by alex100, Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:22:31 AM EDT
+3 for Obama and -1 for Clinton.
Plus, Obama picked up two more pledged delegates from Edward's batch.
that leaves Obama 5 delegates closer to the nomination and Clinton further away then she was yesterday.
tick. tock. tick. tock...
by hootie4170, Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:11:45 AM EDT
After his impressive win in Oregon, Obama received an endorsement from a Oregon Superdelegate today.
DNC Jenny Greenleaf (OR)
The voters of Oregon have spoken, and I have listened.
I will be supporting Senator Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention in August. Senator Obama has the vision and leadership ability to move this country forward and to undo the damage done by the Bush administration. I am proud to support him in this endeavor and will do whatever I can to make sure Oregon's electoral votes are Democratic this fall.
Earlier today Obama received the endorsements of Rep. Jim Costa (CA) and Rep. Dennis Cardoza (CA) who withdrew his endorsement of Senator Clinton.
Obama now leads among Superdelegates by 31.
by thezzyzx, Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:57:42 AM EDT
Well we don't know how everyone is reacting, but at least one has weighed in, California Representative Dennis Cardoza:
I am deeply concerned about the contentious primary campaign and controversy surrounding the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan - two states Democrats need to win in November. I will not support changing the rules in the fourth quarter of this contest through some convoluted DNC rules committee process. Yet, we must find a resolution to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates so these states' voters are represented at the Convention. I believe we need to avoid this potentially divisive situation by uniting behind one nominee and bringing the party together immediately. Therefore, I have made the decision to support Senator Obama at the Democratic Convention in my role as a super delegate.
Cardoza was a Clinton superdelegate before today. There haven't been many signs that the contention over these states is drawing supers to her and here's the first sign that it's annoying people. Hopefully this will inspire her to ratchet down the rhetoric a level or two.
by itsadryheat, Thu May 22, 2008 at 09:42:37 PM EDT
There was a rec'd diary up for a while dismissing Hillary because of some new polls in Colorado, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan. The states involved carry 50 Electoral Votes. Hillary is within the margin of error, close to McCain when they run against each other in those states.
There were some other interesting numbers in the swing state polls of matchups between McCain/ Obama, and McCain/ Clinton. In the six potential swing states fully matched and reported May 21:
Obama wins one, beating both Clinton and McCain in COLORADO.
McCain wins two, beating Obama and Clinton in polls in UTAH, VA. Clinton wins three, beating McCain, and Obama loses against McCain.
Clinton wins FLORIDA, MISSOURI and NORTH CAROLINA.
So for May 21:
Obama - 9 electoral votes
Hillary - 53 electoral votes
by tigerjohn, Thu May 22, 2008 at 08:12:14 AM EDT
I've been reading the back and forth on the popular vote discussion here for quite some time now and I am still amazed that the idea is so heartily embraced by many as legitimizing for whoever wins it. There are endless arguments as to what it represents and how to count it, with myriad possibilities. The fact that there is no clear agreement on either of these questions renders any interpretation of the popular vote as at best problematic and uncertain, and at worst meaningless. There are two ways that using the popular vote as metric might be legitimized.
The first is if it was included by the party in the manner in which the nominee is chosen. In this case, it would be clearly defined as to how it is measured and there would be one number sanctioned by the party for candidates, voters and election officials certifying results to follow. In this case, arguments about names on ballots, whether candidates could campaign, methods of counts for caucuses would be determined based on a set of rules. However, this is not case for selecting the democratic nominee.
The second possibility is the moral argument that the nominee should reflect the voters' preferences. There are many ways to do this. One is a national primary. Another is the representative system we currently have via delegates. On phrase we often hear that is used to justify some current estimates of the "popular vote" is the "one person, one vote" principle. It is argued that this is a much better way of representing voter preferences than a representative system via delegates. In a situation where all voters in every state have basically the same process to confront when heading to the polls, this principle works fairly well, and has been a cornerstone in defining what constitutes a fair election. However, the problem with applying this principle to the current campaign is that unlike in a general election, it does not well represent voter preferences, and when the totals are very close, I believe this renders it meaningless. (the why is below the fold)