The Week Ahead

My guess was that Clinton would start to pull away after yesterday's results, but not so. We have a barnburner of a race that's nearly tied in delegates, which are still being counted from yesterday. Whatever difference that comes out of yesterday will be pretty small, with a Clinton advantage. But Obama has the advantage of more cash and, for the short-term, a more favorable calendar.

With 21 states to go, looking to over the next week we have:

Louisiana-- a state-run primary that will choose 56 delegates based on the contest. 37 are tied to CD's and 19 based on the statewide vote.

Nebraska-- a caucus that awards 16 delegates based on the contest, all allocated to the three CD's 6  each in NE-01 & NE-02, and 4 in NE-03.

Virgin Islands-- they've 9 delegates, with 3 being selected.

Washington-- a caucus that awards 78 delegates based on the results, with 51 chosen at the CD level and 27 at the state level.

Maine-- a caucus with 24 delegates based on the results, 16 according to the CD's and 8 according to statewide.

DC-- 15 awarded based on the results, 10 by the wards and 5 by the district total.

Maryland-- 70 delegates up for grabs, 46 by the CD's and 24 by statewide.

Virginia-- 83 delegates awarded based on the result, 54 by the CD's and 29 by statewide.

So in total, over the next week, we'll see another 345 delegates selected. When the Feb 5th totals are all finished, it looks like Clinton will hold a lead (including super-delegates) by about 80 delegates.

Obama won't be able to overtake that lead with just these states, but he's gotta be favored in taking most (if not all) of these states, right?

It's gonna get even closer.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

98 Comments

Re: The Week Ahead

It will get closer.  Obama is favored in most of those I think.

But if he doesn't catch up, then...what happens with the next big round?  That really favors Clinton.

This is a draw now, next round goes to Obama.

Us Clinton supporters just have to hold on to March.

by rcipw 2008-02-06 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Remember that the Rezko trial starts soon too. That could have an effect.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-06 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

"Oh yes, lets get all excited about swiftboating a fellow Dem."  

Your taste in tactics belongs in the party with the long trunks.

by upper left 2008-02-06 07:03PM | 0 recs
he could win all of those

Clinton needs to not get blown out of the water in the February states. She should be able to win TX and OH on March 4, but not if the media narrative for the next month is that she's getting clobbered everywhere.

by desmoinesdem 2008-02-06 01:18PM | 0 recs
On top of that...

...I have friends in both of those states who never get involved in politics, and who yet will have Obama t-shirts purchased as of this evening.

Something is going on here, and if Obama maintains or gains momentum come Ohio and Texas, neither race may be quite as anticipated today.

(That said, I refuse to predict results for these things anymore...)

by palamedes 2008-02-06 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

I think Obama wins all of those except maybe Virgin Islands. I don't know about Virginia..

Quick question-

Why do we still have caucuses?

by falcon4e 2008-02-06 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Because doesn't the state have to pay for primaries.

Hey, I don't like caucuses and all, but hey, I'm not sure I like the state subsidizing the selection of political parties' nominees, either.

And yeah, I know this is naive and caucuses are inherently silly and undemocratic.

by ChrisR 2008-02-06 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

I came close to changing my registration to Republican so my primary vote would matter.  Good thing I didn't! (I vote next Tuesday :-) )

by frankies 2008-02-06 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

The Clinton campaign obviously needs to ditch the idea of not even contesting the caucus states.

by Steve M 2008-02-06 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Tell me about it.

by souvarine 2008-02-06 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead
I agree. Going dark until March 4th while Obama racks up wins and gains momentum doesn't seem like a smart strategy.
by vj 2008-02-06 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Maybe they can take Rudy Giuliani on as a campaign advisor.

by animated 2008-02-06 01:29PM | 0 recs
a little late to do that now

Hard to line up the precinct-level volunteers they would need to seriously contest the caucus states.

by desmoinesdem 2008-02-06 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

That was a decision they needed to make 6 months ago.  I remember when Obama was poo-pooed for opening offices in Fargo, Boise, and some of the other places.  It payed off pretty well for him.

There is simply no way for Clinton to play the caucus states at this point.

by Vox Populi 2008-02-06 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

The Obama precinct captains in Nevada quite obviously didn't have 6 months of training.

I don't see any reason Clinton couldn't at least target certain winnable regions or congressional districts, particularly in states where she has the support of local political leaders to supply her with staff.

by Steve M 2008-02-06 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

What specific states do you recommend?

by Vox Populi 2008-02-06 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Northern Louisiana comes to mind.  But unlike Clinton's campaign staff, I don't work for free, so I'll leave specific recommendations to someone else ;)

by Steve M 2008-02-06 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

"Whatever difference that comes out of yesterday will be pretty small, with a Clinton advantage. "

the advantage in pledged delegates from yesterday will most likely be Obama's.

add that to his lead from the early states, and it's about a +20-25 lead for Obama in pledged delegates.

by along 2008-02-06 01:05PM | 0 recs
Why Are You Counting The Super Delegates?

The vast majority of super delegates haven't publicly chosen sides yet. It may very well be that most of those votes will go with whoever won more pledged delegates. So counting Clinton's super delegates as an 80 delegate advantage at this early point is a bit misleading.

by HatchInBrooklyn 2008-02-06 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Why Are You Counting The Super Delegates?

The spin out there that the super delegates will go to who has the most pledged delegates is wrong I think.

They will follow whoever won the popular vote in their state.

Is it really more democratic for super delegates to look to pledged delegates from other states than to their own people?

by rcipw 2008-02-06 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead
Jerome,
       you and Zogby were the two big losers last night.
by Jr1886 2008-02-06 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Don't be a jerk.  I like your enthusiasm, but dial it down a bit, please!?  

by HSTruman 2008-02-06 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: not at all

I predicted Obama was going to win 16 states but he win 13 maybe 14. Jerome predicted 3 states for Obama. It's one thing to be partisan but it's another to state the obvious. I think you were more offended than Jerome who willingly would admit he blew it.

by Jr1886 2008-02-06 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: not at all

Hey, maybe I'm touchy today.  Like a lot of folks, I didn't get enough sleep.  :)

I just like and respect Jerome, despite his hatred of Obama (that's intentional hyperbole, for the record), and wasn't sure if your comment was snarky or serious.  Sorry for misinterpreting.

by HSTruman 2008-02-06 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: not at all

Don't worry about it. I understand and yeah I agree last night was a long night.

by Jr1886 2008-02-06 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: not at all

lol, I was joking when I said 3.  

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-06 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: for the record

Funny Jerome. For the record, I had the best predictions. Check it out here http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/5/24913 /38476#readmore

by Jr1886 2008-02-06 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

I thought the biggest loser was the Obama supporter who posted a diary gloating about the tornadoes, because one of them happened to touch down in a town named Clinton.

by Steve M 2008-02-06 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Actually, I got CA spot on, Zogby's all alone there.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-06 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

How many states did you have Obama winning Jerome?

by Socks The Cat 2008-02-06 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

2 or 3, iirc.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-06 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Hey, at least you are being honest when you mess up, but you did better than that.

For the record:

"Clinton: CA, NY, NJ, MA, MO, TN, AZ, CT, AL, AR, OK, NM, DE, UT, AK

Obama: IL, GA, MN, CO, KS, ID, ND

I go with Clinton winning 15 and Obama winning 7 states. Where Obama could change the narrative, is with a win in California; that would make it a battle all the way to the convention."

For the record, Bowers has it 11 OB, 11 C

by jc 2008-02-06 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Yea, those are ranked in order that I thought she'd take them too.

But look, it's obvious now that the Clinton's got aced in the latest move, by avoiding the caucus states. Very bad move.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-06 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

So far there has been limited changes in the race from what came before. But Gallup poll to Monday shows a local shift as of today. And that was before Super Tuesday. It will be interesting to see where we are by Friday....

Ad of end of monday tracking Feb 5: Clinton 52% to Obama 39%.

Feb 2: Clinton 46%, Obama 44%

by Marvin42 2008-02-06 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Does anyone poll just states to come? It would be interesting to know if there is buyer's remorse in these polls. Especially amongst Clinton people who did not vote. If Obama is behind in the states that have already voted that is good for him since he has one the most delegates from those states. Would be weird if he won the nomination and this trend continued so that Clinton is actually preferred 60 to 40 by the end of the process.

by benb 2008-02-06 05:01PM | 0 recs
Well

Now Time magazine says that some Clinton staffers are working without pay.  They're going to ride out the month and hope for a boost on March 4 in OH and TX.  Sounds like a plan.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-06 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Well
A stupid plan.
by vj 2008-02-06 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Well

I second that, and I'm a Clinton supporter.

by forecaster15 2008-02-06 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Well

Rudy Part Two!

by animated 2008-02-06 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

I see an Obama sweep through February 12. If Clinton works hard, maybe she could play in VA, WA and ME.

by RJEvans 2008-02-06 01:15PM | 0 recs
WA

...is interesting so far.  The Obama folks are working very, very hard, and very much above the radar.  

The Clinton folks have most of the biggest guns among the Dem politicians lined up in their corner, but their organizing effort is very below the radar. by comparison.  Maybe they're pushing the AFSCME and Machinists (which allegedly has a huge local phone bank) harder than is obvious, but....

by palamedes 2008-02-06 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

won't be able to overtake that lead with just these states

I dont understand, Obama is ahead in delegates, ahead.

Obama is ahead in delegates. Leads.
More than Hillary Clinton.
Obama is ahead.

by inexile 2008-02-06 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead
Is that official?
by vj 2008-02-06 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

No he is not. The official counts are not even in yet. So just chill out.

by RJEvans 2008-02-06 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead
I didn't think so, but inexile seems so sure.
by vj 2008-02-06 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

As I said on the bottom, 481 delegates are yet to be allocated by CNN and Clinton has a 1 pledged delegate advantage. That will likely stay within 10 delegates, either way.

by RJEvans 2008-02-06 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

i have yet to see a delegate count that givers her he advanatge, even her campiagn admits defeat on that, he must be talking about super delegates.

by Soltare 2008-02-06 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Clinton 1012, Obama 933

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-06 02:13PM | 0 recs
DC

To clarify, for those who care: For the purpose of selecting delegates, DC is divided into two "congressional districts", with CD1 being Wards 1-4 and CD2 Wards 5-8.

by KCinDC 2008-02-06 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

by inexile 2008-02-06 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Jerome,

He'll gain 100 delegates over those states.

These are the kind of states he runs up the score in.  MD, DC and LA are tailor made for him.

NE and Washington are caucus states.  And yeah, she's trailing by double digits in Washington according to SUSA and I'm not sure she's even going to visit the state before Saturday.

VA:  He's got Wilder, Kaine and (maybe this week) Webb.

25% of the Dem. vote will be AA.  And there's a huge upscale Dem. upscale vote in N. Virginia -- where he does well.

Maine:  HRC is favored.

Virgin Islands:  I don't know, but I would be happy to canvass the area to find out.

by ChrisR 2008-02-06 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

from what i've heard virgin islands is mostly black

by Soltare 2008-02-06 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Are you sure?  I need to take a fact-finding visit to verify this assumption.

by ChrisR 2008-02-06 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

won't be able to overtake that lead with just these states

I dont understand, Obama is ahead in delegates, ahead.

Obama is ahead in delegates. Leads.
More than Hillary Clinton.
Obama is ahead.

by inexile 2008-02-06 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-06 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Clinton 1012, Obama 933

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-06 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

According to CNN, Hillary has 1 more pledged delegate than Obama. When they add in superdelegates, Hillary leads with 88 more delegates than Obama. Now Hillary's edge can evaporate quickly, or it can grow quickly. Right now, I think the nominee will be anyone's guess, but I feel that they will both have to be on the ticket in November if they want to unite the party. Hillary would bring Latinos/Hispanics and women to the ticket, while Barack would bring African Americans and young people to the ticket.

by tlap08 2008-02-06 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

There are 481 delegates left to be allocated by CNN. 372 from states Clinton won and 109 from states Obama won.

by RJEvans 2008-02-06 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

I don't have a good feeling that would happen - especially if Obama wins. His own wife seemed quite uncertain when asked if she would work to support the first woman nominee...

"I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone." Michelle Obama on GMA

Good Grief! If you can't even support your party, where does "Unity" come into play?

by Dari 2008-02-06 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Maybe, just maybe, that comment is a response to the "approach" and "tone" that HRC has taken.

Distortions, misrepresentations, demeaning personal comments.  If HRC and BC want my support beyond just my vote, they need a serious attitude adjustment. No more Rovian BS.

If we want change, we have to stop acting like Republicans.

by upper left 2008-02-06 07:19PM | 0 recs
There will be no Obama led Obama-Clinton ticket

Like him or not Bill Clinton is too big a Party figure to take on the roll of Vice Presidential spouse, it would be like allowing another Alpha male roam around a pride of lions.

And while I can see Obama taking on the VP as the unofficial lion in waiting, it seems only slightly less unlikely. Clearly at that point Obama would be more focussed on 2020 and I don't see how you communicate a 'generational change' message from the VP office in a Boomer led Administration.

by Bruce Webb 2008-02-06 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: There will be no Obama led

   Since he was born in the period of 1945-65, Obama is also a Boomer.

 (Why do Obama supporters insist on putting out these easily-debunked claims?).

                              SR

by SergeiRostov 2008-02-06 01:56PM | 0 recs
The date range for "boomer"...

I've been told that it usually ends in 1960 or 1961.

Wikipedia says the end date is typically agreed to as 1964...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomer #United_States

But then why would a Clintonite, that I hope is not like other Clintonites, want to start a fight over something as important as the lint on my jacket?

by palamedes 2008-02-06 04:00PM | 0 recs
Maybe...but Richardson

...could be also on the ticket and cover a lot of issues for Obama.

The trick for Clinton would be, were she the nominee, could she deal with Obama as VP, and if that isn't a viable option, would she be able to accept a progressive in the activist sense of the term, and if so, who if not Obama?

by palamedes 2008-02-06 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

MSNBC and TIME have Obama ahead, (sticks out tongue) by 13 as I remember in TIME. But still, if I cede your point for this part of the argument, the statement that obama "wont be able to catch up" is ludicrous, foolish, silly, outrageous.

Super Delegates. Most super delegates are, in fact, waiting to see which way the wind blows before solidifying their endorsements. As long as there is a candidate with a clear edge in both pledged delegates and voter support during the nomination contests, in all likelihood the super delegates will back that candidate.
From Chris Bowers doing his due diligence.

I would say that attempt to have superD's vote to take a victory out Obama's hands would wipe the Democratic Party out. Obama supporters will not be happy. (see thats funny cause its an understatement)

by inexile 2008-02-06 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

True, but if Hillary gets more votes (incl. Fl) and doesn't get the nominee, how do you think that will look? It's like 2000 all over again! Can Florida ever get a break?! :-)

by Dari 2008-02-06 01:36PM | 0 recs
FL and MI can't count if they matter...

I know it sounds weird, but the DNC simply can't seat FL and MI if their votes are what push Hillary over the top.  They'll only be seated if, in the end, their votes won't matter in the grand scheme of things.  

Along with Super Delegates basically going against the actual elected delegate leader to pick their own person, counting FL and MI just to give Hillary the win would cause such a major outcry that a much bigger chunk of Obama supporters  would absolutely stay home in November in protest, than would right now in a "fair" contest.

If Hillary is to be the nominee, she needs to win it  with the voters in the states that are currently being counted, and not with super delegates or FL and MI.  The same goes for Obama.

To this end, the Super Delegates should pledge to vote for the winner of the delegate counts from the votes (or at the very least, from the winner of their states). This would minimize the bitterness from either side no matter who wins.

by leshrac55 2008-02-06 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: FL and MI can't count if they matter...

I know it sounds weird, but the DNC simply can't seat FL and MI if their votes are what push Hillary over the top.

I've never said this before as I've always pledged to support whoever our nom is, but if the above were to happen I would have to think very seriously befroe casting my vote for Obama in November. Did we learn nothing from 2000? I don't agree that this would cause less pain then Obama losing in this situation. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of Clinton supporters who would stay home in Nov if she had the nom "taken" from her in that way.

I don't agree with what FL and MI did, but if their votes are the deciding ones, they absolutely need to be counted. We simply can not be a party that elects someone over the people's votes. We may lose some Obama supporters if that happened, but we'd certainly lose FL and MI in Nov if they weren't seated and could've changed the outcome.

Just my Clinton supporting 2 cents....

by forecaster15 2008-02-06 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: FL and MI can't count if they matter...

Well, that would be kind of crazy.  It would mean that Obama plays by the rules by not campaigning in FL or MI (which, who knows, if they were campaigning there, he could've won), but then he just gets screwed anyway.  There's just no way.

And let's be clear here... there is NO analogy here to FL 2000.  Completely different situations.

I'm sorry that FL and MI won't count, but the point of the matter is, if they HAD, then it could've been a completely different ballgame anyway.  Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI, but it's fair that he should get completely screwed there?  No way.

Maybe it'll happen, but I can't see how this wouldn't piss off Obama supporters way more than Clinton supporters.  It amounts to basically changing the rules of the game while you're playing, and people tend to not like that.

by leshrac55 2008-02-07 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: FL and MI can't count if they matter...

I think it comes down to this question: which is more important, making sure every vote gets counted, or party rules (that are indirectly made by the voters)?

I suppose the answer depends on if you're a Obama or Clinton supporter.

And FL 2000 is not "completely different" both situations deal with the question of counting all the votes. Even if you believe the party rules are the more important consideration (an argument I can respect) that doesn't change the fact that that would mean the voters of FL and MI would be ignored. Maybe they should be. Maybe the states holding their primaries early is a big enough sin to mean we shouldn't let them count, but that doesn't mean those voters didn't vote. They did, and if they're not seated, we will be ignoring them. That's FL 2000. Votes were thrown out for whatever reason and someone else won because of it.

by forecaster15 2008-02-07 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: FL and MI can't count if they matter...

"And FL 2000 is not "completely different" both situations deal with the question of counting all the votes. Even if you believe the party rules are the more important consideration (an argument I can respect) that doesn't change the fact that that would mean the voters of FL and MI would be ignored."

Ugh, I realize this is a dead thread and we're just debating ourselves here, but I have to say this...

It's not a question of whether or not I value party rules over the Clinton talking point of "counting every vote."  The point is, those are the rules that both Obama and Clinton agreed to play by, and counting FL and MI just to give Clinton a victory would definitely amount to changing the rules in the middle of the game.  It'd be as if, in the 9th inning of a baseball game they suddenly said runs didn't count, only hits did (which, on rare occasion, could switch the winner).

And try as you might, this is still vastly different than FL 2000.  Florida 2000 was an election that counted, and had serious problems with ballots and recount methods.  There was never a question as to whether FL would count or not... the rules were well established before-hand that, yes, FL would count in the General Election and that whoever won the popular vote there would win the state's electoral votes. If you honestly can't see the difference here, your pro-Clinton blinders are thicker than you think.

And just as a note, I'm supporting Obama, but I'm not a rabid Hillary hater (nor am I an Obama fanatic... I actually prefer Hillary on a couple issues).  I actually like her and think she'd be a great president.  I just happen to think Obama would not only stand a better chance in the general, but would make an even better president.  If the scenario I described (where FL and MI count just to give Hillary the win) is ultimately what happened, I'd be livid, but I'd still vote for Hillary come November. I can't say what others would do, but if I'm livid, you can guarantee others would be as well, and perhaps wouldn't be quite as forgiving come November.

by leshrac55 2008-02-07 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead
Is it really CNN or TIME or Newsweek who decides this? I thought it was the Democratic party. Silly me.
by vj 2008-02-06 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

of course msnbc would have Obama up... but most of the delegates still are up in the air because 100% of the vote have not been counted

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-06 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

So far no one has mentioned the impact of future dates having only a handful (if that) of states going. Obama has the advantage here in campaign style. But I do believe that Hillary will likely counter by assembling more and more superdelegates. Her patronage is far more attractive I think for certain superdels. And unless she runs out of money to compete on the ground within a week or so...Obama will have to broker a deal or two to win at the Convention.

True, Dean hates this idea...but at some point the party has to take responsibility for its own rules.

by risenmessiah 2008-02-06 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead


  An Obama supporter (commenting under the Super Tuesday Totals thread below) pointed out that his campaign was better at gaming the system to garner delegates out of proportion to his vote totals.
  Now since this is of course unethical and undemocratic, him being better at it simply makes him (at least among the Democratic candidates) the most unethical as well as the least worthy to hold a major position in a representative democracy, and so the worse of the two candidates from that standpoint.
    But he'll keep doing it because the media is giving him a pass on it,  because his supporters have bought into his false Everyone Except Me Is Corrupt, Unethical, Immoral, Incompetent, And Possibly Even Criminal meme ("Cheney and Romsfeld were experienced..." etc.) and because his supporters look the other way with what's essentially an It's Okay If It's Obama attitude (these last two forming a Darbyist mindset), three more ways, incidentally, that his campaign resembles those of Bush in '00 and '04*.

  So that makes it more likely it'll get tighter, no matter what the actual totals.

                                  SR

  *besides "I'm an outsider"; "I'm a uniter, not a divider";  specious attacks on his opponents (e.g. Hillary on Iraq); right wing talking points (e.g. "Hillary has had a 40-plus-year plan to become President"); exploiting tragedy for personal political gain (e.g. Bhutto); defending Bush (e.g. Pakistan would be better if he paid more attention to it, when we all know that would - like everything else his does - make it worse); projection (e.g. Hillary is the most negative, Bill injected race into the campaign)and on and on....:(

by SergeiRostov 2008-02-06 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead
"unethical"? "undemocratic"? I think it's more like "running a smart campaign". I don't think Obama does anything any different than any other politician does or would do if they could. And I say that as someone who is NOT an Obama supporter. So far, I'd say he has run the better campaign.
by vj 2008-02-06 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

 
    To garner a number of delegates out of proportion to your vote totals is - in a representative democracy such as ours is supposed to be  - by definition both unethical and undemocratic.

  "Smarter" or "better" campaigning is not the issue I was raising (and you know it) - I was speaking of the ethics of doing it at all...and that being better at it just makes it worse.

   And it doesn't matter if "everyone does it" (or would do it) - that he does it is bad enough, if he wins by doing it makes it worse, and it makes it even worse for him to do it, since he has cliamed that one difference between him and everyone else is that he is the only one who doesn't do such things.

                                 SR

by SergeiRostov 2008-02-06 02:11PM | 0 recs
Would it be unethical
to try to win the presidency via the Electoral College without winning the popular vote? I don't think so. That's the way the system is set up. I don't happen to like it, but that's the way it is.
by vj 2008-02-06 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

This was all well known in advance, the Clinton team just picked the wrong strategy.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-06 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead


   Doesn't matter. My points still stand.

  (But yes, you're right - the Clinton campaign picked the more ethical and more democratic strategy, even though their detractors said they wouldn't.)

                                    SR

by SergeiRostov 2008-02-06 02:15PM | 0 recs
Do you think they did that because it was
"more ethical"?
by vj 2008-02-06 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Yet, by your standards, it's not unethical for Hillary to argue that she should get the delegates from FL and MI, despite the fact that they broke party rules and everyone agreed not to campaign there?  Or to sue Nevada to try and disenfranchise voters that she thinks would hurt her? Please...

Not only that, the total popular vote in Super Tuesday was extremely close... within about .4 percent.  I have a feeling that whoever wins the nomination will indeed actually end up with the total popular vote, nullifying your strange "ethical" argument.

Not only that, there's no question in my mind that Clinton's strategy was based on what she thought would win her the nomination, not on your strange "ethical" standards.  No doubt, if she thought, as you put it, "gaming" the system was her path to nomination, she would've done it.  Instead, she was basically hoping that her overall numbers advantage throughout the entire primary would pull her into the nomination.  It still may, but Obama has clearly found a strategy to counter it.

We are lucky to have two great candidates, but neither are "saints".  You're deluding yourself if you somehow think otherwise.

by leshrac55 2008-02-06 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Amazing, first Florida and Michigan don't count, if you are a Obama supporter, and now super delegates don't count either?  Look, they count, if they change their mind it changes the total.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-06 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

There is also this ridiculous notion that the super delegates will RUSH to the candidate with the most pledge delegates, or are at least morally obligated to do so.

I think conviction is more important and the popular vote for their home states will count more than the overall pledged delegate total.

by rcipw 2008-02-06 02:30PM | 0 recs
HRC Message to LA, NE, WA, ME: FU

The average margin of the Obama victory in yesterday's caucus states was about 40%, or 70/30.  If you apply that to the 174 delegates available this weekend, you get a delegate spread of about 70 (174 x 40%).

I looked at the Clinton campaign website under States and she does not have Louisana, Nebraska, Washington and Maine even listed.

Tomorrow, Obama will be in Louisana and Nebraska (I assume on his way to Washington on Friday).  Clinton has an event in Arlington, Virginia on Thursday.

Hillary Clinton has divided the States into those for her and against her.    

by mboehm 2008-02-06 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

Obama is all about momentum, and right now he has it.  On substance he doesn't have much to offer.  Clinton can crush him in the next debate, which will be all about an alternative to John McCain. Obama has to run out the clock before his "message of hope" is exposed as a nothing more than a campaign/media strategy--a content-free strategy which will not wear well over the next nine months.

by Upstate Dem 2008-02-06 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

You mean like Hilary has "crushed" him in the last 18 debates - enough of a crush to kill him electorally, and in the voting?

Analytically, that doesn't hold, but your hopefulness is touching.

Realistically however, it is going to come down to how ahead Obama is over this month, and then how big a lead Hilary will keep in OH and TX.

by jc 2008-02-06 03:32PM | 0 recs
Texas and Ohio don't look good for Clinton.
Texas primary early voting doesn't start till the 19th, and it will be a totally open primary. Since the Republican nominee will probably be determined before the 19th, this does not bode well for Clinton.
Ohio looks a little better for Clinton, but early voting doesn't start there until the 8th (Friday), and it is a semi-open primary that allows independents to vote on the ballot, both of which do not bode well for Clinton.
And if Clinton doesn't win either Washington or Virginia, then I think her cash flow and support will dry up well before March 4th.
You guys can stick with Clinton if you want, but based on Clinton's diminishing cash flow, lack of favorable states for her in the remaining month of February, and Obama's surging support, I think realistically it is now a battle between McCain and Obama for the presidency.
by fetboy 2008-02-06 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas and Ohio don't look good for Clinton.

I would love that to happen, though I would be more cautiously optimistic than you

by Jr1886 2008-02-06 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas and Ohio don't look good for Clinton.

Demographics on Texas matter more than "it's an open primary".  And demographics seem to favor Hilary here - 26% Hispanic, machine politics, large, integrated state.

OH - independents voting, that IS going to help Obama, but again, the machine politics in the state is pretty aligned with Clinton.

While I hope you are right, it is an uphill battle currently, for Obama.

by jc 2008-02-06 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas and Ohio don't look good for Clinton.
Texas is the greater concern, but by February 19th I can't imagine Clinton having much steam left to inspire the Hispanic vote to turn out for her, and don't forget that Texas is also 12.5% AA.
Also by that time who knows which Hispanic Americans will have endorsed Obama? Bill Richardson still hasn't endorse anyone yet.
With no big name Democrats in the state, Texas comes down to ground game, and in 2 weeks Obama should have a good ground game in place in Texas
by fetboy 2008-02-06 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas and Ohio don't look good for Clinton.

I suppose she may have had more "steam" (then she does now) even after 5 days of the media crowning Obama the nom, but Hillary totally "inspired" the voters of New Hampshire and turned the race around. I wouldn't underestimate Clinton supporters just yet.

by forecaster15 2008-02-06 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas and Ohio don't look good for Clinton.

Wow. It's so refreshing how you just totally dismissed the current leader in terms of delegates in the democratic race for president. Really, I mean, why didn't I realize that Obama had it locked up after he lost CA by 10% and MA by 15% yesterday? I just never crossed my mind.

In all seriousness, we'll know soon enough. Just hold your horses. I'm not jumping to crown Clinton the nom as much as I'd like to. We'll know within a few months (and yes, that was a joke). ;)

by forecaster15 2008-02-06 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas and Ohio don't look good for Clinton.
He doesn't have it locked up, but he survived NY,NJ, MA, AR, TN, and OK (all of Clinton's strong states, one of which she represents and another where she was the state's first lady for 12 years) on one primary night, and still came out ahead in the pledged delegate count. He has got a lot of money on hand, a lot of donors that can give him more money, a tremendous young and vigorous ground game, and every state between now and March 4th looks good for him.
Hillary on the other hand is loaning her campaign 5 million dollar, is having her staffers go without pay, and is losing her troops on the ground.
I could be wrong, but I don't think Hillary can go the distance, but Obama definitely can.  
by fetboy 2008-02-06 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas and Ohio don't look good for Clinton.

Ohio is a totally open primary, not a semi-open primary.  Also, Ohio does not have early voting, just absentee voting.  Another thing that is bad for HRC is the largest district in terms of delegates, the 11th CD (8) is about 80% African-American.  While Stephanie Tubbs-Jones represents this district, given how the African-American vote has been breaking, she will be doing very well just to get two delegates.

by tlsmith 2008-02-06 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting Race Dynamic for Obama

Actually, I think the opposite of this.  I think Hillary would have to go through the "nightmare" route of essentially trying to put the Kerry states together + OH or FL (more likely OH).  To be honest, I think Obama has a much better shot at not just those two states, but some mountain states like CO and NM, perhaps MO, and maybe even Virginia.

Clinton will turn out far more Republicans (and unfriendly independents) in this election than Obama would because of their irrational hatred of her.  Obama wouldn't turn this out, but would probably bring back most of Clinton's supporters. This almost alone is enough for me to support Obama (but, just as a note, I actually like Clinton too).

by leshrac55 2008-02-06 03:47PM | 0 recs
what can I say? gotta love the spin...

by rapcetera 2008-02-06 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: The Week Ahead

NBC did the math, and if Obama gets 58% of the delegates, he will be ahead by one delegate after next week, assuming no other super-delegates announce.  Keep in mind that super-delegates can change their mind at any time.  Also, Edwards has not released his pledged delegates.  Obama is rumored to have offered him the AG spot, and he could take it in exchange for his pledged delegates.

by tlsmith 2008-02-06 06:22PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads