I am not a legal-eagle, but a lot will depend on what relationships the courts say a private institution, like Liberty, with their affiliated groups. That would never fly at a public college. However Liberty being a private university with its explicit stated purpose may be able to argue that they have the right to exclude groups that fall outside of those parameters that are not otherwise fall under Federal equal protection laws.
It does surprise me that there are people that would choose Liberty as well as be involved in Democratic politics - on the same token it does indicate a healthy wide-tent party. I would rather be talking about this story than the reverse where the DNC shuns a College Dem group because they don't like Liberty.
Long before Dole's "Godless" ad these series of ads transformed an otherwise semi-competitive but sleepy race into a real dogfight. Prior to this ad Dole was even or ahead of Kay Hagan in every poll. Within a couple of weeks of the start of these ads she slipped behind Hagan never to recover.
For historical perspective here is Jesse Helms` infamous "Hands" ad from 1990.
Then, many political observers speculated that Harvey Gantt, a popular African-American former mayor of Charlotte, had a real shot at upsetting Sen. Helms who never won more than about 53% of the vote in any race. However with this ad, Helms was able to stir up just enough racial sentiment to win reelection that year. Helms went on to beat Gantt again in 1996 in his final race although without quite the fanfare of 1990.
I will say this after being with this site since the beginning, in 2002, and listening to all the poo-pooing during the primary. It is nice to see Jerome acknowledge what is likely going to be reality in two weeks.
That Obama wil receive more votes for President than anyone else in the history of the US and will receive a larger % of the vote than any Democrat since LBJ.
Its hot in NC right now - going to be 97 tomorrow. Most people won't be paying too much attention until it cools down around Labor Day. By then hopefully Sen. Hagan will have enough kitty to run a real statewide campaing. Given the expected large A-A vote for Obama she will do well regardless. Democrats are strong in NC with strong candidates all over the ballot. With a strong Presidential race that will neutralize what had been a perennial Republican advantage. Running two women with a strong female candidate for Governor (DEM) will help as well. Believe it or not if certain events take place (not all DEM though) that NC will have perhaps the most women in senior statewide positions in a state in all of the US.
Sec. of Public Instruction
Sec. of State
Sec. of Labor
Auditor of State
Hillary probably did better with FL & MI this weekend than she might have in a contested primary. FL might have tightened a wee bit but MI likely would have been something like 50-50. So while MI did not get to benefit from a real primary (due to their calendar shenanigans) the current outcome is not so far off from reasonable scenerios.
It was also a curiosity of mine as to how vociforous some Clinton advocates had pressed MI. Considering the primary violated rules - all of the candidates took their name off the ballot (save for one) - and all passed on competing in the race - given turnout was so low. How disingenuous it is to think that one should benefit mightily from such a flawed and blatantly unfair situation.
Good it will give the Republican knuckleheads something to complain about in 2008 as Democrats did with Nader in 2000. You know all those Jewish voters for Buchanan in Florida stole the election right?
I couldn't agree with this comment MORE. So instead of writing one of my own I will just reply to this. Kudos.
Hillary lost not because she was a woman or she was treated unfairly or that the rules were stacked against her.
No she lost because she was simply out gamed period. It is like watching UNC and Duke play basketball. Someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. Game was close all through the second half. Both teams are good and great. But again someone has to win and someone has to lose.
Obama will run better in NC than Clinton would have. Regardless of how that one poll turned out. Why? Demographics favor Obama and judging from the recent primary November's vote will only reinforce that. Obama won big in the big growing urban counties like Mecklenburg (Charlotte) 70-29% Wake (Raleigh) 65-35% and others. The fact of the matter is regardless of whether the Dems carry NC in the fall - there are more Obama type voters than Clinton. In the general 2/3 of all voters will be within 1 hour of Interstate 85 and Obama won those areas by 22 points in the primary.
Again regardless of who actually wins NC in the fall - Obama helps Dems do well across the board. In 2000 & 2004 Gov. Easley had to run 8-12 points ahead of the Democratic presidential candidate in his win. For the first time since 1992 (with Bill Clinton ironically) the Presidential candidate will be competitive with the state candidates.
1) While Sen. Clinton has every right to stay in the race until the end - as does everyone else and many do although no one pays attention - the realities of the situation remain. Few primary races in the past have ended this late in the game and most were theoretically ended before even half of the delegates were selected. Remember Kerry 'locked up' the nomination in 2004 in theory before he ever did on paper. The argument to let this thing 'play itself out' can be legitimate but is hardly used in reality. POINT BEING: There is nothing wrong with facing reality before it happens.
2) All of Sen. Clinton's points about reforming the primary system are valid - I am certainly one who would support doing things differently. It has been a boon to the Democratic party that we have had this enlightened interest and my hope is that the loser (whomever it may be) will have enough respect for the process party and American public to no play sore loser. It is often the case when competition in anything is high that involve a lot of emotion but it is a better person to know when they lost and work for the betterment of all instead of taking their ball and go home. POINT BEING: While Clinton's arguments are valid they are not a valid explanation for why she will not be the Democratic nominee for President.
The whole notion that somehow the process was stacked against her or unfair to her big state politics game is inherently flawed. States have a right to decide their own method of selecting delegates (within the bounds of national party rules) and the candidates act accordingly. Yes it would seem inappropriate for a large state like California to hold caucuses instead of a regular primary but if they decided to do that - so be it. Thems the rules. Its not anyone's problem but Sen. Clinton's own that she chose to largely ignore the caucus states or generate a logical plan to deal with life after Feb 5.
3) I for one would support a primary process and a presidential process entirely based on popular vote. This way everyone's vote counts no matter what and no procedural games can be played. But until then we work with what we have. POINT BEING: As everyone know Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but who is sitting in the White House??
4) As far as FL & MI are concerned. I for one am someone who supports seating those states in some fashion at the convention. While in all due respects rules are rules and technically those states should receive nothing - but the sense of fairness and inclusion that we have as Democrats dictate that we pander to that sort of rule bending. But the facts remain that at the start of this process ALL candidates agreed to no campaign in those states (of course under the idea that no one believed that it would have become such a pivotal issue) - while everyone appeared on the ballot in FL and only Sen. Clinton in MI and yes votes were cast. Only a creative lawyer can argue with a straight face that such a farce constitutes a properly contested election. Had they been properly contested it is highly doubtful that Sen. Clinton would enjoy the same level of 'support' as she does now on paper. POINT BEING: FL & MI will be seated but not in such a way that has bearing on who wins the nomination. As it should be - FL & MI can go to the convention but will no play spoiler. That is the price for apostasy.
5) As far as Sen. Clinton being the better candidate in the fall. If we made decisions based on wetting on finger and sticking it up in the air Sen. Clinton would have had the nomination already on 21st of January 2005. Few people thought seriously that she wouldn't until the fall and many people still thought she could up until after Super Tuesday. But the reality remains, as is often the case in politics, that to assume is to accept the risk of being burnt. Things change times change and so do the states. Once was is not now. And the map in Nov 2008 will not be the same as it was in any other previous election. Many in Sen. Clinton's camp make their arguments under the veil that the world revolves around 2000/2004. While there is certainly arguments of strength (even I will not argue that we can carry Idaho but who knows in my lifetime I saw it happen once before...) the whole notion that the world revolves around 4 Great Lakes states is disingenuous at best. Sen. Clinton's plays an old politics game - the John Kerry map + one (Ohio) and thats it. Truly important elections are game changers - like 1992 (when Bill Clinton solidified states like California for the Dems) - 1980 (when Reagan solidified the south and west for the GOP) - 1964 (when despite winning virtually everywhere Goldwater cracked the nut that was the Solid Democratic South). If Obama or Clinton or whomever is decided truly is going to move this country beyond Bush they need to expand the map. POINT BEING: We need to think outside of the box on this one. Sen. Clinton does well in old-style Democratic constituencies but the future of the party is not necessarily going to be with these people. Anyone notice that NY, PA, OH, MI, WV, IL, LOSE electoral votes each and every census?
6) Latinos for Clinton. It is wonderful that we have a Democratic candidate that can spark such interest in an important voting bloc. But to assume that we should pick Clinton because it is important to have a candidate that only attracts Latino interests is as flawed as voting for McCain because he attracts white interests. As a white male person I vote not for what I see in the mirror but what I see is best for everyone I see outside. African-Americans have become solidly behind Obama not surprisingly and are just as important a constituency as ANY constituency in the party. If Sen. Clinton would lose the nomination - she would be a better person to then say "to my Latino friends vote Democratic in November for your future" as I would say the same to Sen. Obama to A-As. POINT BEING: Wouldn't it be a beautiful thing if we had record turnout of both Latino AND A-A voters and they both went Democratic?
7) I for one think that McCain is a weak candidate. Perhaps marginally stronger in some states than other candidates - but like Sen. Clinton for the Democrats - already a known quanitity. While the other GOP candidates like Romney have various issues (Romney's Mormonism is a sad reality that would have been endlessly discussed) at least would have presented a fresher face. Against Obama - McCain appears old feeble and old-school. While many would gravitate to such a candidate naturally - we can only look to 1992/1996/1960 with such disparities in ages and except for Ronald Reagan in 1980 it was the younger candidate that won. This is not an argument of young vs. old. POINT BEING: 2008 is a change year and voters are looking away from George Bush and his 28% approval rating and 7 years of pure hell. Voters will gravitate towards the candidates that offers the most change. Permanent residents of Washington DO NOT APPLY.
FINAL POINT: Perhaps at no time in history save 1932 has one party been such on the ropes as the GOP right now. Their whole philosophy of governing has been thrown right out the door. You can see it in the reaction to three straight special election losses to Bush's 28% approval rating, worldwide detest of US, and most strikingly recent GOP talking points for the fall that underscore practical elements "Change The You Deserve?" When someone wants change its out with the old and in with the new. The Democrats have a chance to win in such a way that hasn't been done in 2 generations. Full majority of popular and electoral votes, control of Congress, and most importantly the ability to change the dynamic of how elections are run won and how politics gets done in Washington.
As far as NC voting is concerned - the game is played along the I85 and I40 corridors. If you follow I85 where it enters NC from SC and follow it up to Durham and then follow I 40 from Winston Salem to Raleigh. You will hit 75% of the population that live within 1 hour of each of those interstates.
As far as this primary is concerned, Obama won almost every single county that touched on those interstates and the top 10 counties by population. The biggest difference is that in the rural areas where Clinton won she won the white vote by 80%+. In the urban areas, Charlotte for example, Obama won nearly half the white vote. So while anyone who wins NC would like to do well everywhere those middle corridors are where the action is.
This indeed IS a good diary. The Democratic Party is LUCKY to have had such a strong and spirited primary season albeit one with a few bumps. As with any contest - there will be a winner and a loser. It is a measure of the winner's deft touch to not gloat and likewise the other to not be a sore loser.
In the spring of 2005 I opined on this very blog on a front page article how we basically had to accept Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee and what that meant. Then and up until the fall of 2007 virtually everyone assumed that Hillary would get the nomination and the primary season would be rather a formality. Of course that was not to be. I don't need to go into the details of the how and why (as we just lived through it) but the point remains that anyone who assumes anything in politics is likely to come up short.
Who would have guessed that Obama - who burst onto the national scene with that eloquent speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004 - would slay the First Lady of Democratic politics. Who would have thought that Hillary Clinton - oft described as the Barbra Streisand of politics - would become the new standardbearer downscale white voter angst and become the 'conservative' candidate.
Such as the life in politics - again one who assumes is one who is likely to get burned. I myself started out as an Edwards supporter (no surprise given I live in NC and supported him since his first ran for the US Senate in 1998) then eventually got on board with Obama once the NC primary approached. I write this not as an Obama supporter but rather as someone who is ready to get it done in November. Too many times the Democrats have been accused of picking poor candidates (I was not in love with Kerry nor Mondale nor Dukakis) but this year we were blessed to be able to end the primary contest with two of the most able candidates the party could have produced ever.
The key moving forward is to bring us together and not concentrate on who voted for whom. It is true that NC went heavily for Obama and it is likely that WV will go heavily for Clinton. Does that mean there is anything wrong with that? Absolutely not, but the bigger question for all of the primary voters past and present and future is are you a Democrat first or second? I am a Democrat FIRST and can proudly say that I have voted for every Democratic Presidential candidate since I was eligible to vote. I am hopefully that that viewpoint will be shared by ALL who participated in the process especially those who are registered Democrats. The Democratic party will not prosper until ALL Democrats come together regardless of whom they supported.
So the big question is are we going to stand as Democrats and win in November? Or stand aside and spout and spew what ifs and what could have beens. Well?