-- major press and political pros' consensus: you cannot pick Dem winner yet, but McCain likely for GOP:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

several analysts note the inscrutable California polls (36-34 Hillary?), which basically show dead heat Obama-Clinton, and the Dem winner likely to have strength to go all the way

right now, 4 different matchups (among Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney) still possible:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175496

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

USA TODAY/Gallup Poll:
Clinton 45%, Obama 44%, and McCain surges

Democrat Barack Obama has erased Hillary Clinton's national lead in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, gaining 11 points over the last two weeks to make the nomination race a statistical tie. The new state of play: Clinton 45%, Obama 44%.

On the Republican side, Arizona Sen. John McCain has surged into a 42%-24% lead over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. That's an 11-point jump for McCain over the last two weeks, during which he won the South Carolina and Florida primaries.

The poll is a snapshot of where things stand two days before Super Tuesday, when voters go to the polls in 22 states. People were interviewed Wednesday through Saturday.

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has raised questions about how Clinton
intends to pay for and implement her universal health care plan.
Clinton responded to her opponent, saying "The misleading information that Sen. Obama's campaign is putting out, that I will force people to do it even if they can't afford it, is absolutely untrue."

---

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: The Wizard of Socialism ]

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]

so we wagered dinner at the Hungarian Club on the Main ... loved that goulash!!

as deep background, the Hillary-haters are going to be riveted tomorrow:
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/?8dpc

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

McCain is leading in enough states that he should virtually clinch it tomorrow. Supposedly he is also helped by the presence of BOTH Romney and Huckabee, since they split many of the same social conservative voters, making it even easier for McCain to come 1st in state after state. If one had dropped out, the other might have been able to take a few more states, and drag out the fight a bit longer.

The Democrats allocate delegates proportionally, so if you lose a state 52-48, you'd still get about 48% of delegates. So it is much less likely that tomorrow will be decisive for Democrats.

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: Albireo ]

I registered to vote for Kucinich. He dropped out.

I just mailed in a reg. form so I could vote for the other serious anti-war candidate, Ron Paul.

Thinking that I had 2 weeks. But today is the 4th. Tomorrow is the 5th.

"Time's up, Pencil's down".

I feel like I had zero input into the picking of a Democratic candidate, that they have been picked for me.

The only candidates I have heard people enthusiastic about are Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Cynthia McKinney.

I prefer Obama over Illary, but I feel like that choice is being forced upon me.

This does not feel like democracy.

[ 14 February 2008: Message edited by: wwSwimming ]

Hillary Clinton, rightly or wrongly, would galvanize Republican partisans - partisans who might otherwise be inclined to sit on their hands if John McCain is the Republican nominee.

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:
Apparently that is especially true because, in most or all states, the Republicans use the idiotic "winner take all" system that is also used in the November presidential vote. So, if you beat your opponents 40%-30%-30%, you get 100% of the delegates for that state, and your opponents get zero. A clear abuse of democracy that everyone seems to just accept without question.

[SNIP]

The Democrats allocate delegates proportionally, so if you lose a state 52-48, you'd still get about 48% of delegates. So it is much less likely that tomorrow will be decisive for Democrats.

---

There is a certain logic behind what the Republican party is doing to select its own candidate. If McCain puts a lock on the nomination, he can spend then next nine months raking in money and preparing for the November election.

quote:

---

“I knew from the day he walked into this chamber that he was destined for great things,” he said. “In Republican circles, we’ve always feared that Barack would become a rock star of American politics.” Still, Dillard was gracious. “Obama is an extraordinary man,” he said. “His intellect, his charisma. He’s to the left of me on gun control, abortion. But he can really work with Republicans.” Dillard and Obama have co-sponsored many bills.

---

from a 2004 New Yorker piece

Barack + GOP = ‘Obamacans’

Some prominent (moderate) Republicans have caught Obama fever.

Does Obama have crossover appeal?

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Another conservative wingnut and John McCain hater is Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh and Ann Coulter would both rather vote DEMOCRAT than elect John McCain!!!

Whether this is just cheap theatrics well time will tell.

[ 04 February 2008: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
Limbaugh and Ann Coulter would both rather vote DEMOCRAT than elect John McCain!!!

Whether this is just cheap theatrics well time will tell.

---

I heard on the radio today that, re Coulter, it was more theatrics (to put a fine point on the fact that she despises McCain).

quote:

---

Limbaugh challenged the Republican establishment once before. In the 1992 primaries he helped boost conservative firebrand Pat Buchanan against the incumbent, George H.W. Bush. But after Bush secured the nomination, the president mended fences by inviting the talk-show host for an overnight stay in the Lincoln Bedroom.

---

From the article I quoted earlier.

and
Republicans for Hillary:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/republicans_for_hillary.html

"She has tremendous baggage, high negatives, and she can't be the candidate of change," says a top Republican strategist who pines for her to be the nominee.

All of that was true even before her bitter campaign with Obama created a wave of revulsion against her among liberal opinionmakers; before she had a rift to heal with African-Americans, high-income liberals and the Kennedy crowd that might keep her running as swiftly to the center as she'd like if she wins the nomination; before she became the "two-in-one" candidate with Bill again, and at times seemingly the junior partner.

Republicans speak in wishful terms about Hillary winning the nomination and fearful ones about Obama overtaking her. "It'll be hard as hell to run against Obama," says the Republican strategist. The Illinois senator's negative ratings could be driven up in a general election, but "hope" is an elusive and risky target for attack. In Obama's favor, in the words of this strategist, is that he's "incredibly likable," that he has "iconic status," that "Americans would like to vote for an African-American" and that "he represents real change."

Elections can't be forecast with precision eight months out, of course. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, it will be because of strengths not apparent in her lowest moments. And any Democrat has to be favored when 60 percent or more of the public disapproves of the Republican two-term incumbent's performance. As for Obama, he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, according to the National Journal, and his lack of experience might matter to general-election voters in a way it hasn't among hope-hungry Democrats. If Obama has more electorate upside than Hillary, he also might have more downside risk.

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

So my take is, speaking for myself, I'm being honest here. All I do is tell you what I think. What you do with it is up to you. You are not mind-numbed robots, as you know. I'm not a Svengali, I'm not a pied piper, and you're not lemmings running off the cliff. If I look at this roster of three candidates -- if I look at Hillary-Obama, about whom there's not a dime's worth of difference, because they're so far left it doesn't matter which one of them wins. If McCain adopts economic policies that sound very much like what you'd get from Hillary-Obama, and if I think those policies are going to take the country down the tubes I'd just as soon the Democrats take the hit for it, not us. Plain and simple.

I think that's pretty wise. I think right now Romney probably -- as the campaign has coalesced and as the campaign has progressed on down the highway -- I think the one candidate of the three still out there on our side that matter (and, actually, it's just two, because Huckabee doesn't, in terms of a chance to win) in saying who more closely embodies all three legs of this conservative stool, you'd have to say that it's Mitt Romney. There's actually no choice in the matter. It certainly isn't Senator McCain.

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
Rush?
yes, very entertaining

---

Hmmmm...I’d say listening to Rush Limbaugh is about as “entertaining” as having pins stuck under my fingernails. He has got to be the most pompous media personality in North America (and, yes, that includes Don Cherry and Bill O’Reilly...combined).

but his show remains the No.1-rated - and by far - radio programme in cities as varied as New York and Los Angeles, and in the country as a whole;

SOMEONE likes listening to him, that is for sure, so maybe the Don Cherry ratings analogy is telling for Canadians in that regard

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
[QB]after Super Bowl, Super Tuesday
several analysts note the inscrutable California polls (36-34 Hillary?), which basically show dead heat Obama-Clinton, and the Dem winner likely to have strength to go all the way

---

What a difference a day makes. Check out Drudge. The top headline is that Reuters is reporting Obama has a 13-point lead in the latest California polls.

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

About Those Dueling California Polls

As you might have seen elsewhere, the two new California polls out today show wildly diverging results: Zogby has Obama up 49-36, while SurveyUSA has Clinton up 52-42. As Josh Marshall says, somebody's gonna end up looking pretty stupid. Most likely they both will--I don't expect the final tally to be more than five or six points in either direction.

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

Your Top Match
Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D)
76.19% match

Your Other Top Matches
New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 71.43%
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) - 66.67%

Middle of the Pack
Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) - 40.48%
Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 21.43%

Your Other Top Matches
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) - 71.00%
New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 70.00%

Middle of the Pack
Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 34.00%
Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) - 30.00%

Bottom of the Barrel
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) - 27.00%
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) - 15.00%

I have no idea how come all of mine included no decimals. I left one unsure, and probably used high/medium and low importance equally. I have no idea how Huckabee scored so high for me (27%, I was expecting about 5%), must be the "Colbert bump."

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Your Other Top Matches
New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 68.29%
Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) - 60.98%

Middle of the Pack
Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) - 41.46%
Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 19.51%

Bottom of the Barrel
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) - 17.07%
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) - 4.88%

quote:

---

Smart resource, wasted on most USians. (Still, they are boasting 2 million that took the quiz so far.) I hope it gets Gravel and Clinton (she topped my list of correlations) a few more votes, I mean grand electors, I mean delegates...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Reading these results, I'm starting to wonder if maybe it's the Gravel camp who made up the quiz!

---

Well I actually think that Mike Gravel has political positions that appeal to a lot of Americans. But voting for someone is about more than political positions. It definately hurts Gravel that he has been out of politics for 27 years and that he will be 78 at the time of the election, which means that should he be able to win and serve two terms he would be 86 at the end. They talk about Cheney being old and he is only 67. McCain's age has been an issue for many and he is 7 years younger than Gravel.

Edit: I am trying to think of older leaders than Gravel would be. Off the top of my head I can only think of Eamon de Valera who became President of Ireland at the youthful age of 76 and was President until he was 90! But I am sure there are more. So it is possible - Go Gravel!

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Albireo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:
Apparently that is especially true because, in most or all states, the Republicans use the idiotic "winner take all" system that is also used in the November presidential vote. So, if you beat your opponents 40%-30%-30%, you get 100% of the delegates for that state, and your opponents get zero. A clear abuse of democracy that everyone seems to just accept without question.

[SNIP]

The Democrats allocate delegates proportionally, so if you lose a state 52-48, you'd still get about 48% of delegates. So it is much less likely that tomorrow will be decisive for Democrats.

---

I was thinking more about this today. Isn't this like most elections? If a person is running for governor and gets 50.1% and the person's opponent gets 49.9%, the person getting 50.1% is "winner-takes-all", no? I'm not sure it's "idiotic" to have a winner-takes-all primary. I mean, at some point in a campaign, a candidate is going to "takes all" relative to her or his opponent if the candidate gets at least 50.00001% of the vote.

With the Republicans using more of the winner-takes-all protocol and the Democrats using a more proportional system, here's the current breakdown:

McCain: 475
Romney: 151

Clinton:328 delegates
Obama: 259 delegates

McCain: 475
Romney: 151
SPREAD: 324

Clinton:371 delegates
Obama: 306 delegates
SPREAD: 65

Obama / Clinton
Total 797 / 845
Alabama 30 / 22
American Samoa 1 / 2
Arizona 25 / 31
Arkansas 9 / 26
California 139 / 231
Colorado 36 / 19
Connecticut 25 / 23
Delaware 9 / 6
Georgia 57 / 30
Idaho 14 / 4
Illinois 101 / 52
Kansas 23 / 9
Massachusetts 39 / 54
Minnesota 49 / 23
Missouri 35 /37
New Jersey 48 / 59
New York 96 / 136
North Dakota 8 / 5
Oklahoma 14 / 24
Tennessee 27 / 41
Utah 12 / 11

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
Clinton is a reptilian kitten-eater.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

But where does she get the reptile kittens? My butcher never has 'em.

---

That's the first time I've heard this line, and it was a very strong and effective one.

It's hardly a new point. She used it back in Iowa:

quote:

---

Clinton noted that her mother fits the description of women who were born before American women got the right to vote, and are now pushing to elect the first woman president. "She has seen a lot happen and change in our country," said Clinton.

---

But in her New York victory speech she was clearly taking the classic "we've come a long way" line to a new personal level.

Is she finally saying that having a woman president is as big a reason for hope and optimism about change as having a black president? That would be nice.

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Clinton had been afraid to overtly play the gender card. [Hence playing it by making the false abortion rights digs at Obama.]

Then there was the whining about Obama 'playing the race card'... which was really just Obama making the simple statement 'yes, I am a black person'.[Bill Clinton being the one who actually played the race card.]

Hillary had been too afraid to make that simple statement paralleling Obama's... hence the 'covert' playing of the race and gender cards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
I want to thank all my friends and family, particularly my mother, who was born before women could vote and is watching her daughter on this stage tonight.

That's the first time I've heard this line, and it was a very strong and effective one.

It's hardly a new point. She used it back in Iowa:

But in her New York victory speech she was clearly taking the classic "we've come a long way" line to a new personal level.

Is she finally saying that having a woman president is as big a reason for hope and optimism about change as having a black president? That would be nice.

[ 05 February 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

---

Surveys of voters leaving the polls suggested a reprise of the identity politics that has so long characterized — and at times bedeviled — Democratic politics. Black voters overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama, suggesting an end to a period in which Mrs. Clinton could remain competitive with Mr. Obama for the support of that segment of the Democratic electorate.

Women went, by large margins, to Mrs. Clinton. But in one development that augurs well for Mr. Obama, white men — who had largely voted for Mr. Edwards before — appeared to be heading in his direction. And young voters also went overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama, suggesting a generational divide.

Tough nominating fights can be debilitating for parties. Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant, noted the financial advantage that Mr. Obama had going into the weeks ahead and said that Mrs. Clinton might well be tempted to fight back in a way that could leave the party polarized and provide an opening for Mr. McCain.

“This could put Hillary into a corner,” Mr. Murphy said, “and if she tries a real negative campaign, it could split the party and be a hangover in a general election.”

...........

** If the Identity Politics dogmatists a la Gloria Steinem insist on making this a "battle of the categories", then yes, the whole race COULD turn really sour, although Obama has certainly risen above every provocation to date.

But Hillary Clinton really REALLY wants this thing, and I can see it getting a lot nastier, right up to and including a pre-convention fight over seating/not seating the renegade Florida and Michigan delegations at Denver this summer.

Stay tuned.

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Surveys of voters leaving the polls suggested a reprise of the identity politics that has so long characterized — and at times bedeviled — Democratic politics.

---

Get me a rewrite. As the article itself notes, Obama may have won white men, and won the white vote in California. That by itself blows the article's lead out of the water. The article should be the fading of "identity politics" continues.

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

I can see it getting a lot nastier, right up to and including a pre-convention fight over seating/not seating the renegade Florida and Michigan delegations at Denver this summer.

---

I'm pretty sure that seating would require a unamity that will not exist. Unless there is some kind of rear guard action that can be launched over constitutional and/or procedural fine points. But I think not even that: there was a very clear consensus on locking in the punishing of those two states. While I don't know the details of how it was done, it would have been thorough to head off this sort of thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

But where does she get the reptile kittens? My butcher never has 'em.

---

That's what i get for letting my iguana sleep with my cat.

Cute little PredAlien's !

I don't know what to think about the vote. I have heard Zero people express anything resembling enthusiasm about Hillary, except for people enthusiastically disliking her as an elected leader.

I voted for Kucinich & yes for Prop 93, which was related to term limits. so far I have seen zero mention of Kucinich, for example at the CNN poll site
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/index.html#20080205

I had the feeling I was wasting gas & time, driving around looking for the polling place. State-sponsored bread & circuses.

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: wwSwimming ]

quote:

---

It looks like Obama, by the narrowest of margins, won last night’s delegate hunt. By our estimates, he picked up 840 to 849 delegates versus 829-838 for Clinton; the Obama camp projects winning by nine delegates (845-836). He also won more states (13 to Clinton’s eight; New Mexico is still outstanding), although she won the most populous ones (California and New York). And Obama’s argument that he might be the most electable Democrat in a general election was bolstered by the fact that he won nine red states versus four for Clinton. Yet with Clinton’s overall superdelegate lead (259-170, based on the lists they've released to us), and when you toss in the 63-48 lead Obama had among pledged delegates going into Super Tuesday, it appears Clinton has about 70 more overall delegates than Obama does (1140-1150 for Clinton versus 1070 to 1080 for Obama). It’s that close, folks…

. . . .

Nationally, Clinton won among women (52%-45%), and Obama won among men (53%-42%). Obama won big among voters ages 17-29 (59%-38%), and Clinton won big among those 60 and older (55%-38%). Obama won the African-American vote (82%-16%), while Clinton won Latinos (61%-37%). Obama did seem to do better among whites (with 43% of that vote); in fact, Obama won white men (49%-44%). And Obama won among those making $200,000 or more (52%-46%), while Clinton won among those making less than $50,000.

---

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Mrs. Clinton won 584 delegates in Tuesday’s vote, bringing her total to 845, according to a count by The Associated Press. Mr. Obama won 569 delegates for a total of 765, The A.P. reported.

---

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
If it matters, Clinton 584, Obama 569.

---

Yes but all of the delegate results have not yet been counted. There should be 1678 delegates up for grabs from Tuesday. That leaves more than 500 still not decided yet (for instance it appears as though California has only so far awarded 65 out of 370 delegates). The calculation process in many states is very difficult. Which is why the post above yours has Obama predicting a narrow win for Super Tuesday. He believes he has the majority of those not yet decided. I suspect he is right. But regardless in the overall delegate count Clinton will still have a narrow lead.

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

Ultra conservative Stephen Colbert has come out as one of the conservative John McCain haters on his show last night.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
There should be 1678 delegates up for grabs from Tuesday. . . The calculation process in many states is very difficult.

---

The New York Times has 667 Clinton, 583 Obama, with Alaska, Colorado, Democrats Abroad, Idaho, Minnesota, and North Dakota to be decided.

CNN says:
Alaska Clinton 4, Obama 9
Colorado Clinton 6, Obama 13
Idaho Clinton 3, Obama 15
Minnesota Clinton 24, Obama 48
North Dakota Clinton 5, Obama 8

That might be 719 Clinton, 676 Obama from Super Tuesday. Missing: 286.

CBS says Clinton leads with 763 Super Tuesday delegates, compared to 731 for Obama.

AP, which USA TODAY uses as the official count, awarded Clinton 784 delegates in Tuesday's voting and Obama 764. Still missing: 133.

Someone asked me to explain how the American primary system works. System?

[ 07 February 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

"I disagree with Sen. McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating al-Qaida and terror," he said.

[ 08 February 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
Super delegates came in in the 1980s as an effort by party leaders and elected officials to have more say in who gets nominated, and to offset the proportional distribution, as opposed to winner-take-all, distribution of delegates in each state. The motive behind it was to allow party insiders to possibly prevent someone considered to be "unelectable" from being nominated and, conversely, prevent a deadlocked convention.

---

Take Germany, for example, the German constitution says:

quote:

---

Political parties shall participate in the formation of the political will of the people. They may be freely established. Their internal organization must conform to democratic principles. They must publicly account for their assets and for the sources and use of their funds.

---

quote:

---

Members of the executive committee and members of other bodies in a regional organization . . . may participate in a delegates' assembly. However, in this case they may only be given voting rights on a scale corresponding to one fifth of the total number of members at the assembly who are entitled to vote.

---

But who are those one-fifth? Most of them have been elected by party members. Members of parliament and other high-ranking persons holding office as the result of a general election may not exceed one-fifth of the total number of executive committee members. (Article 12, Political Parties Act.) That's 20% of 20%.

So no more than 4% of the votes at a state nominating convention are held by "elected officials" corresponding to the Democratic Party's "super-delegates."

quote:

---

I've worn my heart on my sleeve for a year. I'm for Obama.

[snip]

The relation between agendas of hope and change north and south of the border is complicated but let's hope a revival of liberal hope south of the border gives liberals a boost here in Canada.

---

A 'complicated' relationship to be sure, since 'liberal' Michael Ignatieff seems to be looking for a boost from 'liberal' Obama, who is reviving hope south of the border in large part because he took a stand on Iraq that was diametrically opposed to that of people like Michael Ignatieff.

From Obama's website:

quote:

---

Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. In 2002, as the conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war, Obama had the judgment and courage to speak out against the war. He said the war would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences."

---

The Ultraconservative thing is purely for entertainment purposes only. When he gets conservatives on, he makes fools of them, or totally alpha dogs them.

What is so funny about Colbert is that people both on the right and left fall for his schtick.

Last night, for example, he had Mike Huckabee on his show, which is certainly political suicide for Huckabee. He then had Huckabee play air hockey with a plastic map of Texas as the puck. Air hockey is a real American game, eh?

Watch Colbert closely before you determine he is an arch neo-con. Supporting George W. Bush is so ridiculous it is funny. No one in their right mind would do such a thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albireo:
Apparently that is especially true because, in most or all states, the Republicans use the idiotic "winner take all" system that is also used in the November presidential vote. So, if you beat your opponents 40%-30%-30%, you get 100% of the delegates for that state, and your opponents get zero. A clear abuse of democracy that everyone seems to just accept without question.

[SNIP]

The Democrats allocate delegates proportionally, so if you lose a state 52-48, you'd still get about 48% of delegates. So it is much less likely that tomorrow will be decisive for Democrats.

---

Yes, and in contrast to the Republicans, Democrats has "super delegates". About 20% of the total number of delegates (basically professional politicians).

"Tempering" of the the Democrats' proportional delegate selection process:

"Super delegates were created as part of the Democratic Party reforms after the debacle of 1972, when a too-liberal candidate, Sen. George McGovern, made it to the head of the ticket. The reforms emphasized the proportional allocation of delegates in primaries and the selection of super delegates who could provide the ballast needed in close contests or could guide the party away from a disastrous choice. They were to be "a safety valve," as one super delegate put it recently.

So was the whole "who made Huckabee" trio with Conan O'Brian.

Huckabee will probably go up now anyway, as Romney is out of it, and said Freepers (denizens of Free Republic, the diametric opposite of this site) need to protest against McCain. But this will probably be despite Colbert, not because of him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uncle John:
How is being on Colbert going to appeal to Huckabee's humourless Freeper base?

Huckabee will probably go up now anyway, as Romney is out of it, and said Freepers (denizens of Free Republic, the diametric opposite of this site) need to protest against McCain. But this will probably be despite Colbert, not because of him.

But then again, you could be right.

---

Huckabee isn't running for president, he is running to be the voice of a new generation of evangelicals. His message of "life begins at conception but it doesn't end at birth" and emphasis on poverty and global warming exemplify that (as does, to a lesser degree, his initially liberal stance on accommodating illegal immigrants). His record as governor of Arkansas was as a fairly pragmatic guy, not opposed to raising taxes or spending (spending went up 65% under his watch). This is in contrast to the other governor to come out of Hope, Arkansas.

Younger evangelicals, for whom the culture wars of the 60's seem passe, are increasingly open to that message. Take a look at Huck's demographics, they skew substantially younger than the other candidates (and generally more female). I would suspect that many of them watch the Daily Show or Colbert Report. Huckabee, to his credit, did a good job of targeting youth - courting none other than Chuck Norris.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

Get me a rewrite. As the article itself notes, Obama may have won white men, and won the white vote in California. That by itself blows the article's lead out of the water. The article should be the fading of "identity politics" continues.

[ 06 February 2008: Message edited by: josh ]

---

What humourless ideologues across the spectrum often miss is that self-deprecating humour, when properly done, can be very effective. Why do you think so many Canadian politicos are happy to be skewed by Rick Mercer, Marg Delahunty &c.

Huckabee in deed is not the creation of the freeper base, nor "Pat Robertson with charisma," nor, seemingly, a conservative ideologue.

http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/329/

"The Life And Death Issues Eclipsed By Election Hysteria

Specifically, here is what I would need from a candidate to even consider the possibility of voting for her/him:

•1) Is that candidate aware of and astutely informed regarding the reality and scope of climate change? Will he in the first month in office convene a worldwide summit on the issue and enact emergency measures in the United States to address it?

•2) Is the candidate aware of and astutely informed regarding Peak Oil, Peak Natural Gas, Peak Water, and the depletion of all of the earth's substances which we have come to call "resources"? Will he in the first month in office convene a worldwide summit (in conjunction with a climate change summit) on Peak Oil and other energy depletion issues and enact emergency measures in the U.S. to address them?

•3) Is the candidate aware of and astutely informed regarding the approximately 4 trillion dollars "missing" from the U.S. Treasury? Will she within the first month in office demand that Congress implement a full-scale investigation of the missing money?

•4) Is the candidate aware of and astutely informed regarding the creation of the current housing bubble? Will he immediately demand a Congressional investigation of the key players in the current subprime mortgage crisis?

•5) Only 16% of Americans believe the official story of 9/11. Has the candidate researched the events prior to, during, and after September 11, 2001? Will she immediately demand a Congressional investigation of September 11 in which all sessions of that investigation are open to the American public and in which all individuals who testify are under oath?

•6) Did this candidate vote for the Patriot Act? In terms of the unprecedented shredding of the Constitution and the evisceration of civil liberties during the Bush II administration, is that candidate willing to demand repeal of the Patriot Act and all Executive Orders signed by George W. Bush.

•7) Is the candidate fully aware of the catastrophic financial situation in the United States and the world in terms of debt, balance of trade, and fate of the dollar issues? Will he enact emergency measures to return the U.S. to a gold standard and implement a full-scale investigation of the Federal Reserve with the long-term goal of abolishing it?"

I think it's worth voting even if your vote might be counted. Also, I like meeting Democratic Party activists, a lot of them are good people. I know one couple in SF that have registered about 5000 people to vote, mostly Democratic.