...but hardly being noticed.
Puerto Rico, sometimes referred to as ‘the 51st state’ was officially approved by the Democratic National Committee to make 2 very interesting changes to their chance to select the Democratic nominee.
First, out of concern that there will be just too many people taking part to make their usual caucus even remotely manageable, they have switched to a primary.
Second, in order to truly allow as many people as possible to take part, they have moved it up two days from Tuesday, June 3rd to Sunday, June 1st.
Primary Day is very important in Puerto Rico anyway. Since Puerto Rican citizens are not able to vote in the general election and Puerto Rico does not have any electors, this is their only opportunity to have a say in who becomes president of the United States. The fact that the nominee has not yet been determined and how Puerto Ricans vote could effect the outcome of the nomination should make this one of the most spirited days in Puerto Rican voting history.
Puerto Rico has 63 delegates, which ranks it as the 5th largest out of the remaining 10 primaries, just ahead of Kentucky and just behind Oregon. Not as large as Pennsylvania and North Carolina, but certainly not insignificant. The switch from a caucus to a primary probably benefits Hillary Clinton although that is more likely to provide her with a final victory rather than enough additional delegates to make a difference in the nomination race.
I appears that this date change (finalized on Tuesday, march 25th) was missed by many members of the media, including some experts on The Chris Matthews Show this Sunday, as they referred to the Democratic nominating process going "all the way to Puerto Rico". I guess saying “going all the way to Montana and South Dakota” isn’t as sexy. Perhaps once they realize the date change, they can start using the concept that as it was for Custer, Montana could be “Clinton’s Last Stand”.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Look, up in the sky, It's a bird, it's a plane...
It's a Superdelegate!!! Well, actually all 794 of them.
What are they? Who are they? Why are they? Most people don't know, but you can get a good idea how to answer all of these questions here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
For a good list of the democratic superdelegates and who they have announced they are supporting you can look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_Superdelegates%2C_2008
How should the superdelegates vote?
Well, they can vote any way they chose. They are not required to vote any particular way. The debate is whether they should vote based on how their constituents voted, by which candidate they believe will do better in the general election or should they all vote for the candidate who receives the most pledged delegates. The third option actually makes their existence irrelevant, although that may be the only way to keep the party together.
Funny, but the two Democratic campaigns have opposing views of which view the superdelegates should take on how to vote. Imagine that! Interestingly, if superdelegates voted for the candidate that won their state Hillary Clinton would wind up with more superdelegates. (That might surprise Obama supporters who are promoting this option). However, even this option might not be enough of a gap to enable Hillary Clinton to win the nomination.
If you want to get a really good picture of the undeclared Superdelegates and what categories they fall into, you should definitely look here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9266.html
The general election is a battle for electoral votes, not the popular vote (the 2000 election reminded us of this). So if superdelegates wanted to get a sense of how that might play out, they could go here:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Click on the links below the USA map for the electoral vote match-ups between Obama - McCain and Clinton - McCain using some state by state polls between the candidates.
These state surveys are very preliminary, so a good deal of caution is appropriate, but it is interesting that as of March 23, Clinton would be ahead of McCain 268 to 246 with 24 votes too close to give to either candidate and McCain ahead of Obama 231 to 292 with 15 toss-up electoral votes. Again, these are very early, and will probably change once the Democratic candidate is finalized and the 2 parties select their Vice-Presidential candidates.
However, at the moment, this has to give pause for thought.
What are they? Who are they? Why are they? Most people don't know, but you can get a good idea how to answer all of these questions here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
For a good list of the democratic superdelegates and who they have announced they are supporting you can look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_Superdelegates%2C_2008
How should the superdelegates vote?
Well, they can vote any way they chose. They are not required to vote any particular way. The debate is whether they should vote based on how their constituents voted, by which candidate they believe will do better in the general election or should they all vote for the candidate who receives the most pledged delegates. The third option actually makes their existence irrelevant, although that may be the only way to keep the party together.
Funny, but the two Democratic campaigns have opposing views of which view the superdelegates should take on how to vote. Imagine that! Interestingly, if superdelegates voted for the candidate that won their state Hillary Clinton would wind up with more superdelegates. (That might surprise Obama supporters who are promoting this option). However, even this option might not be enough of a gap to enable Hillary Clinton to win the nomination.
If you want to get a really good picture of the undeclared Superdelegates and what categories they fall into, you should definitely look here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9266.html
The general election is a battle for electoral votes, not the popular vote (the 2000 election reminded us of this). So if superdelegates wanted to get a sense of how that might play out, they could go here:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Click on the links below the USA map for the electoral vote match-ups between Obama - McCain and Clinton - McCain using some state by state polls between the candidates.
These state surveys are very preliminary, so a good deal of caution is appropriate, but it is interesting that as of March 23, Clinton would be ahead of McCain 268 to 246 with 24 votes too close to give to either candidate and McCain ahead of Obama 231 to 292 with 15 toss-up electoral votes. Again, these are very early, and will probably change once the Democratic candidate is finalized and the 2 parties select their Vice-Presidential candidates.
However, at the moment, this has to give pause for thought.
Words are Important
Lots to write about from this week:
First, Barack Obama's talk on race Tuesday from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
It is still unknown whether it will help or hurt his candidacy, but this speech will probably be viewed for many years as a landmark in the discussion of race in the US.
Michigan and Florida decide they don't know how to vote...again. It is not clear what will happen, but for now at least, this is not good for the Clinton campaign and could be problematic for the Democratic nominee in those states in the general election.
Bill Clinton's statement on Friday to a group of veterans in Charlotte, NC that was later derided by Obama co-chairman Merrill "Tony" McPeak and compared to tactics used by Joseph McCarthy. Read Clinton's words and decide for yourself what they mean:
"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
The mainstream media seems to be siding with McPeak on this one. Sorry, not buying it. I kept reading articles to see what else Bill Clinton had said later in the speech that could add to this interpretation. Nothing. The above statement was it. The statement is so amorphous that it could mean a lot of different things, but most likely not what McPeak claimed. That didn't stop the talking heads on Sunday morning news shows from chiming in that it was a Clinton attack on Obama's patriotism. However, later on Sunday, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who recently came out as a supporter of Barack Obama, made it clear that he did not think Clinton meant anything remotely close to the McPeak interpretation.
John McCain is doing his world tour and made a "Ford-esque" slip (was it a slip?) claiming that Iranian operatives in Iraq have been "taking al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back". I guess a little Sunni / Shiite primer would have been helpful. In many ways this statement or mis-statement has much greater implications on the general election than anything Bill Clinton could ever say, but guess which one is getting more mileage in the media? McCain is getting a free pass on this one because he has more international affairs experience, but how would it have been treated if the exact same words were uttered by Obama or Clinton? When McCain grilled Obama about "al Qaeda in Iraq" that seemed to be shown every hour. Note to John McCain - not every extremist is a member of al Qaeda. Isn't that the mistake or misinformation the Bush administration made just prior to us getting involved in Iraq?
Finally, the Passport files of all 3 candidates were accessed without authorization. We have not heard the last of this. Stay tuned as details come out.
First, Barack Obama's talk on race Tuesday from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
It is still unknown whether it will help or hurt his candidacy, but this speech will probably be viewed for many years as a landmark in the discussion of race in the US.
Michigan and Florida decide they don't know how to vote...again. It is not clear what will happen, but for now at least, this is not good for the Clinton campaign and could be problematic for the Democratic nominee in those states in the general election.
Bill Clinton's statement on Friday to a group of veterans in Charlotte, NC that was later derided by Obama co-chairman Merrill "Tony" McPeak and compared to tactics used by Joseph McCarthy. Read Clinton's words and decide for yourself what they mean:
"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
The mainstream media seems to be siding with McPeak on this one. Sorry, not buying it. I kept reading articles to see what else Bill Clinton had said later in the speech that could add to this interpretation. Nothing. The above statement was it. The statement is so amorphous that it could mean a lot of different things, but most likely not what McPeak claimed. That didn't stop the talking heads on Sunday morning news shows from chiming in that it was a Clinton attack on Obama's patriotism. However, later on Sunday, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who recently came out as a supporter of Barack Obama, made it clear that he did not think Clinton meant anything remotely close to the McPeak interpretation.
John McCain is doing his world tour and made a "Ford-esque" slip (was it a slip?) claiming that Iranian operatives in Iraq have been "taking al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back". I guess a little Sunni / Shiite primer would have been helpful. In many ways this statement or mis-statement has much greater implications on the general election than anything Bill Clinton could ever say, but guess which one is getting more mileage in the media? McCain is getting a free pass on this one because he has more international affairs experience, but how would it have been treated if the exact same words were uttered by Obama or Clinton? When McCain grilled Obama about "al Qaeda in Iraq" that seemed to be shown every hour. Note to John McCain - not every extremist is a member of al Qaeda. Isn't that the mistake or misinformation the Bush administration made just prior to us getting involved in Iraq?
Finally, the Passport files of all 3 candidates were accessed without authorization. We have not heard the last of this. Stay tuned as details come out.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Longest Six Weeks
The Mississippi primary is done and now we have 6 weeks until the Pennsylvania primary. That is a long time. A very long time in this action packed Democratic Nomination campaign. The time from Iowa to Super Tuesday Part II on March 4th was only 2 weeks longer. This is almost enough time for both candidates to shake the hand of every registered voter in the state.
Many journalists will start running out of (useful) things to write in 2-3 weeks unless there are some unexpected events (the campaigns have been providing them to us lately). This time does give us a chance to reflect on the events so far, how things could easily have turned out differently and what may happen down the road in the Democratic nomination process and in the general election.
How many expectations have turned out wrong so far:
Hilary Clinton would run away with the nomination
After winning Iowa, Barack Obama would win NH and Clinton would withdraw
Hilary Clinton would pull far enough ahead on Super Tuesday to end the competition
After winning 11 straight contests and pulling even or ahead in polls in Texas and Ohio, Super Tuesday II would put Obama in the winner's circle
We are left with Pennsylvania on April 22nd (Earth Day) with 188 delegates that is probably likely to wind up similar to Ohio. Hilary Clinton will struggle to win any other primaries except for Puerto Rico, but if Florida and Michigan do reruns, count on her getting the 'W'. Where does that leave us?
Hello, Denver.
Buckle up. Its going to be a bumpy ride.
Many journalists will start running out of (useful) things to write in 2-3 weeks unless there are some unexpected events (the campaigns have been providing them to us lately). This time does give us a chance to reflect on the events so far, how things could easily have turned out differently and what may happen down the road in the Democratic nomination process and in the general election.
How many expectations have turned out wrong so far:
Hilary Clinton would run away with the nomination
After winning Iowa, Barack Obama would win NH and Clinton would withdraw
Hilary Clinton would pull far enough ahead on Super Tuesday to end the competition
After winning 11 straight contests and pulling even or ahead in polls in Texas and Ohio, Super Tuesday II would put Obama in the winner's circle
We are left with Pennsylvania on April 22nd (Earth Day) with 188 delegates that is probably likely to wind up similar to Ohio. Hilary Clinton will struggle to win any other primaries except for Puerto Rico, but if Florida and Michigan do reruns, count on her getting the 'W'. Where does that leave us?
Hello, Denver.
Buckle up. Its going to be a bumpy ride.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
