Besides, a party is free to spell out whatever rules it wants. That McCain doesn't like how the Democrats may handle this situation is completely irrelevant. Furthermore, I don't see how that could possibly be something that will influence voters: "Florida and Michigan will no longer be disenfranchised. The outrage!" Finally, if they do this in say, June, I highly doubt voters will even remember, much less care, come November.

 

I think you're right, Aldeth. The nominating process going all the way into the summer isn't exactly new, especially on the Democratic side. The more I think about it, the more I think this will be a good thing for Obama. The Clintons will be a far nastier, more difficult opponent to defeat than John McCain. So if he steps up his game just a little and is able to maintain his lead through the next few contests, I think he'll emerge a stronger candidate. That's my hope, anyway. It could also go the other way and HRC could damage him enough that he'll lose the general, and I wouldn't put it past them at this point to take the "if I can't win, no one will" approach to this.

Yes, this campaign has made me that cynical about the Clintons, especially Hillary. Any positive feelings I once had about her have been swept away. I really feel dumb now for defending her in the past. She's become* so shrill and unethical in this election she's actually making the right's criticism of her sound plausible. And that's unforgivable.

*Or at least, now I see what may well have been there all along.

 

Especially considering McCain doesn't even know who he should be attacking at this point. It's kind of hard to run a smear on someone else when the object of your smear is not too clear.

 

True Aldeth, but McCain can go on the attack against basic democratic policies and the issues common to both. He can also use this time to put out his strategies and why they are better. Perception is important here -- he can present a "presidential" image while Obama and Clinton continue to bicker and insult each other.

 

Now that I can agree with. There is nothing stopping McCain from laying out his entire campaign platform prior to the resolution of the Democratic primary, and pointing out issues common with both canidates (like ending the Iraq War and Universal Health Care). I just don't think that seating delegates from Florida and Michigan is going to be a particularly large plank in his platform.

 

I think there is certainly a good attack on the democratic party if they shift their position. The whole "waffling" on an issue thing could come into play. That may not be an attack on the candidates as much as an attack on the party...

"The democratic party made a decision. When the decision became unpopular, they switched positions and cost the tax payers XXX dollars. Yada, yada, yada...."

It's a reasonable attack against the democratic party. But you're right, the attack shouldn't come from McCain, it should come from other members of the republican party.

 

T2B - that already HAS happened. The DNC has already said if those states want to organize a do-over, they can, provided they get it done before July.

Check out MSNBC. It's towards the end of the article if you don't want to read the whole thing. The liberal political analyst Chuck Todd has also weighed in on the issue.

Or read the Detroit Free Press. Not convinced? How about the Miami Herald?

But don't take my word for it - you can even look at this video from DNC Chairman Howard Dean. Or this article where Dean supports do over votes in both states.

I found these things in five minutes. Why haven't we heard the angry mob with their torches and pitchforks if this is such an issue?

 

Dean made his comments this morning -- I heard them on the way in to work. I know the proposition is out there -- it will be interesting to see the response from the republicans. Perhaps the republicans won't say a thing, ever. I really wouldn't expect anything until there is something concrete in the works.

Last I read, Michigan wasn't willing to pay for another go.

 

Michigan is reluctant to pay for another primary, but would consider a caucus, which is much cheaper.

As for Republican dissent, Governor Crist of Florida (who is a Republican) wants to see the delegates seated as well.

Overall, the only way holding these primaries/caucuses is going to make a whole lot of difference is if one canidate wins them both. When you look at the fact that Hillary could only win 55% of the vote in Michigan when she ran unopposed, I think this bodes poorly for her. However, Florida's large elderly population bodes very well for Hillary. It sounds to me like a split.

Here's the simplest terms I can put on the Democrat nomination: Obama cannot get to the 2,025 delegate goal, and Clinton cannot catch him. So it comes down to superdelegates.

 

T2 - In that case, think of it kinda like the War in Iraq...or McCain's "Hundred Year War," as it now more commonly known.

Oh, yes, DR. I'm sure she paid to have Vince Foster shot... Wake up from this partisan dream, DR, my friend. Because if you think the Clintons have been rough on your guy, wait till McCain and the right-wing slime machines start rolling on Obama. You'll flip out, cause you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

Is there any indication of what way the superdelegates tend to go? This hasn't really happened in a long time, has it, so I guess it might be a bit hard to tell.

 

"Hundred year war" what a priceless misquote. Nixon had nothing on today's democrats...

 

C'mon, T2. Character assassination is a nonpartisan phenomenon.

 

@ Chandos,

I said the right's criticisms sound plausible - i.e., she'll do and say anything to regain the throne, that she's completely unethical, she'll take the party down with her if she has to, etc. - not the right's smears. I'm sure you're aware there's a difference. There's also a world of difference between 'plausible' and 'factual,' but it's inching closer by the day.

I don't care that Obama - aka "my guy" - is getting attacked. It's good for him, he can handle it, and so can I. That's hardly the point, and my newfound opposition to Hillary has more to do with her lack of ethics. I expect this kind of crap from Republicans. Hillary should know better.

Trying to seat Michigan and Florida, as they stand, having had no competition in those states and having previously agreed to waive them, is terribly unethical. You know as well as I do that if Obama had won those states and she'd been off the ballot she'd be raising hell to stop him from getting them seated, so her cries for the voices of the people to be heard, all the while dismissing the voice of the people in states who rebuked her, is beyond cynical garbage.

She's trying to game the system at every turn and is now leveling the most childish charges against the media to get them to fawn over her even more than they have been already (and it's working). Obama asks a question the supposedly anti-Hillary media won't - why she refuses to release her tax returns - and the Hillary camp calls him Ken Starr. A tax return is the most basic issue of transparancy, not some trivial financial deal. Obviously they have something to hide. Then yesterday she sits at a press conference and says that she and McCain are qualified to be CIC, yet Obama is not, effectively endorsing the Republican over her fellow Dem. It was a week ago that she dropped her phony "I am honored, honored to be here with Barack Obama!" line at the Texas debates. She doesn't care about her party or the direction of the country, only herself. If you're comfortable with all that, well - congratulations, keep on defending her. But it bothers the sh*t out of me.

And speaking of shrill, between this... "Oh, yes, DR. I'm sure she paid to have Vince Foster shot... Wake up from this partisan dream, DR" and your accusing CamDawg, a Democrat, of getting his talking points from Limbaugh the other day (a very low blow, sir), I'm really having trouble taking you seriously lately. This rhetoric is beneath you. Please return to normal.

EDIT (below): I'm not trying to pick a fight or start a flame war, and there will be nothing to watch. Chandos is a friend of mine, and he knows we're cool.

 

Wow, I can just kick back and enjoy this....

I should really be rooting for Hillary -- because I think she'll lose in an election against McCain. As a republican, I should be on the 'Go Hillary' bandwagon. However, I think Obama would be great for my state as president. Obama actually has a chance against McCain.

As an Illinois Republican, Obama/McCain is win:win. Besides, I actually like both of them and believe they are men of integrity. I'm not so sure about Hillary's integrity.

Edit (above): Come on! Let us have some fun and at least think there are going to be fireworks.

 

The tax returns are especially entertaining, considering Clinton made it a part of her 2000 senate campaign against Rick Lazio. The campaign even went so far as to send a junior staffer dressed in an Uncle Sam costume to a Lazio event to demand the release of his returns. The Rezko issue is just silly because the Feds already determined there's no connection to Obama worth investigating. And Obama, unlike Clinton and her Hsu money, gave the tainted funds to charity when they were called into question.

As for being a Democrat--to be fair, I haven't voted Democrat in a presidential election since Bill Clinton in 1996. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, we'll have to wait until 2012 to see if the streak gets broken.

Agreed. I think it would be a once-in-a-lifetime election between McCain and Obama. It might actually be fairly clean and revolve around issues.

 

My mistake, Cam. I'd thought you mentioned you were registered donk at some point.

 

I was wondering. If Hillary does manage to rig the convention and get the nomination, does this disenfranchise the black vote? Could the GOP finally start to get some of the black vote?