I was watching the feed when this vote came up. What happened is a couple of things:
1) The LAW in Minnesota is a NAME written on a write-in line constitutes a vote. You may not agree with the law, but that's the law. They were not permitted to question the law. This situation also caused many overvotes in many other cases when obviously real names were written but the oval not completed.
I will say that I think writing a name does suggest intent. Why? Because why put the effort to write in a name and then not vote for it. Not then filling in the bubble IS NOT THE SAME AS NOT FILLING IN THE BUBBLE FOR A LISTED CANDIDATE.
2) The real argument about this came regarding whether or not "Lizard People" was a person. They argued about this one for a while. One of the board members then suggested that People was a last name they had heard of, and then several threw in that Lizard was no stranger first name than several others they had seen. Therefore, they decided, and I think it was unanimous, that this was POSSIBLY a real name. They also made the comment, "if you mess around with your ballot, you risk that your vote not counting".
I did not agree with this decision, but THEIR INTEGRITY WAS FLAWLESS, and I understand why they made this decision.
I thought the same thing when I saw this diary. The 3am ad was so effective, they were talking about 3am moments in September. And the Celebrity add worked enough to have Democrats scared s***less for a little while.
Memorable, effective, credible, they had all 3 in spades. In addition, these adds really carried a theme that energized supporters and created confidence.
Hillary lost the primary not because of her adds, but because of her poor overall planning (and lots of other reasons). And I think the ad that should be cited as a really bad McCain ad is the Sex for Kindergartners ad. That one seemed like a real catalyst for McCain losing a lot of credibility.
I think this is virtually over in our favor. Begich has been favored the last several days because it was known the uncounted votes were in his districts. These results confirm, and his lead should grow to a few thousand before this is over.
I've never known anyone who didn't think their preferred candidate was the best. And she had to most votes of a losing candidate in history, so it of course follows that a lot of folks think she was the best candidate.
I have also read a lot of comments about how she didn't lose the primaries, they were taken from her. For these folks, I would suggest that you take a look at Hillary's campaign and ask whether or not she did the following things:
1) Did Hillary not have a strategy in place to try to maximize her competitiveness in the primaries after Super Tuesday and before March 4? Is there any reason she shouldn't or couldn't have one in place?
2) Did Hillary Clinton in 2007 originally support the DNC decision to reward 0 delegates to MI and FL? Is there any reason she couldn't or shouldn't have recognized that if things got close, she would need these states to count and should therefore argue for them to count at least 50 percent?
3) Did Hillary minimize resources expended on caucuses which allowed her to get creamed in these? Is there any reason she shouldn't or couldn't put resources here to try to keep them as close as possible?
4) Did Hillary refuse to do what every other candidate who voted for the war did and go out of their way to say they made a mistake with that vote? I would agree with folks who argue that she took far more criticism of that than she deserved, but I will still ask - is there any reason she shouldn't or couldn't renounce her former vote and therefore try to put this whole episode behind her?
5) Did Hillary have to contest Iowa? She wasn't Rudy Guliani who didn't have a good state until Florida, she could have simply started in New Hampshire. Is there any reason she shouldn't or couldn't have done this?
I ask these questions because they were areas all in Hillary's control and areas where if she had just made the right decision, she would be the nominee today. I am not saying the factors mentioned by others did not play a part in her defeat, but I am saying it's easy to blame everyone else and not look at your own candidate's actions. Hillary could have won this, DESPITE all the factors that were going against her, if she had made the correct decisions in her own campaign.
I think Hillary is a great politician and would have been a great GE candidate, but unfortunately for her, she made decisions that cost her dearly. I think they cost her the nomination, as I think she would have won if she hadn't made these avoidable mistakes.
For all Hillary supporters, I am truly sorry that your candidate did not win. If she had, I would be giving her my full-throated support as I hope you will give Barack. And it's OK to feel she should have won and still support to guy who did win. If Hillary had won via a different decision by the DNC, I would have had to do the same thing.
VP is the springboard to the Presidency (if she could run in 8 years), and I expect it to be a reasonably powerful position under Obama. Who has been the most powerful and influential the last 8 years, Cheney, or any of the Senators individually during that time.
There were times I wish it was Hillary/Obama, and for several months, I have wished it was Obama/Hillary. I still think he should have picked her, but I also do think she said some and did some things during the Primaries that made it difficult.
She has been great since bowing out, and I am proud of her. I wish she was going her chance in 2016, and maybe she'll change her mind about running when the time comes. She'll be 68, so what will her chances be?
I have been telling everybody in our volunteer group to talk about Jim Martin every time they speak with somebody. I met him at a fundraiser and he was great. I got one picture with my wife, him, and me, and one with my 4 year-old and him.
I read on 538 several months ago a potential bias complaint about likely voter models (I don't know if this was all models or just Gallop/USA when they had that strange poll of Obama +3 RV but McCain +4 LV).
The issue starts with the assumption that a pollster assigns a "likelihood of voting" figure to each registered voter. Then, they assume all voters above x% likelihood are likely voters, or they assume an x% voter turnout of registered voters.
In either case, they assume the voters whose likelihood percent is in the threshold is 100% likely to vote and the other registered voters are 0% likely to vote.
In reality, the better statistical method would simply be to multiple every vote by the likelihood percentage to model likely voting. Why does it make sense to assume a 60% score makes you like to vote and a 50% score makes to unlikely to vote. That 10% difference in likelihood score makes a 100% difference in the presented poll results.
The bias here should be obvious. Barack probably has a lot of voters who historically have not voted and will score as unlikely by these traditional methods. A lot of us believe (and I have been doing lots of voter registration) that young voters and AA voters are going to vote more than they have in the past, and therefore, are going to be undercounted by these types of likely voter models. The methodology of separating every voter into 100% and 0% likelihood exacerbates the problem.
I think any reasonable person looking at this race right now has to see Obama with something like a 2% to 5% lead nationally and also in a postiion where Obama needs MI, PA and one of CO or VA to win the election. While this implies he needs 3 of 4 states, I think he is currently leading in all 4.
I think the betting odds should be 60/40 Obama, not 50/50 right now.
I'm your secomd troll-rater, and I'll put in my explanation. Two:
1) I looked at your other diaries/comments, and I did not see anything that suggests you are really a Democrat. All were negative pieces about Obama.
2) Your statement that all the comments about Sarah Palin were negative was FALSE. It was no doubt a very negative piece against Palin, and the caveats were provided BY THE AUTHOR. However, she called her smart, hard working, gutsy, and about 3 or 4 other things that were all positive and in context.
No doubt this person did not like Sarah Palin, but this piece clearly comes across as a rational, hard-hitting commentary that is clearly biased against her, but still attempts to fairly recognize Palin's positives.
I think what he is doing is pretty clear. It's a RISK AVERSION strategy. He has realized, as have many others, that he's not really running against McCain, he's running against himself. If he proves to enough people he is a viable President, he's going to win and there's nothing McCain can do about it.
Look at the issues he has "supposedly" moved to the Center on - FISA, Guns, Death penatly, Campaign Finance, etc. - and look at the issues he hasn't moved on - Iraq, Taxes, Health Care, Oil Drilling. None of the issues has has moved on are your real bread-and-butter issues that move voters EXCEPT that they appeal to folks who don't want a far-left liberal-type as President.
IMHO, as long as he doesn't come out looking like too much of a flip-flopper.panderer type, then he's going to do well with this strategy. I also think he probably decided flipping on these issues but not flipping on Iraq, Oil Drilling, etc., allows him to show he is not a radical but he does have principles where he won't change his mind.
Overall, other than fund raising problems, I think he's doing well. Personally, I think he should not have capitulated on FISA, but I see the overall plan here.