http://speakoutca.org/

Excerpt

With seven ballot measures to evaluate and decide, the electioneering is well under-way. Let Speak Out California help you sift through all the hype and conflicting claims of what they do and don't do. We'll provide the progressive perspective on the propositions and give you the key links to all the information you'll need to decide for yourselves, regardless of the millions of dollars being spent by those selling their positions on each of the measures. It's democracy without the dollars, just as it should be. So watch for the Voter Guide coming to you this week!

I've been wondering that, too.  So much of Obama's Iowa campaign was driven by getting record numbers of voters to the polls (and it was very impressive).  I wonder how he'll deal with a state as big as California and one that votes along with half the rest of the country.  He's behind in national polls, so I don't think he can just count on that.

Based on where they've set-up offices, it seems that they are planning to compete seriously everywhere. I would expect an added emphasis, though, on caucus states, states with large black populations, and California. The goal in NY/NJ/CT will be to collect delegates, not to win. They will also fight to win in Massachusetts.

I don't see how Obama loses South Carolina.  Granted, there was a front-page post here that said the same thing about Obama and New Hampshire, but his gains in SC started before Iowa and I think are probably stronger and more solid than his post-Iowa bump in NH.

two things need to happen for her to win South Carolina: (1) Edwards needs to fade, (2) she has to hold onto about 30% of the African-American vote. #2 is in place, #1 she still needs to worry about.

The media is already playing SC as a must win for SC. He was born there and won there before. Obviously, its a different race with different rules, but it is the way tings go. Edwards IS fading and he will not be the nominee. It think it is very clear that the Democratic nominee will be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Remeber back to the middle of last week.  ABC reports on Tony Rezko complete with perp walk pics and the next thing you know you have Obama's campaign going off the hook about racial problems.

Are you really that conspiratorial?

The Nevada Democratic Party (very very friendly to HRC) included the caucus at worksites in their delegate selection plan that was submitted and approved by the DNC well over 6 months ago. The sites were put there so that working people had a better chance of actually attending a caucus. That decision was made months and months before Culinary endorsed Obama -- no one objected then, but suddenly after the union endorsed, Clinton supporters went to court to keep that from happening.

After Iowa, I heard HRC herself complain how unfair the caucus system was because it kept people who had to work from attending - so the Nevada Democratic Party took an innovative step to allow the thousands of Democrats working on the strip to be able to attend, and suddenly it is a conspiracy to help Obama.? Ah, consistency...

I guess making it harder for working people to caucus is okay if it helps Clinton win, eh?

If you read the NYTimes story, they never claim that Obama is going to challenge Clinton for a win in NY -- but rather that his campaign is organizing to get enough votes to pick up a boat load of delegates and keep HRC from running away with it. But if you want to be so Nixonian, sure, the media is all against you and biased in favor of Obama.

Finally, I just need to say that the continued use of "Barry" to refer to Barack Obama is nothing more a childish, playground taunt - you sound exactly like the Republicans who persist in using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" -- not very becoming. But hey, if that's the image you want to project, keep it up.

He wanted to pressure her to take her name off as well.  It was a gambit to force her to follow suit.  My hunch is that he feared that without being able to campaign in the state that he would not be able to overcome Clinton's lead and so wanted to make it a non-issue.  The only problem is that Clinton called his bluff and how will get a huge chunk of delegates out of it.

Maybe someone has actual sourcing on why he did it, that is just my guess.

And, before you start screaming about how the delegates won't matter, please see the extensive posting on this from the past week (and before).

she's going to get some delegates out of Michigan and he isn't going to get any

Michigan doesn't have any delegates this year.  They'll probably set up an alternate delegate selection process later in the year, but the primary won't be assigning any of them.  

It's just a beauty contest and by taking his name off the ballot, Obama avoids a bad news story boosting Clinton's momentum.  Momentum is much more important than a few dozen delegates, anyway.  Especially so in the lead in to Super Tuesday.

Obama win's NV and SC the election picture changes dramatically.

Look at the ABC/WASHPOST POLL.

iT WENT FROM A cLINTON LEAD OF 30 POINTS TO A LEAD OF 5 POINTS.

NV clinton lead by 20 points and in the most recent poll it shows a 3 way tie 32 O 30C AND 27jre.

The bottom line is that the poll number's are soft. The race is dynamic not static.

If you are Hillary hating Republican come and vote against her. Can't imagine anything more likely to tick Democrats off.  

Where did he say that rssrai? Are you for real or just a freakin' idiot.

Ralston quotes him as saying:

"(Why) make a special rule only for these workers, for the rest of you other workers, tough luck. I think the rules ought to be the same for everyone. I question why you would ever have a temporary caucus site and limit to a certain kind of workers....I don't think you ought to favor one kind of worker over another."

I think this gets to the root of the problem. The problem isn't with at large precients, the problem is with the entire caucus system.

One type of voter shouldn't be given an advantage when it comes to voting. BUT the necessity for at large precients to help casino workers vote is created by the caucus system which forces people to vote at specific locations within a small specific time period and on a specific day.

If we really wanted EVERYONE to vote then we would make the vote a primary modeled on, ironically enough, Nevada. In Nevada, early voting starts about a week ahead of the election and you can vote in several easily accesible places such as malls for example.

There's electronic voting machine which reviews your votes to make sure you got it right then prints a paper copy,which it shows to you, to validate once again that you got they got it right.

The timing of it makes it look ill-intentioned.

I believe delegates can be released to do as they please, but I don't know that they can be pledged.

If no candidate gets 50% of the delegates then there will be tough negotiations between the candidates and the delegates to switch sides. The candidate with the least amount of delegates can get nominated. In fact, Al Gore could get nominated if no candidate gets 50% of the delegates. Of course, if Hillary Clinton gets the most popular votes, she can claim that the PEOPLE voted for her and she should be the nominee and as a compromise name Obama as her running mate. So many things can happen.