Monday, February 4, 2008

Here's the detail. The set of four numbers in the middle is the vote percentage, and the set of four numbers at the right end is the apportioned delegates. Caveat emptor! Much thanks to and National Journal, and the other sources.


Nina Miller said...

Hello, RS. I am posting this comment here, which is a response to a comment you left on my blog, The Lurking Canary, in case you don't see it there. I address the three main points in your comment.

You misunderstand the situation with the Illinois abortion votes. Voting present was a strategy designed to save state Senators from catching flak from their constituents or future political opponents for voting on a controversial set of bills. It furthered pro-choiceness only in that it gave cover to some Senators who were wavering and might otherwise have voted anti-choice. That was the strategy. Think about it - otherwise there would be no reason to vote "present" - Barack would have simply voted pro-choice. But he didn't, because he wanted to be able to say that he didn't actually support the pro-choice position on those bills, while still doing nothing to help the anti-choice legislators.

This isn't conjecture; this is what PP Illinois actually said. Unfortunately, Obama supporters are merely repeating "PP said it was part of the strategy" without asking themselves what that strategy was, why it was necessary and why Obama chose to use it.

The problem with this for primary voters who care about choice is obvious. We want a champion who will stand up to relentless pressure from the right, not someone who is nervous about offending certain people.

If Barack is the nominee, part of his strategy will be to try to turn a few of the Southern red states. The only way to do that will be to lean heavily into the "Christian" vote. Wait and see whose issues get silenced in order for that strategy to work. Or better yet, don't wait for it - choose Hillary instead.

Beyond the issue involved, the Obama campaign has been vicious in denouncing Hillary's campaign for publicizing information about the those votes, calling them "lies" and a "vicious smear." This is patently untrue. Unfortunately enough people have limited critical thinking skills (meaning, they don't bother to look at the campaign materials for themselves) that this line has been parrotted all over the place.

The point about 527s is that Obama was a hypocrite. He knew Edwards couldn't do anything to stop them, but he blamed Edwards for them anyway. Now that he is in that position, he states what Edwards did - he has no control over them. The problem is not that the 527s support Obama; personally, I'm a big supporter of the 527 as an election communications vehicle for groups of concerned citizens. The problem is that Barack is being hypocritical with regard to his attack on Edwards.

As for Florida, they get the same barrage of television, print and internet coverage as the rest of us. I live in DC, where the candidates haven't campaigned either, but I know plenty about the race. To say this is all "name recognition" is silly. In addition, the fact that the delegates don't count doesn't negate the fact that so many more Democrats supported Hillary over Barack. You can't wave a magic delegate wand and make a million people disappear. The fact that these people came out to vote even though their delegates would not be seated is actually an indication of just how motivated these people were.

Think of it this way - neither Barack nor Hillary has campaigned in India, yet you know A LOT about the race. Now imagine if you were inundated with the myriad U.S. cable news stations, newspapers, evening comedy shows, and so on. You can see how just because the candidates themselves didn't appear in Florida doesn't mean Floridians were ignorant about the candidates. This has been major news here in the states for a year, and Obama in particular has always received a lot of attention.

Best of luck with your blog - it looks very interesting.

Nina Miller said...

RS, I just realized you are posting from Boulder, not India. It was the comment you made about "really getting into U.S. politics" in a previous posting, plus the name of your blog, that threw me off. Sorry about that.

Where I grew up in New York, all the kids would call themselves either Italian, or Irish, or Polish etc. depending on where their parents, grandparents or even great grandparents came from. Actual Italians, Irish, Polish etc. would find this very strange, since we're talking 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants. And then there are some places in the US where nobody talks like this. I'm sure you're familiar with this.

Anyway, sorry for the mistake.

RS said...

Hey Ciccina:
No worries. In a sense, I am a first-generation Indian here... Been in the US since 2000 (yup, was here for all of Bush v Gore!)