To get right to the point, I believe Barack Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination setting the table for a great race for the fall.
Here's why:
In doing the math on delegates, it looks highly likely that Obama will end up with a pledged delegate lead when all this is finished by June. Even if Hillary wins some big states along the way, Obama will score enough delegates to keep his count moving.
The super delegates (those 796 party folks who can decide on their own who to vote for and change their mind along the way) will be in an unenviable position when all is said and done. They will be getting unbelievable pressure, especially by the Clintons and their establishment backing, to "pledge" to one or the other.
But here is the deal: how does a party who has protested and screamed and yelled about counting all the votes, that the popular vote matters most, that an election was stolen by the Supreme Court in 2000, go against the votes and participation by voters in the Primary process???
The answer is: I think it's impossible for the Democratic party establishment to go against voters in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.
It would be an untenable position for the super delegates to award the nomination to a candidate who is behind in the pledged delegate count. And if that was to happen, then the November election becomes a very difficult prospect in motivating voters who backed Obama in the nomination process. And since he seems to be the only one inspiring new voters to the polls, it is hard to dampen that enthusiasm.
So the bottom line is: Obama wins the plurality of pledged delegates, then the super delegates really have to go along with what the voters want. Otherwise, what kind of authenticity would the Democratic party have if it is not about counting the votes and it becomes the decision of the Democratic version of the Supreme Court???
Obama wins; then faces John McCain in the general election in an epic generational battle between two candidates who are calling the country to a sense of common interest and who are both about bringing the country together across party lines.
Now that would be a campaign worth the price of admission.
Originally posted at ABCNews.com
E-voting is all over Texas and Ohio. Just prime to steal votes from the left to the right, so to speak.
Or is my Pennsylvnia Vote not important enough?
In many ways, the Old Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, Clintons have meaning but their foundation is crumbling and that is why see them spin - as in using word games and mind games to win, and spinning - as in spinning out of control. They have no IDEA of what to grasp on to, and this is why , Republicans keep beating them. Flawed as they are, at least the Republicans are grasping on to the Reagan revolution way of thinking. That is the thing about political revolutions, they stick until the next one comes along.
The Clinton era existed during the Reagan Revolution. Americans are survivors and need Political Changes, and now more than anytime in this uncontrollable Post 9/11 and being taken in by the Clinton's way of "winning ugly" is at best a can of worms, at worst disastrous. Is Winning Ugly, in a Post 9/11 world sensible?
In many ways, the Old Democrats like Pelosi, Reid, Clintons have meaning but their foundation is crumbling and that is why see them spin - as in using word games and mind games to win, and spinning - as in spinning out of control. They have no IDEA of what to grasp on to, and this is why , Republicans keep beating them. Flawed as they are, at least the Republicans are grasping on to the Reagan revolution way of thinking. That is the thing about political revolutions, they stick until the next one comes along.
The Clinton era existed during the Reagan Revolution. Americans are survivors and need Political Changes, and now more than anytime in this uncontrollable Post 9/11 and being taken in by the Clinton's way of "winning ugly" is at best a can of worms, at worst disastrous. Is Winning Ugly, in a Post 9/11 world sensible?
Call me cynical, but people can rationalize anything. Example-Super Delegate's inner thoughts. "If only these people had the personal relationship that I have with Hillary, they would know she's the best person for President. Since it's my "responsibility" to pick the best person, I'll cast my vote for Hillary. They'll see, they'll come to know that I was right in voting for Hillary.... "
And despite what Hillary Clinton has said, super delegates are NOT designed to exercise their independant judgement. They're not to be confused with the electoral college.
They're supposed to provide the illusion of a unified party by backing the winner of a close contest, period.
They were formed after the 1980 convention in order to insure that the democrats never came out of a convention completely divided again.
Remember, bringing our voices together is the only way to rock the establishment.
I certianly will voice my concern to the DNC
The problem with MI and FL is that nobody in the democratic party has the power to seat an unauthorized contest. Dean, Obama, and Clinton could agree to seat them tomorrow and it would still wouldn't be enough.
The states themselves have two options: to hold another primary or caucus, or wait until the convention, when the delegates will be given to each candidate in proportion to the delegates they've won in the other 48 states.
Of course there's no way they can allow these states to "change the direction" of the race when the candidates weren't even allowed to campaign there!
As for the super delegates, I'm sure they will react in a variety of ways, as is their right. If "the people" or the candidates can sway them, so be it. Them's the rules. Watching how the campaigns choose to navigate the rules is part of learning how they operate as strategists (so far Obama's caucus-heavy strategy is looking pretty savvy).
Obama's good judgment on Rumsfeld and other Bush cabinet appointees:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxPA37n0oOU
Obama is forced to admit his campaign played the race card: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXXjWy-OztQ&feature=related
Obama misleads in the debates about his relationship to a pharmaceutical lobbyist as his state campaign chair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYVrMA9PkKo
Obama lies in the debates about his Pakistan policy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kkGGqufu2c
Obama is caught purposely midleading about his connection to Tony Rezko, the now-indicted slumlord: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqhbihfwgx8
Discussion of Obama's arguably racist church and mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FUnBi1i90E
Article about Obama's church: www.newmediajournal.us/staff/rush/2007/print/02202007.htm
Obama's fundraising:
www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-galesburg_obama_webfeb01,1,6024020.story
Obama and the indicted Tony Rezko: www.suntimes.com/news/brown/757286,CST-NWS-brown24.article
Obama's mentor and spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah, pastor of Obama's Trinity United Church, giving the church's lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam who has described white people as "blue-eyed devils," his "mortal enemy" and subhuman, and who describes Jews as "bloodsuckers" and the Jewish religion as a "gutter religion":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXS_YrYp07Q
No need to reply directly to me. These pieces speak for themselves.
It is very likely that he will win all three of the Potomac primaries this week and after that even if Clinton wins every large state, which I doubt, the delegate splits will hurt her.
Penn. should be a solid win, but I think that Texas is still up in the air in spite of popular opinion to the contrary. Ohio isn't exactly a given either.
Mi. and Fla. will be resolved in time, but the most likely outcome will be a split, netting neither any significant gains and Obama will still be leading.
I think that the only thing that can save Clinton at the moment would be a monumental gaffe by Obama.
I really don't see how she can compete against Obama's charisma. Her style just isn't designed for the task. Given that he's a complete novice with zero experience in running a national campaign he should have faltered, but didn't. The difference lies in their ability to generate enthusiasm. It reminds me of MLK debating Bill Gates.
In my opinion, the two biggest mistakes that the Clinton campaign made were in not contesting the caucuses and allowing Bill to be marginalized. He was their biggest asset and he has effectively been neutralized. Without his dynamism they're left with a policy wonk competing against a charismatic.
Obama needs to stop talking about Clinton. His case has been made and now he needs to convince the voters that he can take on the right-wing attack machine. If he can effectively take on McCain, he needs to show us exactly how he plans to do it, now.
Playing defense against their spin machine is a losing strategy. He needs to set the agenda and begin an offensive attack that will neutralize their base. He has plenty of ammunition, beginning with the S&L crisis that cost billions and his good buddy Keating.
Of course I'm a nobody in the middle of nowhere, so what the hell do I know?
"even if Hillary wins some big states along the way..."
Even if? you mean like New York, California, New Jersey, Massachussets, Michigan and Florida? You mean big states like those?
Doesnt this guy know that if the Dems had winner take all primaries it would be over by now? Doesnt he know that you dont lose NY, CA, MASS, NJ, FLA, MICH, OKLA and TENN not to mention Texas, Penn, and Ohio where Clinton is a shoe in and get the nomination? Does he think like the other media morons that you just add up the states, like the 403 votes Obama got to win Alaska means one for Obama and the 1,250,000 votes Hillary got in New York means one for Hillary?
this race was over on Super Tues,Florida is going to be seated which gives her about a 150 delegate lead now, she is a lock to win Texas, Penn and Ohio which will give her an insurmountable 400 delegate going into the convention and probably more which means that the uncommitted super delegates are all going to her. Dont think for one second they are going to nullify a 400 delegate lead and the wishes of the democratic voters in NY CA FLA, MASS MICH etc and not give her the nomination.
The media which stupidly wants to count states as if Nebraska North Dakota and the Virgin Islands counts as much as New York, California, Florida New Jersey and Mass. just continues to destroy themselves. On super tues most media outlets were saying Clinton won 9 states and Obama won 13. Clinton got more votes in New York alone than Obama got in North Dakota,Kansas, Idaho, Minn, and Nebraska combined. This is just more Hillary bashing and using every kind of twisted logic in the hopes of adding momentum to Obama's campaign aint gonna work.
It's over and Obama hasnt got a chance to win this even if he has made it a contest.
If you get overwhelming wins in the smaller states and get close to single digits losses in the large states you can still win the nomination.
You ignore the total Vote counts for ALL the states, and the total delegate count which by the way Obama is winning.
Its telling that you want to count Mich. where Hillary was the only name on the ballot.
If you like the way repugs do things maybe you should become one.
You can't because it's a canard!
Here's two for you: Why has Barack Obama in his two years in the Senate written, sponsored, or co-sponsored ten times the number of bills than has Senator Clinton in her seven?
And if experience matters, why is an amendment against flag-burning as one of your greatest achievements anything to brag about?
"On day one I'm going to meet with my Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Defense Secretary and my National Security Advisor and we're going to figure out the safest, quickest way to get out of Iraq."
Wow, detailed. Presumably from eight years of seeing her husband in action she knows what a President does, in very general terms. It's only impressive to those to whom it is *supposed* to be impressive.
I should have coached the New York Giants in the Super Bowl. I know how to coach. I would meet with my offensive coordinator, my defensive coordinator and my special teams coach, and we would look at film and draw up some plays. Man, I'm smart about football. And all Vince Lombardi ever said was "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" (or was it Hillary who said that?).
Obama, even if he weren't a hundred times smarter than Bush, wouldn't ask-- after finding a country he never heard of on the map-- "Can we bomb them folks ASAP?"
It reminds me of the early debate where the candidates were asked if they would be willing to meet with hostile foreign leaders. Barack Obama said basically "yes".
Hillary Clinton then gets up and says "Well, first we'd have to do the advance work, and that includes low level meeting design to gauge the intentions of the foreign governments....."
And the audience is supposed to go "wow, she's so smart! She's ready on Day One!"