Today, the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) met in Washington, DC to discuss delegate allocation for the Florida and Michigan primaries. At the end, the RBC unanimously decided to penalize Florida only 50% of their vote, compared to the 100% penalty imposed in 2007. This applies to all delegates, pledged and unpledged. The delegates will be allocated based on the January primary.
As for Michigan, the RBC passed a motion (by 19-8, or over 2/3 the RBC size) proposed by Mame Reiley (VA), a Clinton supporter, to also halve the Michigan delegates' votes, keeping the delegation the same size (128 pledged delegates). But the delegates will be divided 69-59 in favor of Senator Clinton - as suggested by Senator Carl Levin on behalf of the Michigan Democratic Party, and opposed to the 64-64 split proposed by the Obama campaign and the 73 Clinton, 55 uncommitted ("up-for-grabs") take of the Clinton campaign.
I am glad the 50% penalty was imposed; there must be some sanction for violating the rules. However, I didn't like the RBC saying the Michigan delegates should be divided 69-59; the RBC probably should keep out of delegate division, and leave that to the State Democratic Party. But seeing this was the position of the Michigan Democratic Party, I suppose I am just splitting hairs.
Bottom line - Senator Clinton gains a total of 87 delegate-votes (52.5 FL + 34.5 MI), while Senator Obama gets 63 delegate-votes (33.5 FL + 29.5 MI). Senator Edwards gets 6.5 delegate-votes out of FL (DCW post). Leaving out the Edwards delegates (which likely will go to Senator Obama), this means Senator Clinton gains 24 delegate-votes. Definitely ain't closing the 150+ pledged delegate gap by much.
Since the solutions proposed were very close to what the FL and MI Democratic Parties proposed (with perhaps the exception of superdelegates getting only 0.5 vote each and the MI delegation's vote halved), hopefully this means there is no challenge or appeal to the full Democratic Convention, and the Democratic Presidential nominee will be known within the next week. And presumably, that will be Senator Barack Obama.
Yay!
UPDATE 6/1 AM: Dana Milbank, echoing Harold Ickes and Clinton supporters, says: "The panel went on, by a vote of 19 to 8, to give Michigan half of its votes -- and to give Obama the gift of delegates that the voters of the state had not given him."
I suppose Ickes and the Clinton camp are enraged that Clinton did not get 73 delegates and the chance to go after 55 "uncommitted" delegates, which would have helped them close the delegate gap. Never mind that the 55 were AGAINST Clinton. Or, apparently, that 30,000 write-in ballots were discarded (Michigan does not recognize write-ins; via DCW). And the uncommitted and write-ins were probably almost all for Obama (mostly) and Edwards, and John Edwards says the "uncommitted" should go to Obama.
Yeah, well - the RBC ruling also gave Senator Clinton 69 delegates she had not won, because the primary did not count. As Chuck Todd suggests, the Obama camp had the votes for a 50-50 MI split, but agreed to a 69-59 compromise to gain a wider majority of the RBC.
Here's some interesting analysis by fivethirtyeight's Poblano, aka Nate Silver, on Michigan - his analysis of the exit polls suggest a 69-59 MI split is fair, while his demographics-based model (which has had some success) says Obama might have even won Michigan.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Senator Obama and the Democratic race
The AP has a story out headlined "Obama campaign used party rules to foil Clinton." Essentially, the article talks about how Senator Obama's team studied delegate allocation to run up delegate totals in states he won, while keeping Senator Clinton's advantage in states she carried to a minimum.
First, that headline seems a little negative - I'd put a more positive spin on it like "Obama campaign winning using party rules." Maybe the media is trying overly hard to balance out the misconception that they have been harsh on Senator Clinton while going easy on Senator Obama.
Second, one of the points the article makes is that Democratic delegate allocation rewards historically Democratic districts:
" 'Black districts always have a large number of delegates because they are the highest performers for the Democratic Party,' said Elaine Kamarck, a Harvard University professor who is writing a book about the Democratic nominating process.
'Once you had a black candidate you knew that he would be winning large numbers of delegates because of this phenomenon,' said Kamarck, who is also a superdelegate supporting Clinton.
This is very similar to the Geraldine Ferraro remarks. And of course, it comes from a Clinton supporter. I consider such remarks just plain dumb - because they suggest (like Ms Ferraro did) that any Black candidate would be at a tremendous advantage. We have seen - with Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun - that this isn't the case.
I much prefer the more sensible assessment by Don Fowler, a former DNC chair supporting Clinton (his wife, also a superdelegate, supports Obama!):
" 'The Obama campaign was very good at targeting districts in areas where they could do well,' said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a Clinton superdelegate from South Carolina. 'They were very conscious and aware of these nuances.'
But, Fowler noted, the best strategy in the world would have been useless without the right candidate.
'If that same strategy and that same effort had been used with a different candidate, a less charismatic candidate, a less attractive candidate, it wouldn't have worked,' Fowler said. 'The reason they look so good is because Obama was so good.'
That's what Ms Kamarck, Ms Ferraro and President Clinton miss - that Senator Obama might be Black, but so was Al Sharpton. And we haven't seen Minister Sharpton (nor the Rev. Jesse Jackson) as the Democratic nominee for POTUS.
Finally, I would add - on top of the candidate's personal qualities and a good understanding of delegate allocation, Senator Obama's winning because he embodies change in a year when a lifetime spent in Washington, DC, can be a liability. Not to mention that in the GE, he will be running as a different kind of Democrat - yes, a liberal, but someone who does not force people to participate in government-mandated health insurance (but makes it affordable so anybody who wants insurance can get it), and who talks comfortably about his faith.
First, that headline seems a little negative - I'd put a more positive spin on it like "Obama campaign winning using party rules." Maybe the media is trying overly hard to balance out the misconception that they have been harsh on Senator Clinton while going easy on Senator Obama.
Second, one of the points the article makes is that Democratic delegate allocation rewards historically Democratic districts:
" 'Black districts always have a large number of delegates because they are the highest performers for the Democratic Party,' said Elaine Kamarck, a Harvard University professor who is writing a book about the Democratic nominating process.
'Once you had a black candidate you knew that he would be winning large numbers of delegates because of this phenomenon,' said Kamarck, who is also a superdelegate supporting Clinton.
This is very similar to the Geraldine Ferraro remarks. And of course, it comes from a Clinton supporter. I consider such remarks just plain dumb - because they suggest (like Ms Ferraro did) that any Black candidate would be at a tremendous advantage. We have seen - with Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun - that this isn't the case.
I much prefer the more sensible assessment by Don Fowler, a former DNC chair supporting Clinton (his wife, also a superdelegate, supports Obama!):
" 'The Obama campaign was very good at targeting districts in areas where they could do well,' said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a Clinton superdelegate from South Carolina. 'They were very conscious and aware of these nuances.'
But, Fowler noted, the best strategy in the world would have been useless without the right candidate.
'If that same strategy and that same effort had been used with a different candidate, a less charismatic candidate, a less attractive candidate, it wouldn't have worked,' Fowler said. 'The reason they look so good is because Obama was so good.'
That's what Ms Kamarck, Ms Ferraro and President Clinton miss - that Senator Obama might be Black, but so was Al Sharpton. And we haven't seen Minister Sharpton (nor the Rev. Jesse Jackson) as the Democratic nominee for POTUS.
Finally, I would add - on top of the candidate's personal qualities and a good understanding of delegate allocation, Senator Obama's winning because he embodies change in a year when a lifetime spent in Washington, DC, can be a liability. Not to mention that in the GE, he will be running as a different kind of Democrat - yes, a liberal, but someone who does not force people to participate in government-mandated health insurance (but makes it affordable so anybody who wants insurance can get it), and who talks comfortably about his faith.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
I am furious!
[Not that I can do much about it.]
This morning's news brings the story of folks in Santa Barbara forced to live in their cars in parking lots, after losing (in some cases, jobs and subsequently,) their homes. [CNN story, via LAT.] This, in the USA. Amazing! So the possibility that the next President would be someone who self-admittedly doesn't know much about economics, and is advised by lobbyists and ex-legislators who have played a major role in precipitating the current home foreclosure crisis and have been lobbying Congress on behalf of the affected banks... is downright scary. [MSNBC story, via TPM.]
And that brings me to this morning's news about the seemingly-endless Democratic primary season. Democratic legal-beagles have put forth a 38-page memo which states that the Rules and Bylaws Committee, which meets May 31, cannot award more than 50% of the delegates from the disqualified FL and MI primaries (how to apportion them is another matter altogether). HOWEVER - the Credentials Committee, whose decision have to be approved by the Democratic Convention, can restore 100% of the FL and MI delegations.
What does this mean? Of late, Senator Clinton has been positioning herself as the new MLK, fighting for the civil rights of Florida and Michigan voters, and demanding that the full delegations be seated (never mind that FL/MI broke the rules, and she herself said - at a more comfortable position in the race - that the FL/MI elections would not count.) The Democratic legal memo says this cannot happen before the Convention. Ergo, she can fight all the way to August if she wants.
[UPDATE: Just saw this NPR story that describes Senator Clinton's turn-about on FL/MI.]
People who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Three elections in recent memory have gone to the convention - Dems in 1972 and 1980, and the GOP in 1976. In 1972, the anti-McGovern forces tried to change the allocation of California's delegation (which at that time was winner-take-all). This movement was apparently spearheaded by now-ex-President Jimmy Carter. In 1980, Senator Ted Kennedy fought President Carter all the way to the Convention. In 1976, President Ford had more delegates than now-ex-President Reagan, but not enough to secure the nomination; hence, they fought it out on the Convention floor.
If you haven't figured out the trend already - the eventual nominee lost all three times. Now, in two of those elections, the opposing candidate ran again the next cycle, and won. So... is that what Senator Clinton has learned from these events - destroy Senator Obama's chances for this November, so she can run in 2012? Never mind that in the interim, the country will be governed nominally by an economic novice and in reality by unaccountable, behind-the-scenes lobbyists and ex-lobbyists, who couldn't care less about the rising unemployed and homeless?
If that is indeed the case, then I seriously doubt Senator Clinton will have the luck of Presidents Carter and Reagan. Not by pissing off the most loyal Democratic voting block (African-Americans vote 9:1 for Democrats, compared with 3:2 or even 1:1 for Women), and not by turning off younger voters who prefer Senator Obama 3:1.
After all (as I have said before), Senator Clinton can continue to blame sexism and misogyny for her loss this year, but the fact is, her own campaign mismanagement screwed up her chances. And no matter who is to blame - Penn, Solis Doyle, President Clinton, whoever - the buck eventually stops with Senator Clinton.
Some interesting reads:
Roland Martin says that for the ClintonS, it is the ClintonS first, the Party be damned.
Marjorie Valbrun (agreeing with other XX-ers) over at the XX Factor on Slate.com says that Senator Clinton knew exactly what she was saying when she mentioned Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination. Melinda Henneberger says Americans tend to see no evil, even if the intentions were not good. (I myself was willing to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt - but there is a pattern here of saying things first and asking forgiveness later. That seems to be the Clinton way.)
Lawrence Bobo at TheRoot.com says Senator Clinton should learn about the function of the hook at the Apollo.
Finally, for all those who say there will never be another female candidate for POTUS - Dahlia Lithwick presents an excellent rebuttal.
This morning's news brings the story of folks in Santa Barbara forced to live in their cars in parking lots, after losing (in some cases, jobs and subsequently,) their homes. [CNN story, via LAT.] This, in the USA. Amazing! So the possibility that the next President would be someone who self-admittedly doesn't know much about economics, and is advised by lobbyists and ex-legislators who have played a major role in precipitating the current home foreclosure crisis and have been lobbying Congress on behalf of the affected banks... is downright scary. [MSNBC story, via TPM.]
And that brings me to this morning's news about the seemingly-endless Democratic primary season. Democratic legal-beagles have put forth a 38-page memo which states that the Rules and Bylaws Committee, which meets May 31, cannot award more than 50% of the delegates from the disqualified FL and MI primaries (how to apportion them is another matter altogether). HOWEVER - the Credentials Committee, whose decision have to be approved by the Democratic Convention, can restore 100% of the FL and MI delegations.
What does this mean? Of late, Senator Clinton has been positioning herself as the new MLK, fighting for the civil rights of Florida and Michigan voters, and demanding that the full delegations be seated (never mind that FL/MI broke the rules, and she herself said - at a more comfortable position in the race - that the FL/MI elections would not count.) The Democratic legal memo says this cannot happen before the Convention. Ergo, she can fight all the way to August if she wants.
[UPDATE: Just saw this NPR story that describes Senator Clinton's turn-about on FL/MI.]
People who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Three elections in recent memory have gone to the convention - Dems in 1972 and 1980, and the GOP in 1976. In 1972, the anti-McGovern forces tried to change the allocation of California's delegation (which at that time was winner-take-all). This movement was apparently spearheaded by now-ex-President Jimmy Carter. In 1980, Senator Ted Kennedy fought President Carter all the way to the Convention. In 1976, President Ford had more delegates than now-ex-President Reagan, but not enough to secure the nomination; hence, they fought it out on the Convention floor.
If you haven't figured out the trend already - the eventual nominee lost all three times. Now, in two of those elections, the opposing candidate ran again the next cycle, and won. So... is that what Senator Clinton has learned from these events - destroy Senator Obama's chances for this November, so she can run in 2012? Never mind that in the interim, the country will be governed nominally by an economic novice and in reality by unaccountable, behind-the-scenes lobbyists and ex-lobbyists, who couldn't care less about the rising unemployed and homeless?
If that is indeed the case, then I seriously doubt Senator Clinton will have the luck of Presidents Carter and Reagan. Not by pissing off the most loyal Democratic voting block (African-Americans vote 9:1 for Democrats, compared with 3:2 or even 1:1 for Women), and not by turning off younger voters who prefer Senator Obama 3:1.
After all (as I have said before), Senator Clinton can continue to blame sexism and misogyny for her loss this year, but the fact is, her own campaign mismanagement screwed up her chances. And no matter who is to blame - Penn, Solis Doyle, President Clinton, whoever - the buck eventually stops with Senator Clinton.
Some interesting reads:
Roland Martin says that for the ClintonS, it is the ClintonS first, the Party be damned.
Marjorie Valbrun (agreeing with other XX-ers) over at the XX Factor on Slate.com says that Senator Clinton knew exactly what she was saying when she mentioned Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination. Melinda Henneberger says Americans tend to see no evil, even if the intentions were not good. (I myself was willing to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt - but there is a pattern here of saying things first and asking forgiveness later. That seems to be the Clinton way.)
Lawrence Bobo at TheRoot.com says Senator Clinton should learn about the function of the hook at the Apollo.
Finally, for all those who say there will never be another female candidate for POTUS - Dahlia Lithwick presents an excellent rebuttal.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Local issues....
I live in Colorado, and I have been seeing a lot of Mark Udall (D for Senate) ads, a couple for Bob Schaffer (his Republican rival). Also occasional ads for Jared Polis (D for Congress) - though apparently he is still fighting the Democratic primary. Polis is running to replace Mark Udall in Colorado's 2nd Congressional District (which includes Boulder).
Mark Udall is the son of "Mo" Udall (among other things, Senator McCain's mentor in Congress). Representative Udall voted against the Iraq War, and is a progressive Democrat on the issues. Here's a story on the Udall-McCain connection and how it might play in the CO Senate race. Mark Udall also has a much better, fully-developed website compared to Bob Schaffer.
A sign this is Colorado is that even Bob Schaffer's ads include support for comprehensive energy reform, and show a Toyota Prius! One of Mark Udall's ads has him against a backdrop of wind turbines:
Incidentally, the Udall family appears ready to take over the US Senate. Mark's cousin Tom Udall is a Democrat running for NM's open Senate seat. Tom is also a strong progressive and also voted against the Iraq War. Oregon Senator Gordon Smith is their "double-second-cousin," and a Republican up for re-election this year. Gordon Smith voted for the Iraq War, and appears moderate-to-conservative.
Among other local issues - the University of Colorado, Boulder. Now, Boulder is often referred to (by outsiders!) as the "Boulder Bubble," a reference to the leftist leanings of the denizens. CU-Boulder was also the home of Ward Churchill. Perhaps following that episode, Bruce Benson, a former head of CO's Republican Party and fund-raiser/ex-oil man, was appointed the President of CU (here's a story). And now, it appears CU is looking to fund a Chair of Conservative Thought and Policy to the tune of $9 million (a move that even conservatives oppose!) That link is from Stanley Fish's column in the NYT; here's his take (and application for the post!)
Mark Udall is the son of "Mo" Udall (among other things, Senator McCain's mentor in Congress). Representative Udall voted against the Iraq War, and is a progressive Democrat on the issues. Here's a story on the Udall-McCain connection and how it might play in the CO Senate race. Mark Udall also has a much better, fully-developed website compared to Bob Schaffer.
A sign this is Colorado is that even Bob Schaffer's ads include support for comprehensive energy reform, and show a Toyota Prius! One of Mark Udall's ads has him against a backdrop of wind turbines:
Incidentally, the Udall family appears ready to take over the US Senate. Mark's cousin Tom Udall is a Democrat running for NM's open Senate seat. Tom is also a strong progressive and also voted against the Iraq War. Oregon Senator Gordon Smith is their "double-second-cousin," and a Republican up for re-election this year. Gordon Smith voted for the Iraq War, and appears moderate-to-conservative.
Among other local issues - the University of Colorado, Boulder. Now, Boulder is often referred to (by outsiders!) as the "Boulder Bubble," a reference to the leftist leanings of the denizens. CU-Boulder was also the home of Ward Churchill. Perhaps following that episode, Bruce Benson, a former head of CO's Republican Party and fund-raiser/ex-oil man, was appointed the President of CU (here's a story). And now, it appears CU is looking to fund a Chair of Conservative Thought and Policy to the tune of $9 million (a move that even conservatives oppose!) That link is from Stanley Fish's column in the NYT; here's his take (and application for the post!)
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Random stuff
Just had some Laphroaig, decided to write down some random thoughts....
Laphroaig is really harsh. Very peaty. Still, I probably will buy it the next time I buy Scotch. [For moi, whisky has to be Scotch. Bourbon - tried Maker's Mark, but - naah!] Definitely no blends like Chivas, though.
While I watch 24 on occasion (like now), I don't like it at a philosophical level. The only Brown person I've seen on it is Kal Penn, who's initially shown as someone persecuted as a terrorist by Afraid White Men, is given shelter by his Kind White Neighbor, but turns out to be a terrorist anyway. But with Fox, what else can one expect? [One of the producers of 24 was the Commencement speaker at my grad school graduation. Oh well.]
Couldn't watch all of Keith Olbermann's rant on the Senator Clinton/RFK assasination remarks. Another parsing-the-words scandal, which I think is stupid. Senator Obama has had his share of unfortunate remarks. People need to grow up.
I thought Senator Chuck Hagel could be a good VP pick for Senator Obama, but apart from the Iraq War, all other positions appear Regressive (did I just make up that term?) So NO (SecDef, maybe). Senator Jim Webb - maybe, but reading some comments on DemConWatch has suggested George Allen lost Virginia with his macaca moment more than Webb won VA. So maybe not. Governor Sibelius - I like her, even if she can't turn Kansas blue. A commenter on DCW pointed out Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee - could be a good choice, even if not female. [Yes, I am partial toward a female VP. Only way - now - to get a woman into a leadership position, which can be important to changing public perception. While on that, whatever happened to Geena Davis as Commander-in-Chief?]
Laphroaig is really harsh. Very peaty. Still, I probably will buy it the next time I buy Scotch. [For moi, whisky has to be Scotch. Bourbon - tried Maker's Mark, but - naah!] Definitely no blends like Chivas, though.
While I watch 24 on occasion (like now), I don't like it at a philosophical level. The only Brown person I've seen on it is Kal Penn, who's initially shown as someone persecuted as a terrorist by Afraid White Men, is given shelter by his Kind White Neighbor, but turns out to be a terrorist anyway. But with Fox, what else can one expect? [One of the producers of 24 was the Commencement speaker at my grad school graduation. Oh well.]
Couldn't watch all of Keith Olbermann's rant on the Senator Clinton/RFK assasination remarks. Another parsing-the-words scandal, which I think is stupid. Senator Obama has had his share of unfortunate remarks. People need to grow up.
I thought Senator Chuck Hagel could be a good VP pick for Senator Obama, but apart from the Iraq War, all other positions appear Regressive (did I just make up that term?) So NO (SecDef, maybe). Senator Jim Webb - maybe, but reading some comments on DemConWatch has suggested George Allen lost Virginia with his macaca moment more than Webb won VA. So maybe not. Governor Sibelius - I like her, even if she can't turn Kansas blue. A commenter on DCW pointed out Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee - could be a good choice, even if not female. [Yes, I am partial toward a female VP. Only way - now - to get a woman into a leadership position, which can be important to changing public perception. While on that, whatever happened to Geena Davis as Commander-in-Chief?]
Saturday, May 24, 2008
[UPDATED 5/31] Senator Clinton and sexism
This post will be largely a collection of links.
Senator Clinton has lately been suggesting that sexism is keeping her from winning the Democratic nomination, e.g. hear this WaPo interview.
Before this interview, Marie Cocco wrote about misogyny this primary season.
Megan McArdle @ The Atlantic writes about the "privilege olympics" between sexism and racism (and comes down on the side of sexism). McArdle and Daniel Drezner talk about sexism hurting Senator Clinton as well as about women in leadership positions (I think the latter was more informative).
Here's Ciccina on sexism and misogyny (includes a link to an interesting study that shows a female version of the Bradley effect.)
Chris Mathews' Hardball takes on the sexism issue:
[I shall keep updating with interesting articles I find. I have written earlier about sexism and racism here (I rant about Obama supporters being called sexist) and a little bit here (looking at a recent Quinnipac poll; the comments section has a more interesting discussion with Ciccina).]
Senator Clinton has lately been suggesting that sexism is keeping her from winning the Democratic nomination, e.g. hear this WaPo interview.
Before this interview, Marie Cocco wrote about misogyny this primary season.
Megan McArdle @ The Atlantic writes about the "privilege olympics" between sexism and racism (and comes down on the side of sexism). McArdle and Daniel Drezner talk about sexism hurting Senator Clinton as well as about women in leadership positions (I think the latter was more informative).
Here's Ciccina on sexism and misogyny (includes a link to an interesting study that shows a female version of the Bradley effect.)
Chris Mathews' Hardball takes on the sexism issue:
[I shall keep updating with interesting articles I find. I have written earlier about sexism and racism here (I rant about Obama supporters being called sexist) and a little bit here (looking at a recent Quinnipac poll; the comments section has a more interesting discussion with Ciccina).]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
