Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

What to Watch For: Kentucky and Oregon

UPDATE, 7:10 pm: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has, as expected, defeated Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the Kentucky Democratic primary. The margin, which was the real question, is being described by CNN as in the neighborhood of 30 points.

ORIGINAL POST

Election days are a waiting game. Candidates, pundits and political reporters spend the day trading tidbits of information -- some right, some wrong -- and looking for clues about what is going to happen.

The truth is no one knows until the ballots get counted. That's the glory of elections.

But, since we still have an hour until polls close in Kentucky (and five hours until they do in Oregon -- ugh), we thought we could keep Fixistas entertained with a few things to watch for in tonight's proceedings. (You can also read The Fix's story on today's elections.)

* Clinton's Kentucky Margin: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) set herself an unattainable bar last week in West Virginia when she walloped Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) by 41 points. It's nearly impossible for Clinton to replicate that wide a margin in Kentucky or any of the other remaining states. Will the media cast a 20-point Clinton win as a win? Or not? And, does it even matter with all signs pointing to the extremely likelihood that Obama will be the nominee?

* Obama's Speech: Obama has made a living on his election night speeches. Throughout the nomination fight Obama has used his gift for oratory to not only wow voters but also frame the parameters of the Democratic contest. He'll deliver tonight's speech from Iowa and it may be viewed as his major address of the general election. Obama's campaign isn't releasing any excerpts early to the media, an unusual choice that is sure to build expectations for the speech itself.

*Oregon or Oregone?: The Beaver State conducts its primaries entirely by mail and its polls don't close until 11 p.m. Eastern Time. So, by the time any real results are available it may well be after midnight -- and it will certainly be after the 11 p.m. news on the east coast. How will major media organizations play it? The big news of the night will be Obama securing a simple majority of pledged delegates, an accomplishment not likely to come until Oregon's results are tabulated. The time differential between Kentucky and Oregon means Clinton may well get a significant run of attention between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. (or so) as the cable networks look for something to fill the void. Of course, the flipside of that argument is that Obama will dominate coverage tomorrow as Oregon is factored in to the equation.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 20, 2008; 5:54 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McKinnon To Step Aside From McCain Effort
Next: Obama Raised $31 Million in April

Comments

PS, the line wasn't four more years of war, it was FOUR MORE WARS, as in McCain's desire to continue to expand the conflict to Iran and wherever else he sees fit.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 21, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"Let's just skip the democrat senate responsibility of voting for it."

I don't, that's why I voted for Obama. But still, do you actually beleieve there's a moral equivalency with the parties on this issue? This Iraq veteran would like to know...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"The more important question at this point is a political one. Is it to the party's and nominee's advantage to seat these rogue delegations? Yes. Democrats need Florida and Michigan voters on their side in the fall, at the presidential level and all the way down the ticket."

And this is probably the better point- there is a constitutional argument (which fails), a legal argument (arguing federal election law rather than due process, also has its share of problems) and there is a moral argument (which is what the campaign is making). Like I said (and btw I was th 11:51 point from last night, still say we need the registration back on with this site) I fully expect the delegations to be seated in some form, probably halved for presidential voting purposes or using a 50/50 split for half the delegates, and the results of the election for the other half, etc.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 21, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

kreuz missle shouts the democrat rallying cry: FOUR MORE YEARS OF WAR, FOR MORE YEARS OF WAR! Let's just skip the democrat senate responsibility of voting for it.

It has become obvious to me that a. the Democrats really do not understand what military service is, b. blame the US for all things, c. expect the government to provide for and solve all problems. I think Democrats, (not all) despise the idea of America winning a war. America does not win wars in the eyes of Democrats. To a Democrat, America only invades, acts aggressively or acts as part of a conspiracy to abuse the rights of other countries. Democrats despise the military. Despise is the wrong word. Pity is more accurate. For Democrats, the military is the pitiful tool of the American conspiracy to take over the world and the troops people too stupid to not join up. Really. Many Democrats view America and it's allies as operative in a Pinky and the Brain cartoon searching constantly for a way to take over the world. The idea of Senator McCain possibly viewing his military service as an honor and privelege is absolutely repugnant to my Democrat friends. They pretty much view anyone with strong patriotic feelings or who mentions military service as an honor as an ignorant backwoods hillbilly. I am fairly sure that this latter sentiment is a strong factor in Senator Obama's appeal to Democrat voters who have to deal with their own elitist attitudes.

Posted by: Mary Hammond | May 21, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

The results are in. Obama won the Democratic Primary in Oregon, and Clinton won Kentucky. Both candidates and their supporters should be proud. However, consider what statistics you get when you combine the results from the two states:

Of all those that voted in both Oregon and Kentucky, Clinton won 55.4% to Obama's 42.1%. That's a 13% lead for Clinton.

Of all the delegates earned in both states, Clinton won 59.3% to Obama's 40.7% That's an 18% lead for Clinton.

While it's probably true that the math says Hillary Clinton won't win the Democratic nomination, her math in several recent primaries has been looking pretty good.

Posted by: Neil - Salem, MA USA | May 21, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

"Democrats beware ... by continuing to denigrate Clinton's base, you are not only chasing that solid, loyal, voting block from the party, you might very well drive them to form a new party."

Um, Clinton's base is not a reliable democratic voting bloc. The white working class people usually go Republican. Bill Clinton did horribly with this group in the general election.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 21, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

"When that does not work, a liar asks for proof"

hahaha, yeah, I'm sure we ALL trust the integrity of someone who rails against people asking for evidence to back up outlandish claims.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 21, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Wow-Joe
"You are correct - he should not be elected because he is black - he will be elected because he is the better candidate. States who are over-whelmingly white have voted for him and not by people who don't want to be called "racisit" - the voting booth is private, you can vote for anyone you choose to vote for and no one will ever know

Are you implying that states that are overwhelmingly white voting for Obama indicates that he is the better candidate?
How does this make him the better candidate especially in light of the fact that Clinton carries a larger popular vote?
Don't you think that is a rather racist statement in itself?
What you are basically saying is now we can really believe he is the better candidate because whites voted for him.
Hold on, Joe- is your theory indicative of an idea that Asians and Hispanics are not part of the "better candidate vote" contingent?

Posted by: Mary Hammond | May 21, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile,

In terms of the legal arguments, you are completely correct. The government is in no way involved in excluding Florida and Michigan, and the parties as private organizations have every right to set their own rules. Constitutional equal protection clauses and whatever else do not apply in this case. Legally, Florida and Michigan have nothing to stand on, and their appeals were quickly dismissed by courts months ago before the elections were even held.

The more important question at this point is a political one. Is it to the party's and nominee's advantage to seat these rogue delegations? Yes. Democrats need Florida and Michigan voters on their side in the fall, at the presidential level and all the way down the ticket.

Especially since seating these delegations will make no difference in determining the nominee--Obama has virtually wrapped up the nomination regardless--your legal arguments are good ones, but it's probably not worth the time and bandwidth to make the argument. Let the DNC Rules Committee try to broker a deal and the end of the month, and then Clintonistas will be quieted from their fantasies, and the nominee will be able to move on in his general election fight.

On the other hand, if you're a Republican, maybe arguing against seating the delegations is a worthwhile endeavor. McCain will have trouble winning on his own, and the Democrats seem to be going out of their way to gift him this primary season. Leaving Florida ticked off would be the coup de grace.

Posted by: blert | May 21, 2008 2:57 AM | Report abuse

And for full disclosure, I fully expect MI and FL to be seated, with some compromise between the vote count from the sham elections and a 50/50 split, or maye they will even be honored as is just to remove any gripes from the Clintonistas, because counting them as is would remove all doubt that Obama won and Clinton lost under any metric.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 11:51 PM | Report abuse

Note: with the 23 delegates needed in FL, Obama would also be expected to pick up an additional 9 delegates that would have gone to Edwards (via the endorsement and Edwards pledged delegates all moving to Obama thusfar), which would reduce the count to 14.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Right now, Obama has 1637 Pledged Delegates out of 3251 available, for a majority. If Michigan and FL are factored in, and assuming full representation:

Michigan has 128 theoretical pledged delegates, Florida has 185, bringing the total number to 3564, requiring 1782 for a majority. If The Florida count stands and all "unaffiliated" votes are handed to Obama (the best scenario Clinton can realistically hope for), Obama would get 67 from Florida and 55 from Michigan, giving him 1759 total pledged delegates, 23 votes shy of a majority for that scenario.

There are still 22 delegates to be allocated from Oregon, and about 100 more pledged delegates to be allocated by a proportional process, meaning that even with FL and MI counted in Hillary's best case, Obama will shortly have a pledged delegate majority.

Now, was that simple enough for you to understand, I know the legal arguments were way over your head, so hopefully you can do simple math...

Florida voter, you're not Sen Ring by chance, are you? Maybe you should take this up with your representatives...

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/28/State/Earlier_Florida_prima.shtml

"Our position is "the right to exclude" does not extend to equal protection, citizens of all states must be treated equally in the process"

All 50 states run completely different elections, with completely different standards. They all vote during differnet hours, use differnet ballots, have different standards for counting them, some have caucuses, some have primaries, etc. There is no standard of equal protection across state lines, only within individual elections, and each state's election is completely independent of one another. That's pretty well established case law, what you are arguing for is the complete abdication of federalism, and it isn't flying.

"The dispute is whether the states will hold primaries before SuperTuesday - the dispute is over the ORDER of the primaries on the calendar, not the actual dates."

No, the Democratic Party rules clearly spell out dates:

"No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that
the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule."

Once more: the rule was clear, established well before Michigan and Florida moved their primaries in violation of the rules, and setting these rules were clearly within the power of the party. The party is not in any way obligated to honor the results of unsanctioned primaries (La Folette, once more).

http://www.democrats.org/page/-/pdf/DelegateSelectionRules.pdf

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

HAR HAR! THE TRANSLATOR IS LIKE THE ROADRUNNER, AND 37TH&OBAMA STREET SLASH WORDS OF WISDUMDUM IS THE COYOTE!

BEEP BEEP! DON'T GO PAST OBAMA HQ - THEY MIGHT DROP AN ANVIL ON YOU! TRY THE ROCKET-POWERED ROLLER SKATES! HAR HAR!

Posted by: MISTER CAPS | May 20, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

10:47 p.m. post

"Thrown off my game again. That durn Translator! Coot coot!

Seriously, I am dumb enough to think that people at Obama HQ would waste their time on a yokel like me (dumb but honored, though), but also want people to believe that I am smart enough to predict what a bunch of people I have never heard of - let alone met - will do more than a week from now.

On May 31, I will understand why it is called the Rules Committee - because Barack Obama RULES!!!!!!!!!!!"

Posted by: 37th&OStreet Translator | May 20, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

If the DNC Rules Committee seats at least some of the pledged delegates from Florida and Michigan, this claim of a majority does not hold up, does it?

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 20, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

All I can say is the Florida and Michigan situations are stupid for the democratic party to debate.


Florida and Michigan do count.


How many of you fools are at Obama headquarters blogging on this board????


Show up at the Rules Committee and make these idiotic points.

Then show up in Michigan in the fall and see what the voters think of you fools.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 20, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Translator


Why dont you identify yourself as Michigan & Lake ?????

I want you to admit you are at Obama headquarters.

ha ha ha ha HA

Posted by: Translator Translator | May 20, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

10:28 p.m. post

"The Internet can be used for more than looking for movies of water-skiing squirrels. I can make a fool of myself anonymously."

Posted by: 37th&Ostreet Translator | May 20, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Florida Voter is our latest sock puppet.

You can tell who the ignorant hicks are who make up the Hillary base. We sock puppet and do not cover our tracks.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet and Words of Wisdom Translators | May 20, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

To Kruez Missile or whatever your name is:


I read your postings, are you nuts?


The DNC should respect the voting rights of the people of Florida and Michigan - we have nothing to do with the dispute involving Harry Reid and Carl Levin.

You have no idea what democracy means.


Besides, if the DNC had any brains, it would be smart NOT to offend the voters in Florida and Michigan.

Your position is verging on insanity.

Do you have any idea what you are saying??

Posted by: Florida Voter | May 20, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse


Kreuz


Words of Wisdom is right - everytime he proves you wrong, you start in with some more wrong points.

You never admit that you are wrong on any of these points.

Go back and read your posts, in fact you started to quote court cases which proved how wrong your earlier posts were.

PLEASE kreuz, spare everyone on this board

You do not know what you are talking about and Words of Wisdom is right again in saying your judgement is bad.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 20, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

What the heck are you smoking? You haven't made a single point stick this entire argument. The courts are against you, the law is against you, basic reason is AGAINST YOU. If there was a legal case to be made, the campaign would have made it. There isn't, get OVER IT. I'm done wasting my time with you.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 10:23 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


Everytime I prove you wrong on an issue, you change what you are talking about to another wrong point.


This is silly.


Admit you were wrong on the first 10 points that you made.

This is getting like the discussion yesterday when Ddawg was proven 100% wrong with a video clip which was supplied by FRED.

Thank you, but goodbye,


It is time to admit your judgement is bad, including your selection of a candidate.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

The fifth amendment liberty clause differs from the 14th amendment clause because this one is clarly referencing rights of the accused, not voting rights. YOu're stretching that one waaaay too far.

You're talking about the regulation of candidates and funding, which is a completely different issue from the party's clearcut authority to determine the means of selecting a nominee. The financing of both candidates and funding have been found to be a compelling public interest to regulate, but there was no constitutional reuirement for them to do so, the legislature chose to enact a statute to bound the process which has never been challenged as it reflects the primary process alone, and because the funds are allowed to roll over into the general that fact shows a compelling interest to regulate funding at the primary level regardless (and, I might add, the courts are more likely to swing the other way on this one than toward more regulation- the current majority views money as protected speech under the 1st Amendment).

The issue here is pretty clear cut:

1. Do the parties have the authority to determine the calendar for their primary elections? Yes, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says otherwise.

2. Do the parties have the authority to reject the delegate selection process pushed by Florida in violation of the rules? Yes, see La Follett.

3. Did the DNC Violate the 14th Amendment Rights of thew citizens of Florida and Michigan? No, they are in no position to do so by definition.

4. Did the State of Florida violate the equal protection rights of its citizens by moving the election against the rules of the Democratic Party? possibly, but that's not grounds for reinstating the January numbers, and per Bush v. Gore, there is likely no constituional way to stage a re-vote. Per Democratic party precedent, a later caucus would have served both the DNC and Florida/Michigan.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Kreuz_missile


I will give you one more


The passage you cite contains references to cases on both sides which are worth reading to find out the issues in each case and how those issues apply to set of facts.

At issue is "a political association's right to exclude"


OK a party does have the right to exclude, however only on a certain basis which passes Constitutional standards.


Constitutional standards do apply to political parties in the primary process - your contention that the parties are free to make whatever rules they want is flat out wrong.


Our position is "the right to exclude" does not extend to equal protection, citizens of all states must be treated equally in the process.

In the cases you cite, there is a clear First Amendment basis for such exclusion.

In the discussion we are having concerning Florida and Michigan, there is no First Amendment basis - therefore in this case equal protection and the Fifth Amendment liberty protections must prevail.

Very simple actually, however since you brought up the issue.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Response to kreuz_missile


You are now resorting to lies and deception


The dispute is whether the states will hold primaries before SuperTuesday - the dispute is over the ORDER of the primaries on the calendar, not the actual dates.

A deception is the same thing as a lie.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Response to kreuz_missile


You are now resorting to lies and deception


The dispute is whether the states will hold primaries before SuperTuesday - the dispute is over the ORDER of the primaries on the calendar, not the actual dates.

A deception is the same thing as a lie.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

Response to kreuz_missile


I will respond only once more to your silly position


The Fifth Amendment applies because with the liberty clause citizens are guaranteed voting rights, and that applies to the elections of President including the primary elections.


Again, the political parties are bound by Constitutional standards.


The election process, including the primaries, involve FEDERAL elections and the election of the President.


The Courts have ruled that Congress may regulate FEDERAL campaigns and have upheld the creation of the Federal Election Commission and all its related regulations, even though the states hold all these elections.


The FED regulations apply to the primaries. If you are not sure, go over to your Obama finance department in the next room and ask them why they are filing election reports with the FEC concerning the primary elections.


Hence, the Fifth Amendment also applies to the primaries.

Response to kreuz_missile this is getting to be a silly discussion with you because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


A little knowledge does not mean you know everything.


That applies to the inexperience of your candidate Obama, who because he knows a little thinks he is qualified to be President.

Thank you, goodbye.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Response to kreuz_missile


I will respond only once more to your silly position


The Fifth Amendment applies because with the liberty clause citizens are guaranteed voting rights, and that applies to the elections of President including the primary elections.


Again, the political parties are bound by Constitutional standards.


The election process, including the primaries, involve FEDERAL elections and the election of the President.


The Courts have ruled that Congress may regulate FEDERAL campaigns and have upheld the creation of the Federal Election Commission and all its related regulations, even though the states hold all these elections.


The FED regulations apply to the primaries. If you are not sure, go over to your Obama finance department in the next room and ask them why they are filing election reports with the FEC concerning the primary elections.


Hence, the Fifth Amendment also applies to the primaries.

Response to kreuz_missile this is getting to be a silly discussion with you because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.


A little knowledge does not mean you know everything.


That applies to the inexperience of your candidate Obama, who because he knows a little thinks he is qualified to be President.

Thank you, goodbye.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Repetition ad nauseum is no basis for a rational debate, why not try some actal facts or a new argument?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

That last post was me again

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

"In fact, we maintain that because Florida and Michigan previously held their primaries BEFORE SuperTuesday, if those states COOPERATED with the democratic party by moving its primary in a way that denied EQUAL PROTECTION to its citizens, holding that primary in accordance with the party rules WOULD HAVE BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

Wow, you really have no clue what you're talking about here, do you?

The DNC rules, agreed to in August 2006, stipulate states that have not been granted a special waiver must schedule presidential nominating contests after Feb. 5. On 21 May 2007, AFTER the rules were published, Florida MOVED the primary date FROM it's traditional March date. Moving the election forward, by your logic, would pose more equal protection issues on the part of the Florida election process.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Response to kreuz_missile

We are stating clearly that the democratic party is favoring the citizens of Nevada and South Carolina over the citizens of Florida and Michigan.


The party is seeking to utilize public funds in its primaries.

We are stating that the party is conducting a process which is part and parcel of the election of the President of the United States, and thereby is subject to CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS OF VOTING RIGHTS in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments.


We are stating that although there are court cases which give the parties some status of "private entities" in some matters, they are de facto public hybrid entities when it comes to Voting Rights and its participation in the process of electing a President.


We maintain that the Constitutional protections of equal protection must be adhered to by the parties AND the states which cooperate with the parties in setting the rules for the primaries.

In fact, we maintain that because Florida and Michigan previously held their primaries BEFORE SuperTuesday, if those states COOPERATED with the democratic party by moving its primary in a way that denied EQUAL PROTECTION to its citizens, holding that primary in accordance with the party rules WOULD HAVE BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


Sorry, you lose.


.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Exit Polls:

Was Gender of candidate important to you?

Yes 16 -- 79C, 19O
No 82 -- 63C, 33O

Was Race of candidate important to you?

Yes 21 -- 81C, 16O
No 78 -- 61C, 35O

Hmm, Clinton did better among voters who thought both race and gender was an important issue than those who said it wasn't. Weird, I thouhgt she was the victim in both of those cases.....

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

"Too late to change anything, but it might give you a little understanding of what caused the Republican victory in November"

More sour grapes from another Clintonista. If you want backalley abortions to become the norm, war with Iran, an economy continuing to go into the gutter, all becuse you first complained that Obama couldn't land a punch and now whine because his supporters hit too hard, your call.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

"We are stating clearly that the democratic party is favoring the citizens of Nevada and South Carolina over the citizens of Florida and Michigan."

Why is earlier voting an inherent benefit? MI and FL would have been better off with a later voting date, rather than everyone being forced to vote on the same date. The purpose of the parties reulating the dates of the elections is to maximize one-on-one campaigning between candidates and voters. A national primary would undermine that cause, weaken the candidates, limit a competitive primary competition, and devalue the role of individual states. Sorry, not a winning argument, and a red herring at that since all voters within each state are treated equally, the 14th Amendment doesn't work for arguing different standards across state lines, to do so would be to discard the federal system completely.

"The party is seeking to utilize public funds in its primaries."

True, but that still doesn't bound them to accept the results, especially when they improperly changed the date. They could select delegates via a caucus, or a party-sponsored primary if they desired to. The state sponsorship only bounds the state to observe federal election law when regulation their own election, it doesn't bound the party. See La Follett.

"We are stating that the party is conducting a process which is part and parcel of the election of the President of the United States, and thereby is subject to CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS OF VOTING RIGHTS in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments."

How does the Fifth Amendment factor in here, did your candidate get arrested? Parties are free to nominate whomever they chose by whatever standard they desire (first amendment guarantee of free association). If you think the nominee selected by the party is improper and don't wish to vote for them, vote for someone else.


The Equal Protection argument falls flat on all counts. Parties are free to select the means of nominating their candidates, and selecting the manner in which they are selected. This is why some states have caucuses, some elections, some both, and some have both while only recognizing one. If you don't like it, run for a seat on the DNC.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

just a little message to Obama supporters; your characterization of Clinton supporters as "unwashed, ignorant, uneducated, racist, etc., etc. is seriously hurting your candidate. I received a call today soliciting money for Obama and I was so angry at the constant insults Clinton supporters have heard, both at us and at our candidate that I thought not a chance will I give money or my vote to this crowd. Too late to change anything, but it might give you a little understanding of what caused the Republican victory in November.

Posted by: conduit 3 | May 20, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

I also think they'd have a few obstacles for getting a line on the ballot (minimum vote thresholds, etc.), but that is another matter as well...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

Response to kreuz_missile

We are stating clearly that the democratic party is favoring the citizens of Nevada and South Carolina over the citizens of Florida and Michigan.


The party is seeking to utilize public funds in its primaries.

We are stating that the party is conducting a process which is part and parcel of the election of the President of the United States, and thereby is subject to CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS OF VOTING RIGHTS in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments.


We are stating that although there are court cases which give the parties some status of "private entities" in some matters, they are de facto public hybrid entities when it comes to Voting Rights and its participation in the process of electing a President.


We maintain that the Constitutional protections of equal protection must be adhered to by the parties AND the states which cooperate with the parties in setting the rules for the primaries.

In fact, we maintain that because Florida and Michigan previously held their primaries BEFORE SuperTuesday, if those states COOPERATED with the democratic party by moving its primary in a way that denied EQUAL PROTECTION to its citizens, holding that primary in accordance with the party rules WOULD HAVE BEEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL.


Sorry, you lose.


.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

"So, under your logic kreuz_missile, is a political party free to hold a primary or a caucus restricting the voters to only whites or blacks ???"

Actually, yes, but they would not be permitted to use state funds to do so. If the KKK wanted to nominate a candidate for President, they could do so by holding a national caucus excluding all minorities. Back in the early days of the LDS church, the church was free to nominate Joseph Smith to run as head of their church excluding all others. I don't think in either case the candidates selected would get many votes, but they clearly have a right to do so. The 14th Amendment doesn't attach until the state gets involved, and that is only for their actual regulating of the election, not in bounding the parties to abide by the results, to do so fundamentally abridges their most basic rights of speech and association. They'd be accurattely portrayed as a bunch of racists grossly out of line with key American values, and they'd probably run into a few legal obstacles that would make for some interesting challenges, but constitutionally I don't even think it's a close call.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

"(a) States play a major role in structuring and monitoring the primary election process, but the processes by which political parties select their nominees are not wholly public affairs that States may regulate freely. To the contrary, States must act within limits imposed by the Constitution when regulating parties' internal processes. See, e.g., Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214. Respondents misplace their reliance on Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, and Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461, which held not that party affairs are public affairs, free of First Amendment protections, see, e.g., Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, but only that, when a State prescribes an election process that gives a special role to political parties, the parties' discriminatory action becomes state action under the Fifteenth Amendment. This Nation has a tradition of political associations in which citizens band together to promote candidates who espouse their political views. The First Amendment protects the freedom to join together to further common political beliefs, id., at 214--215, which presupposes the freedom to identify those who constitute the association, and to limit the association to those people, Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107, 122. In no area is the political association's right to exclude more important than in its candidate-selection process. That process often determines the party's positions on significant public policy issues, and it is the nominee who is the party's ambassador charged with winning the general electorate over to its views. The First Amendment reserves a special place, and accords a special protection, for that process, Eu, supra, at 224, because the moment of choosing the party's nominee is the crucial juncture at which the appeal to common principles may be translated into concerted action, and hence to political power, Tashjian, supra, at 216."

California Democratic Party v. Jones, 2000; ruled 7-2 with Stevens and Ginsburg in dissent

"Rules of the Democratic Party of the United States (National Party) provide that only those who are willing to affiliate publicly with the Democratic Party may participate in the process of selecting delegates to the Party's National Convention. Wisconsin election laws allow voters to participate in its Democratic Presidential candidate preference primary without regard to party affiliation and without requiring a public declaration of party preference. While the Wisconsin delegates to the National Convention are chosen separately, after the primary, at caucuses of persons who have stated their affiliation with the Democratic Party, those delegates are bound to vote at the Convention in accord with the results of the open primary election. Thus, while Wisconsin's open Presidential preference primary does not itself violate the National Party's rules, the State's mandate that primary results shall determine the allocation of votes cast by the State's delegates at the National Convention does. When the National Party indicated that Wisconsin delegates would not be seated at the 1980 National Convention because the Wisconsin delegate selection system violated the National Party's rules, an original action was brought in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of the State, seeking a declaration that such system was constitutional as applied to appellants (the National Party and Democratic National Committee) and that they could not lawfully refuse to seat the Wisconsin delegation. Concluding, inter alia, that the State had not impermissibly impaired the National Party's freedom of political association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the State's delegate selection system was constitutional and binding upon appellants and that they could not refuse to seat delegates chosen in accord with Wisconsin law.

Held:

Wisconsin cannot constitutionally compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the Party's rules. Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477, controlling. Pp. 120-126." 6-3 ruling, with Powell, Rhenquist, and Blackmund in dissent

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Tonight, I am coming out of the closet!
Chris, I don't trust your italian accent, it sounds to Camorra talk to me!
Money makes the world go round, and you surely are taking a big chunk in this game!

Posted by: Caronte | May 20, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Tonight, I am coming out of the closet!
Chris, I don't trust your italian accent, it sounds to Camorra talk to me!
Money makes the world go round, and you surely are taking a big chunk in this game!

Posted by: Caronte | May 20, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd has requested that we re-post the link of the news clips showing that Obama admitted his campaign played the race card on several times, thus admitting that he lied to the networks many times.


The lies are all there.


Tim Russert is shown confronting Obama with a 4 page document from his own campaign and then Obama is shown agreeing that he was a LIAR.

Tim Russert confronts Obama about playing the race card (his "4 pages of talking points":

http://tinyurl.com/6gcstl


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd has requested that we re-post the link of the news clips showing that Obama admitted his campaign played the race card on several times, thus admitting that he lied to the networks many times.


The lies are all there.


Tim Russert is shown confronting Obama with a 4 page document from his own campaign and then Obama is shown agreeing that he was a LIAR.

Tim Russert confronts Obama about playing the race card (his "4 pages of talking points":

http://tinyurl.com/6gcstl


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Tonight, I am coming out of the closet!
Chris, I don't trust your italian accent, it sounds to Camorra talk to me!
Money makes the world go round, and you surely are taking a big chunk in this game!

Posted by: Caronte | May 20, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile


So, under your logic kreuz_missile, is a political party free to hold a primary or a caucus restricting the voters to only whites or blacks ???


Is a political party free to hold a primary or caucus restricting the voters to only men or women ???


Is a political party free to hold a primary or caucus restricting the voters to only those with blue eyes ???


Surely there are some Constitutional standards to which the parties are bound.


There is case law on our side.


In your delusional world, a State could use State taxpayer funds to hold a primary which excludes blacks or hispanics or whatever the party rules call for.

What say ye ????


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Alan, that would be

mark_in_austin@operamail.com

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 20, 2008 8:51 PM | Report abuse

"Again and again, the Democratic voters said: We don't want Obama!!!

If he is so sure he is going to win ther nomination, why are these voters voting for Clinton?

They voted for Clinton becasue. again: They don't want Obama!!!"

Let's look at the polls and how they show a clear, consistant rise for Clinton as a clear sign of buyers remorse over the presumptive nominee:

Survey USA Poll results, Kentucky Primary

Clinton Obama
3/28-30: 58 29
4/12-14: 62 29
4/26-28: 63 27
5/03-05: 62 28
5/09-11: 62 30
5/16-18: 62 31

Hmm, wait a second, virtually no change since March? Hmmm, maybe the results say something else...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Kreuz, you are correct to conclude, in effect, that no federal law is violated and the Constitution is not insulted by the D Party if it chooses not to seat MI or FL at its Convention.

AlanInMissoula, if you ck in here tonight, some of us are glad you are getting to vote in a real live primary soon and we would like to hear from you.

Write to us at:

markinaustin@operamail.com

Use a dummy email for the purpose, if you want.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 20, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama has gotten the minority voters and some people who don't want to be labeled "racists" but he does not deserve to be President just because he is "Black". After Ted Kennedy passes this year the "liberal king" will be gone and "liberalism" as we have known it will be gone. Hillary is the only viable candidate for the Democratic Party and she will be placed out to pasture for the Black man for no reason at all.

Posted by: Joe Jackson | May 20, 2008 6:44 PM
______________________

You are correct - he should not be elected because he is black - he will be elected because he is the better candidate. States who are over-whelmingly white have voted for him and not by people who don't want to be called "racisit" - the voting booth is private, you can vote for anyone you choose to vote for and no one will ever know.

Liberalism will not die with Ted Kennedy. That's simply the GOP's great hope. They who have proven they have no idea how to run a country --- except for their corporate donors.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

Response to kreuz_missile


There was another person on here the other day saying the same silly things you are - they started to look up some case law and found out how right we are.

Please read the postings we have made today under this article.

There is case law on our side.


I really do not want to respond to every silly thing that you and Ddawg have to say - it is obvious that you are in a pretend planet.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

You posted a CNN story which is more a "he said, she said" than a substantive argument for either one side, care to amend that?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

"We have a different a more compelling set of Constitutional positions."

YOu have ZERO constitutional positions and ZERO case law on your side. Political parties are entities independent of the government, are not bound by the 14th Amendment to accept the results of state elections in choosing their nominees, and are free to choose their own mechanisms for choosing a nominee. None of those positions are in any legal doubt. The purpose oof a political party is to allow for like minded individuals to come together to advance a political position, and that group can choose any mechanism to decide that nominee. If they are going to hold a primary, that primary itself, especially when sanctioned by a state, must be held to constitutional standards, but the state deciding to host a primary in the name of a party in no way obligates the party to be bound by that result, especially when they stated clearly prior to the decision to move the date that they did not approve of it.

I only post under this name.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 8:39 PM | Report abuse

If Obama steps onto the stage while Hillary is speaking, she should be ready to call him rude - and stand there until he is done - when the cameras go back to her, she should call him rude again and launch into an attack about his inexperience and lack of adherence to his own campaign themes.

It is time.

Hillary is going to go all out. Watch.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 20, 2008 7:17 PM
________________________

Wrong again.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

Until we rid ourselves of the Clintons we will be forever dealing in subjectivity. Does anyone know the meaning of anything outside the delusional spins of the Clintons. I am ready for eight years of a President in touch with reality.

Posted by: rusty 3 | May 20, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd has requested that we re-post the link of the news clips showing that Obama admitted his campaign played the race card on several times, thus admitting that he lied to the networks many times.


The lies are all there.


Tim Russert is shown confronting Obama with a 4 page document from his own campaign and then Obama is shown agreeing that he was a LIAR.

Tim Russert confronts Obama about playing the race card (his "4 pages of talking points":

http://tinyurl.com/6gcstl

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Ddawd has requested that we re-post the link of the news clips showing that Obama admitted his campaign played the race card on several times, thus admitting that he lied to the networks many times.


The lies are all there.


Tim Russert is shown confronting Obama with a 4 page document from his own campaign and then Obama is shown agreeing that he was a LIAR.

Tim Russert confronts Obama about playing the race card (his "4 pages of talking points":

http://tinyurl.com/6gcstl

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Repeat after me - I pledge allegiance, to Adolf Hitler...

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

Again and again, the Democratic voters said: We don't want Obama!!!

If he is so sure he is going to win ther nomination, why are these voters voting for Clinton?

They voted for Clinton becasue. again: They don't want Obama!!!

I don't want to see Clinton on the ticket if Obama was nominated. Obama is going to lose and lose big. I mean he is losing 40+ states to McCain.

Wake up, Democrats!

Posted by: GY | May 20, 2008 8:04 PM
_________________________

Tell that to the people of the 28 states Obama has won with the following at 60% or more:

Alaska (over 70%)
Idaho (over 70%)
Kansas (over 70%)

States Clinton won with (so far) more than 60% of the vote:

Arkansas

And tonight, he'll add Oregon to his column.

I'm awake - are you?

Posted by: treetracker | May 20, 2008 8:30 PM | Report abuse

8:24 p.m. post

"When I speak of sock puppets and getting my head handed to me, when I speak of becoming unhinged when the great Translator gets my goat, know that I speak from a breadth of experience.

Remember my philosophy: Racism, not reason."

Posted by: Words of Wisdom Translator | May 20, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

"The Obama campaign did it again with remarks by Gerry Ferraro, which they pretended were 'offensive.'"

Yeah, that nutbag knows he benefitted a whole lot because he was black (so wonderful to be African American today...), but Clinton clearly was undone by rampant sexism. Yup, everything that destroyed them was sexism, but racism has played no role. Riighht. It's amazing how many people associated with the Clinton camp have had their entire legacies completely destroyed by this awful campaign.

" McCain can speak to me about war, about National Security, about Cuba, about Iran, anytime anywhere simply because he has backed up his own talk with his own life. Kept it real, if you get my drift."

FOUR MORE WARS!! FOUR MORE WARS!!!

Seriously? McCain, who can't tell the difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites, who doesn't know the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khemeni, holds all the real power in Iran, who thinks Iran is training al Qa'ida, who supports continuing all sanctions on Cuba that have been absolute failures, he is credible to you on National Security just because he got shot down in Vietnam?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile

We have stated the Constitutional positions several times now


If you were posting under a different name the other day, please identify yourself.


I believe you lost the discussion the other day under the different name.

We realize that you may have some court cases which your side might say apply to this set of facts - however we say those cases should not apply.


We have a different a more compelling set of Constitutional positions.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 8:24 PM | Report abuse

"When confronted by Tim Russert, Obama was shown a 4 page document in which the Obama staff was pushing this racial campaign of false claims of "offensive remarks"


Faced with this document, Obama had to admit he was a LIAR.


The Obama campaign pre-planned these racial attacks."

Well, some clarification.

This was Obama's press secretary of South Carolina, not his staff.

WOW says the claims were false. He has no reason to think that. No one claimed anything was false.

It wasn't a series of racial attacks, it was documentation of Clinton injecting race into the campaign.

But cmon, post the clip. Please?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 20, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

What Presidential candidate has lost more than 60% of the post-Super-Tuesday vote? Obama's damaged goods.

Posted by: Annette Keller | May 20, 2008 7:53 PM
________________________________________

Have you been hiding in a hole? Obama won 11 states in a row AFTER Super-Tuesday - how do you lose with only 40% of the vote?

Obama is no more damaged than Hillary (and her trunk full of baggage) and McCain (Rev. Hagge, Rev. Paisley, etc.) Like so many others you have bought into the Rev. Wright media coverage - I listened to the FULL sermons - they were not hatefull. Yes, they criticized the government - and so do I! Especially the current one. And if you think that is not appropriate, then you need to go back to school and learn what democracy means - the right to criticize your government.

Start with reading the Declaration of Independence - a particularly good section is:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Posted by: treetracker | May 20, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Oregon:
Obama: 57.8%
Clinton: 41.6%
Other: .06%

Headline: Hillary's happy with KY but that doesn't grease her way to the top spot on the ticket

Posted by: David | May 20, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Annette Keller is 100% correct in her posting at 7:57

The following items must be added in order to support her position:


Obama's "postracial" campaign evaporated when the Obama campaign ran a racial campaign by falsely claiming that the black community should be "offended" by remarks by Bill Clinton.


The Obama campaign did it again with remarks by Gerry Ferraro, which they pretended were "offensive."


Obama lied about this on several occasions, to several networks.

When confronted by Tim Russert, Obama was shown a 4 page document in which the Obama staff was pushing this racial campaign of false claims of "offensive remarks"


Faced with this document, Obama had to admit he was a LIAR.

The Obama campaign pre-planned these racial attacks.


That is how Obama's "post-racial" campaign evaporated - it was a fraud all along.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 8:17 PM | Report abuse

"surprised to see you back after your complete humiliation yesterday concerning the video clip proving about 50 of your postings to be complete lies and deceptions."

Go ahead and post this so called proof. Let the people decide, hahaha.

For those just joining in, I posed a challenge for anyone saying Obama has been playing the race card.

Specifically, the challenge has been to find ONE piece of evidence that backs this claim. No heresay or rumors. An actual quote or action from Obama or his upper level staff.

It has yet to be done.

But please, post the clip.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 20, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

The funny thing is, starting from March 4th (Ohio/Texas) to today. After all this Jeremiah Wright stuff has come out, Clinton has garnered SIX more pledged delegates than Obama.

Yeah, Obama being bombarded with Wright and Ayers nonsense, Obama being besieged by Clinton and McCain, Obama with questions about poor white voters, Obama fighting Operation Chaos has essentially run even with Clinton.

Obama at his worst and Clinton at her best is a virtual tie.

I'm pretty comfortable with Obama as our nominee.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 20, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

"That is why there is a RULES Committee."

Funny, I thought it was there to enforce the rules, you know, the ones Hillary were firmly behind back in December...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Posted by: 37th&OStreet
________________________

You are correct, FL & MI have the constitutional authority to decide their own election cycle. They did just that, fully aware that both the Repbulican and Democratic parties were going to sanction them for doing it. The FL GOP legislature played their game very well. And the Dems knew exactly what they were doing - their choice was to vote for the primary date WITH AN AMMENDMENT allowing electronic voting machines that they have been trying to get passed since the 2000 election. They decided the electronic machines were the better vote.

The MI legislature passed their date, their was a big fight over the date and many regretted their vote. However, the Governor who could have VETOED the bill chose to sign it. Had she vetoed it, there would not have been a marjority in their legislature to overturn the veto.

In my estimation, they have themselves to blame. They made their choices, they have to live with them.

Both states, however, will be seated. Perhaps at 50% (as Terry MacAuliffe sanctioned previous states when he was the DNC chairman). I find it pure hypocrisy that he wants these fully seated when he himself sanctioned states previously. Further more, Harold Ickes himself VOTED for these rules. They enforced them previously and voted for the rules, but then don't want to enforce the rules on their own candidate? Hillary has not been "cheated," as so many claim. It was hers to lose and she's lost it all by herself.

The rest of us must play by the rules, but because she's a woman she doesn't have to? Please. And just an FYI - I am a 57 yo white woman. I grew up breaking the glass ceiling. But that doesn't mean I had the right to get ahead simply because I was a woman. You earn your own way in my book. That's how I've always had to do it.

Posted by: treetracker | May 20, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

"I don't want to see Clinton on the ticket if Obama was nominated. Obama is going to lose and lose big. I mean he is losing 40+ states to McCain."

Wake up, GY, even the Bush lapdogs at Redstate disagrees with you on that one:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/theoneandonlyfinn/2008/may/20/election_projection_5_20_mccain_296_obama_242

(and most of them think their current map is far too optomistic- Republicans are NOT taking Michigan or Wisconsin, and they're even pessimistic about Ohio).

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Good job Kentucky!!! =)

Congrats to Mrs. Clinton!

Next up, Oregon!! Go Obama!! =)!

Posted by: Obama2008 | May 20, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I stated the law for you pretty clearly earlier:

1. The Equal protection clause applies to government entities, not to nongovernment organizations. The election, when it is held, is subject to the Equal Protection Clause, but there is NO legal standard requiring the Democratic Party to incorporate the results into their count.

2. Primaries and Political Parties are extraconstitutional elements of the process, governed first and froemost by the Free Association clause of the First Amendment. They are entitled to choose a nominee however they see fit. If they wanted to simply let the state party chair award all delegates for a state to an individual, that is there perogative. This is why some states have caucuses, some have primaries, Texas has a hybrid, and some states even have both, but only use the caucuses to determine the delegates (ie Washington and Nebraska). It is not a denial of the right to vote if some states want to close the primaries just to members of that party. If you have a problem with that, your beef is with the states for subsidizing the primary process. As I said in the earlier post, I think FL and MI would have been much more effective in their protest had they, rather than moving the primary unilaterally, passed a law barring state funds from being used to host a primary post-1 Feb, thereby adding financial pressure on the parties to change their rules. They didn't, they chose instead to break the rules, and they lost out as a result, and have no legal grounds to protest that fact.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | May 20, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Again and again, the Democratic voters said: We don't want Obama!!!

If he is so sure he is going to win ther nomination, why are these voters voting for Clinton?

They voted for Clinton becasue. again: They don't want Obama!!!

I don't want to see Clinton on the ticket if Obama was nominated. Obama is going to lose and lose big. I mean he is losing 40+ states to McCain.

Wake up, Democrats!

Posted by: GY | May 20, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD

surprised to see you back after your complete humiliation yesterday concerning the video clip proving about 50 of your postings to be complete lies and deceptions.

In case you need a lesson, there are 50 states in the country, and you need to add the Florida and Michigan delegates to your calculations.


That means 2135 or 2209 delegates make up the majority necessary.


That is why there is a RULES Committee.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD

surprised to see you back after your complete humiliation yesterday concerning the video clip proving about 50 of your postings to be complete lies and deceptions.

In case you need a lesson, there are 50 states in the country, and you need to add the Florida and Michigan delegates to your calculations.


That means 2135 or 2209 delegates make up the majority necessary.


That is why there is a RULES Committee.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Response to thebob.bob


My position is that the Constitution is the rules, and we have 50 states in the country.


Those are the rules I play by.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 20, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Speaker posts at 6:52:


Florida and Michigan have to play by party rules just every other state. Party participation is not guaranteed by the Constitution-just the General Election. So, the Democratic Party can establish whatever rules they want and the candidates and states must abide by them.

***************************************

I disagree on several levels. The first is that public funds are utilized for primary elections, so Constitutional guarantees of Voting Rights must apply.


If the states agree to COOPERATE with a plan drawn up by the party which denies EQUAL PROTECTION to all citizens of the United States on an equal basis then the State is violating the 14th Amendment.


On a different level, I maintain that the primaries have become a de facto part of election of the President and thus Voting Rights laws apply along with all the Constitutional protections of Voting Rights.

For instance, if a party were to make a rule stating that an ethnic group or all people with brown eyes could not vote in its primary, and the party stated that if a State held a primary without following those rules, then the delegates from those states would not count, would that pass your test of Constitutional Voting Rights??


By that logic, any rules could be imposed, including one related to race.

Clearly, the parties must adhere to some Constitutional standards - especially when the party is asking the States to utilize public funds for its primaries.


This is the basis on which I challenge the right of the democratic party to chose Nevada and South Carolina over Michigan and Florida - that is the essence of the dispute.


The citizens of Nevada and South Carolina on one side are not being afforded equal status with the citizens of Florida and Michigan on the other side.

Hence, unconstitutional.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

If Puerto Rico puts Hillary Clinton over the top using this so-called "popular vote" estimation--which has all the relevance and legitimacy of a telephone poll--I'm certain that all zero of its electoral votes will indeed be critical to Democrats hoping to win the White House in November. Go Hillary!

Posted by: New Math (Version 5.0) | May 20, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

If the pro-Obama media hadn't stonewalled the Rev. Wright material through February, Obama would never have won the February caucus states he won and he wouldn't have half the delegates he won in February. Now that the Rev. Wright material broke, he's damaged goods and can only win with the super-delegates installing the defective candidate as nominee.

What is for certain is that he can no longer claim even 50% of the Democratic electorate and will not win the general election in the Fall. The fairy-tale narrative of his "postracial" campaign evaporated with his revelation of having a racist, hate-speech pastor.

Posted by: Annette Keller | May 20, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

"The superdelegates will vote to STEAL the nomination away from the majority of the democrats who voted this year."

Actually, Obama will take the pledged delegate majority tonight. That doesn't bring him to 2025? Well, you're kind of an idiot, so I'll explain that if you add superdelegates to the numerator (the number of people who are delegates), you have to add them to the denominator (the number of delegates needed to garner a majority)

You know, the stuff we learned back in grade school. I guess there's a reason that a strong majority of Republicans think that Bush is doing a good job.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 20, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Mary Hammond:

You like "real people" you say and not "dreamers" and "career politicians"?

McCain on war - he wants more...how many more troops do you want to see dead or permanently injured while we wait for the Iraqis to give us their oil - that's what this is about - American and British Oil companies want the right to the oil and cut the Iraqis out of the deal. The Iraqis, of course, do not want to do this. Search Google - their are articles about this all over the Net. And they won't be paying for this - we will. This country is going broke - get it. We cannot afford to keep paying for this war.

National Security? Our policies (on this I agree with Ron Paul) have made us one of the most disliked countries in the world - go see what the IMF and the World Bank have done in the past (both are run by the U.S.) and are continuing to do to third world countries.

Cuba - Wow those sanctions we've had in place since the 60's have really, really worked, haven't they? Don't you think it's time to try a DIFFERENT approach?

Dreamer? Oh, like that speech McCain gave the other day of his "dream" of what things would be like after his first term...fantasyland, pure fantasy.

Career politician? McCain has been in Congress for 26 YEARS! I think I would call that a CAREER.

You think he's a "real person" - I'll bet, like Hillary, he hasn't pumped his own gas, washed his own car or fetched his own cup of coffee in the last 20 years. Real people worry about paying their bills, putting their kids through college and taking care of their parents when they get old. Trust me, McCain doesn't have to worry about any of these problems.

Posted by: treetracker | May 20, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

What Presidential candidate has lost more than 60% of the post-Super-Tuesday vote? Obama's damaged goods.

Posted by: Annette Keller | May 20, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Someone should ask

WHAT DOES HILLARY WANT?

Clearly, she's not getting the nomination.

Does she want VP? Majority leader? Supreme Court?

She wants something...

Posted by: USMC_Mike | May 20, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Instead, Obama chose to never agree to any plan for a re-vote and did everything they could think of to delay delay and prevent the re-votes.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet
******************************
right...it was all Obama's fault. Poor Clinton, all ready to go and no Obama. whaaaaaaaa. Nice spin - don't hurt yourself...

Posted by: Evite from 37&O - foot stomping and breath holding party at my pad tonight!!! | May 20, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

You agree to play the game according to the rules. Don't like the rules, don't play. Argue about the rules before the game starts but don't try to change them once the game is being played. That's not fair. Now, if you don't understand why this is important, back to kindergarten and 1st grade where we usually learn how to play together. We usually call people who don't follow the rules, or cry and fuss about them when they're losing, cry-babies, spoiled sports or bullies. This isn't complicated. Ask any seven year old.

Posted by: thebob.bob | May 20, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Response to Speaker's 7:20 post


The reason everyone blames Obama is because there were efforts to hold re-votes in Florida and Michigan and Obama sent all sort of people into those two states to PREVENT THE RE-VOTES.


Obama, the post-racial Obama, should be the one standing up for Voting Rights.


Instead, Obama chose to never agree to any plan for a re-vote and did everything they could think of to delay delay and prevent the re-votes.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 20, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I hear Obama still wants to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.

Posted by: NED | May 20, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Response to Speaker


We have spoken about the Voting Rights of citizens much - and we have several points on the blogs about the Constitution and the primaries.

The primaries use public money in the states - so the Constitutional guarantees of voting rights must apply.


Thus, for a state to cooperation with a private scheme which denies the Constitutional rights to its own citizens must be unconstitutional.


I believe the states should have 100% control over their own elections as the Constitution says, and the "private rights" that you claim for the parties must be held to be inferior.

What if a party stated that a particular ethnic group or everyone with brown eyes could not vote in the primary - would the Constitution apply to that rule? Do the parties have the right to make a rule like that because they are private entities??


You are not thinking clearly on this issue.

Hence I am here to communicate to you the Words of Wisdom.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

In the interests of fairness, Obama has only himself to blame for actively attempting to PREVENT re-vote in Florida and Michigan. Obama has sought to take advantage of this issue, and has not lended any help in solving this issue.

Quite to the contrary, there has been an active campaign by the Obama people to PREVENT the re-votes and STOP the voters of Florida and Michigan from counting in the Democratic nomination process.

Obama has taken this course because his lead looks much stronger without Florida and Michigan delegates - little help to the right to vote or to democracy itself.


SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

______________________
I agree with this and I am also certain that a judge will force a fair representative tally of the voters in these states. A judge will not cater to Obama's CHOICE to remove his name from the ballot or Obama's CHOICE to not campaign in these states. Voters rights will always be protected as first and foremost. A judge will also take into consideration that Obama blocked a re-vote in these states. Obama has dug his own hole here.

Posted by: lil | May 20, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Response to blert


By your reasoning, Obama should call for the full seating of the Florida and Michigan delegates - and watch his pledged delegate lead change - watch Hillary overtake him in popular vote - and then let the superdelegates be heard. That is the process.

I really hate to tell you that it was the Obama campaign which started all this metrics with the popular vote.


Then the Obama realized that the popular vote totals actually favored Hillary, and they switched their talk to the pledged delegates.


The reason the popular vote favors Hillary is that she is much closer to Obama by percentage in the popular vote as compared to the percentage of delegates selected.


This is subtle, but stark.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm afraid I have to agree that Obama has great oratory skills. Problem for me is that Obama is ALL talk and nothing else. He talks, and he wants to talk, and his wife talks, and his pastor talks, but in the end he has absolutely nothing to show for himself.
I like real people. I like McCain. McCain can speak to me about war, about National Security, about Cuba, about Iran, anytime anywhere simply because he has backed up his own talk with his own life. Kept it real, if you get my drift.
Obama is a dreamer and a career politician. I cannot name one instance where he has put his life, or his money, or anything else behind his speeches.
He can only commit so far. Look, he has his wife stump for him but ONLY if she is not held accountable for anything she says.
No, we need more in this country now than simply excellent oratory. We need McCain.

Posted by: Mary Hammond | May 20, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

So, Joe Jackson, it's very apparent you don't mind, even welcome, being called a "racist" by saying Barack Obama doesn't deserve to be president just because he's "Black." If it walks like a racist and talks like a racist.... It is what it is! Bottom line - Hillary LOST! Stop hatin'. Ooops, almost forgot hatin' is what racists do. It's totally obvious you are oblivious to mathematics and that you're SOS, stuck on stupid and DID, dipped in dumb!! Since white people make up the majority of this country's population, Obama had to have a lot more than just the "minority" vote. Hillary's not being put out to pasture for no reason, she's not going to be the nominee because the intelligent people of this country KNOW Barack Obama is the best candidate for the job. I'm sure she'll find something to do in that $109 million pasture of hers. It's also obvious you don't know that Barack Obama's mother is white. Ooops, forgot - you're SOS and DID!

Posted by: True American | May 20, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Response to blert posting


I said "the popular vote adjusted by just about anything a rational person can justify."


That means if one wants to split the uncommitteds between Obama and Edwards by some polling number, go ahead.


It means, make an adjustment for caucus estimates - Washington State and Nebraska both had popular votes as well, if you want to use those votes use them, if you want to use an estimate on the caucuses, be rational and go ahead and do it.

Puerto Rico is a question to, but then you have to include Guam and the Virgin Islands - these terrories have traditionally been a part of the nominating process of the democrats - some people are attempting to de-legitimize the Puerto Rico popular vote, however to those people Florida should not count either.


So make the adjustments which a rational person would.


Just include the 50 states at the very least - they are American citizens after all.


.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse


It's amusing how the racists want to blame Obama for the Florida/Michigan mess. He did not schedule their primaries in defiance of DNC rules nor did he administer the sanctions. Folks are simply blaming him because they believe Hillary would be in position to get more superdelegates in she was closer in the pledged delegate race. I trust everyone knows that those two states would not vault her into the nomination lead in pledged delegates.

Get use to it-Senator Obama will be the Democratic nominee and he will defeat McCain because most party members understand that Republicanism is not in the economic interest.

Posted by: Speaker | May 20, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Joe Jackson is 100 % correct.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse

If Obama steps onto the stage while Hillary is speaking, she should be ready to call him rude - and stand there until he is done - when the cameras go back to her, she should call him rude again and launch into an attack about his inexperience and lack of adherence to his own campaign themes.

It is time.


Hillary is going to go all out. Watch.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 20, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Posted by: 37th&OStreet
**************************

There should be sanctions against the city of DC for allowing their pavers time on the internet when they should be fixing O Street, in NW.

Posted by: whent the hoi polloi speaks.... | May 20, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Look for Obama to time his speech tonight to dominate the news coverage. He'll aim for maximum audience, maximum news cycle, and maximum distraction from Kentucky and from Clinton. Obama did this masterfully the evening of the Indiana and North Carolina votes, so expect him to step to the podium within a couple minutes after Clinton starts talking.

Every news team will cut away from Clinton to focus on Obama, and then the punditry of the evening will hinge on Obama's speech rather than on the Kentucky results. Clinton will have to say something exceptionally shocking or notable to get much attention at all.

Obama is aiming at the general election now. He'll thank and congratulate Clinton, but the focus of his speech will be setting a vision for November and positioning himself against McCain.

Posted by: blert | May 20, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

I am proud to be counted as one of those who hangs on Obama's every word. Each one is a pearl of wisdom before the swine of America. If we could raise our national level of education to at least a college degree everyone would be smart enough to vote for Obama. All of those Americans who don't vote for Obama are just the ignorant unwashed masses. Once he's president we can go about re-educating the ones that we can, and the rest...well we won't need them anyway.

GO OBAMA!!

Posted by: Fiona H | May 20, 2008 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Joe Jackson, are you really that racist and illogical or are you just try to get a rise out of people?

Posted by: LOL | May 20, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

YES A CALL FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Florida and Michigan have the ball in their court now - the Democrats don't want the voices of Florida and Michigan citizens to be heard while the democratic nomination is still being decided?

How about if there is a movement within Florida and Michigan to deny the democratic party nominee ballot access in November in return. A fitting response. If the democrats do not want to count ALL of delegates elected on the dates selected by the STATE LEGISLATURE, then the democratic nominee should not be recognized on the ballots of those states in November.

There is no way that the democratic party should expect ANY cooperation from Florida or Michigan.

Florida and Michigan have the CONSTITUTIONAL POWER to set the rules for their own elections. The Constitution does not give the parties the right to set the rules for elections, nor does the Constitution give the parties power to select Nevada and South Carolina to hold elections before Florida and Michigan.

If the democrats do not want to respect Florida and Michigan, it doesn't have to go the other way either.

Each state should make a law that states that no political party can have its nominee on the ballots in Florida and in Michigan if the delegates selected are not counted BEFORE the nominee is decided, in this case when one candidate has the majority of delegates.

In the case of Michigan, place the provision in a bill which includes other items and negotiate a way to have the Governor agree.

In the interests of fairness, Obama has only himself to blame for actively attempting to PREVENT re-vote in Florida and Michigan. Obama has sought to take advantage of this issue, and has not lended any help in solving this issue.

Quite to the contrary, there has been an active campaign by the Obama people to PREVENT the re-votes and STOP the voters of Florida and Michigan from counting in the Democratic nomination process.

Obama has taken this course because his lead looks much stronger without Florida and Michigan delegates - little help to the right to vote or to democracy itself.


SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 20, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

WoW - creative counting to include the popular vote from Puerto Rico (instead of the delegate count) when Puerto Rico can't vote in the general election. It all amounts to the same thing - Clinton cannot win the nomination under the rules set by the Democratic Party, whose nomination she's seeking.

If she wants to count Florida, Michigan, the Popular Vote, the winner of more states that start with the letter "O" or more states with the first name "New", then she should go find a major national party under whose rules she would win the nomination -- 'cause it is not the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Oregonian in Action | May 20, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom,

You are anything but! The nomination is based on the delegate count, period! Not just pledged delegates but superdelegates as well. While I don't like the concept of superdelegates (afterall, the country is based upon one man one vote and superdelegates effectively vote twice), those are the rules. Whether or not Hillary does achieve the popular vote, that's not how this game is played.

Florida and Michigan have to play by party rules just every other state. Party participation is not guaranteed by the Constitution-just the General Election. So, the Democratic Party can establish whatever rules they want and the candidates and states must abide by them. Those two states thought there would be no real reprecussions and once the campaign took on a historic nature, they now want to be a part of it. Should have shown some vision.

Posted by: Speaker | May 20, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

WoW,

You need to remove the "wisdom" from your screen name. Any "rational person" would put Clinton ahead in the popular vote count?

Well, let's see. To start, you haven't adjusted for Michigan. Either count the non-Clinton votes as votes for Obama, or else don't count those votes at all.

You also haven't adjusted for caucus states--the actual numbers of voters in several caucuses were never released, and so these have to be estimated. (The Clinton campaign prefers not to count these at all in their popular vote tally.)

You also haven't adjusted the popular vote count to reflect what the general election will look like--no offense to Puerto Rico, but the territory has voted repeatedly against statehood, and it has no vote in the presidential election. That the party graciously gives it a chance to help select the nominee is nice and fine, but do we really want to skew national numbers by adding in votes like those of Guam and Puerto Rico that will have no bearing in the general election? Probably not, at least if we're interested in choosing the strongest candidate.

Of course, all of this is presuming that the national popular vote total is actually a good measure to use, which it isn't. The differences in turnouts between primaries and caucuses skew numbers badly. What is more, the race is about delegates, and after tonight, Obama will have a majority of the pledged delegates to go along with a majority of the superdelegates.

It's hardly a case of the superdelegates stealing the nomination when Obama would have won the nomination anyway even without them.

Virtually everyone agrees now that the decision on Michigan and Florida is a moot point in determining the nominee. Clinton cannot beat Obama, even with those phony contests added in.

That you are even still trolling these message boards arguing on Clinton's behalf when many of even her most ardent supporters have admitted defeat surprises me.

Are you a part of Operation Chaos or something?

Posted by: blert | May 20, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama has gotten the minority voters and some people who don't want to be labeled "racists" but he does not deserve to be President just because he is "Black". After Ted Kennedy passes this year the "liberal king" will be gone and "liberalism" as we have known it will be gone. Hillary is the only viable candidate for the Democratic Party and she will be placed out to pasture for the Black man for no reason at all.

Posted by: Joe Jackson | May 20, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

The race is headed for the big weekend of May 31 - June 1 when Florida and Michigan will be granted voting rights by the DNC Rules Committee.


These voting rights were suspended because the state legislatures of those states refused to grant the Washington insiders headed by Harry Reid of Nevada authority over the elections in those two states.

Hillary will win Puerto Rico big - placing her firmly ahead in the popular vote adjusted for just about anything a rational person can justify.

That will leave the Superdelegates.

At that point, the superdelegates will tell the democrats around the country that their votes don't matter, whether they live in Florida, Michigan or anywhere else in the other 48 states. The superdelegates will vote to STEAL the nomination away from the majority of the democrats who voted this year.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 20, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Acropolis Review has a summary of some good reasons why Obama will probably do well in Oregon tonight:
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/04/top-reasons-to-give-barack-obama-your.html

Posted by: Tina | May 20, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company