by Left Right and Center, Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:35:32 PM EDT
Hear Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary, call W's former press secretary Scott McClellan "an inconsequential cipher." Robert Scheer thinks Hillary is trying to be the new Margaret Thatcher. Matt Miller and Arianna Huffington say they want a leader who'll fight for the right to serve -- but just not Hillary. And remembering Sydney Pollack.
by chinapaulo, Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:45:06 AM EDT
Here on MyDD I've read innumerable diaries about the meaning of the popular vote (or lack thereof), and there has been a lot of discussion about the value of the caucuses to the democratic nomination process (or the lack thereof).
Sadly, the discussions seem to play themselves out in the same way over and over again. Clinton supporters talk about 'counting the votes', and Obama supporters point out that the Democratic nomination process is a race for delegates, not votes. Occasionally someone comes in and claims that Obama won in caucus states because he cheated somehow. If not, it is at least claimed that the caucus process has disenfranchised somebody's brother, sister, or grandparents and is not democratic or representative.
In defense of caususes, it has been stated on numerous occasions that while primaries are good measures of the breadth of a candidate's support, caucuses measure the depth of a candidate's support. But this never fully crystalized with me until I thought about the value of MyDD's own Alegre to the Clinton campaign. The passion, committment, and dedication that Alegre brings to the campaign of her candidate is the perfect example of why some states use caucuses. Having an Alegre on your team is probably worth a hundred of almost anybody else.
Put simply, Alegre's vote for the democratic nominee should count for more than mine. And if I understand correctly, she lives in Washington where they had a caucus, so her vote did count for more than mine.
No, this is not snark.
And no, I am not calling out Alegre.
(more below the fold...)
by TexasDarlin, Wed May 28, 2008 at 10:25:06 AM EDT
The Obama camp contends that Clinton's performance in the primaries is not indicative of her performance in the general election.
A new Gallup study suggests otherwise:
Swing states won by Clinton, excluding Florida and Michigan:
Swing states won by Clinton, including Florida and Michigan:
In the 20 states where Hillary Clinton has claimed victory in the 2008 Democratic primary and caucus elections (winning the popular vote), she has led John McCain in Gallup Poll Daily trial heats for the general election over the past two weeks of Gallup Poll Daily tracking by 50% to 43%. In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.
In contrast, in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election.
The Gallup study directly supports Clinton's assertion that she will be a stronger general-election candidate against John McCain in crucial battleground states, based on her primary election performance. Obama, on other hand, cannot claim a similar advantage.Cross posted at TexasDarlin
by 4justice, Tue May 27, 2008 at 09:35:38 PM EDT
Since we are approaching May 31, when the DNC rules committee decides on Michigan and Florida, I thought it would be useful to explore the words of Barack Obama and Donna Brazile on the process for selecting the nominee.
From Obama in an interview with CNN:
Obama this week warned Super-delegates to vote the way their states have voted,"if this contest comes down to super-delegates, we are going to be able to say we have more pledged delegates, which means the Democratic voters have spoken. Those super-delegates, those party insiders would have to think long and hard how they would approach the nomination."
by Andre X, Tue May 27, 2008 at 12:14:02 PM EDT
Sources close to the campaign estimate that as many as three dozen Democratic superdelegates have privately pledged to announce their support for Obama on June 4 or 5. The campaign is determined that Obama not end the first week in June without securing the support of delegates numbering 2026 -- or 2210, as the case may be.