tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post444927953215619340..comments2023-11-05T02:58:27.295-05:00Comments on Campaign Diaries: Clinton tries to revive Florida and Michigan debateTanielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17333289018970623022noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-54166296313856180792008-04-08T12:21:00.000-04:002008-04-08T12:21:00.000-04:00The assertion that this is Barack's to lose is an ...The assertion that this is Barack's to lose is an awfully powerful curse. Usually that ends up happening.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-70094732741214801452008-04-08T11:30:00.000-04:002008-04-08T11:30:00.000-04:00Michigan will count and Obama will get nothing unl...Michigan will count and Obama will get nothing unless Edwards concedes his share of those uncommitted. I highly doubt Obama would have a chance in a do-over. Edwards holds the key to Barack's success and he knows it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-2652346578017378292008-04-08T08:51:00.000-04:002008-04-08T08:51:00.000-04:00MI vote was declared unconstitutional, so nothing ...MI vote was declared unconstitutional, so nothing will ever come from it. <BR/><BR/>It was the right thing for Obama to remove his name, Clinton looked like an idiot getting only 55% of the vote to "uncommitted" She would not win if there was a second chance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-60379404868489462762008-04-08T07:54:00.000-04:002008-04-08T07:54:00.000-04:00Obama taking his name off the MI. ballot was a big...Obama taking his name off the MI. ballot was a bigger mistake. Now he lacks clear title to the 40% uncommitted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-685032905582180612008-04-08T04:59:00.000-04:002008-04-08T04:59:00.000-04:00"or (b) Obama is caught in flagrante delicto with ..."or (b) Obama is caught in flagrante delicto with an armadillo."<BR/><BR/>HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!<BR/><BR/>I laughed so hard, I spilled my coffee!!Statistikhengsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14117706673612587798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-22997872781943687482008-04-08T04:58:00.000-04:002008-04-08T04:58:00.000-04:00I see a number of ways to look at this so-called "...I see a number of ways to look at this so-called "rogue state" problem. <BR/><BR/>1.) Those states (meaning, their party hierarchies) knew exactly what they were doing when these chose to go against both DNC and RNC rules. Both of those states knew what the penalty (per party, respectively) would be.<BR/><BR/>2.) All three of the major DEM candidates signed the <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin" REL="nofollow"> four state pledge</A>, this was reported on September 1, 2007, FOUR FULL MONTHS BEFORE THE PRIMARIES BEGAN. First, Edwards and Obama signed the 4 state pledge, Clinton followed suit hours later. At that time, FL had already been stripped of it's delegates (Aug. 25, 2007) and Granholm from MI, in spite of having witnessed FL get penalized, announced MI's intent to bump it's primary up.<BR/><BR/>3.) Voters in those 2 states had four complete months to protest this whole thing: Folks, that's 120 days! Did anyone see the people in MI of FL storming the barricades in order to demand that their votes be counted in the primaries? Did anyone see riot? No. All was quiet on the atlantic and the great lakes front until it became evidently clear that the DEMS would be in a close race for the nomination. Then, all of a sudden, these two states suddenly became very important again. <BR/><BR/>So, we can maybe summize that the GOP played a major role in this, with a GOP legislature in FL having rammed this down everyone's throats, hoping and calculating that it would play out badly for the DEMS (and it has). But MI has absolutely no excuse whatsoever. I have never see something as dumb as this in electoral politics in my entire life. Here we have a major rust belt state having just witnessed another major state being penalized, knowing full well that if they follow suit, they will also be penalized, and they still went through with it. And this time, there was no republican majority in the MI statehouse to force the DEMS to go along with a bump-up decision.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that the Clinton camp, calculating that Obama would have been swept out of the way after Super Tuesday, would have just let the issue die and made many many promises to those two states, should Clinton win the GE in November. But alas, things did not work out as the Clinton team thought.<BR/><BR/>So, what to do?<BR/><BR/>Well, Obama is currently ahead in the PD's, he is behind in the SDs, but ahead when you combine the PDs and the SDs. He is ahead in the PV. There are ten contests yet to go. Without FL and MI, Clinton must, and I repeat, she must win all 10 with at least 65% (that's a 30% margin at the least) in order to overtake Obama in the PDs, in which case she would also take a commanding lead in the PV.<BR/><BR/>However, as we already see how things are shaping up in PA, IN and NC, this is not going to happen. Clinton's winning margin average in PA is +6.3, down from +15.2 in March, a -8.9 margin shift, very, very bad news for Clinton. She needs to win PA with a much, much larger margin than she won Ohio in order to catch up to Obama. <BR/><BR/>Conversely, in NC, Obama's winning margin average is up from + 7.4 from January-March to + 13.6 for March-April, and when you calculate only the April polls, his margin average is + 20.6 and still growing. <BR/><BR/>IN has been barely polled, there have been 4 polls and one is 7 weeks old. Of the three newer polls, Clinton has a winning margin average of + 7.0, which means she is relatively starting with a much leaner margin than she started with in PA. And Obama has an entire month still to whittle this lead down to practically nothing.<BR/><BR/>She will win PA. Now we have two weeks to see how big or small the win will be. I see her coming in with a 6% to 7% winning margin, way under the 30% margin that she needs.<BR/><BR/>Obama will win a huge landslide in NC, probably 60%-40%. His margin will increase in the next four weeks and on top of that, he has consistently outperformed polls.<BR/><BR/>And IN will tighten up so much that no one really gets an advantage. If these trends continue, Clinton will win IN with between 1% and 2%.<BR/><BR/>With her win in PA being effectively cancelled out by his win in NC and a squeaker in IN, on May 6th we will essentially be exactly where we are today: Obama will be ahead in the PDs (and probably by about the same margin, +/- 3 or 4 PDs), behind in the SDs (unless a huge block suddenly declares, which is entirely possible) but ahead in the combined PDs and SDs and still ahead in the PV.<BR/><BR/>Even if you count FL in, he is still ahead in the same categories.<BR/><BR/>And it is wildly unfair to want to count a state where one candidate played by the rules and took his name off the ballot but the other did not. In MI, Obama will get ZERO delegates, if MI is counted. Does anyone think he would have won 0% of the PV?<BR/><BR/>But even if you allow MI as well, at the end of the day, if the contests go as I think they will, he will be ahead in the:<BR/><BR/>PDs<BR/>SDs<BR/>PDs and SDs combined<BR/>PV.<BR/><BR/>It's close, but mathematically and statistically, this nomination is for Obama to lose. And after PA, GM, NC and IN it will be not only statistically impossible for Clinton to catch him (as is now the case), but also mathematically impossible, for after these states have voted, there will only be 184 PDs left up for grabs and Obama will still have around a +170 PD lead. GAME OVER.<BR/><BR/>Clinton can learn from Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, Paul, Huckabee, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden and Co. and learn when it is time to go. Namely, before she does damage to the party.<BR/><BR/>Probably the best thing is to put forth a rules change vote at the convention to alter the penalty so that the delegations will be halved, as the GOP already has in it's rules. This was the first mistake the DNC made: when you are establishing penalty, you cannot be so draconian the first time around, otherwise you have nowhere to go should partes decide to test your will a second time around. That being said, though this is probably the best compromise, I am still personally against it, for I believe that rules are made to be stuck by.<BR/><BR/>Big mistakes:<BR/><BR/>1.) the DNC decides to strip the complete delegations of states that front load instead of just halving their delegations, thus giving the GOP an option to play good-cop, bad-cop.<BR/><BR/>2.) Clinton keeps her name on the MI ballot.<BR/><BR/>3.) The Obama camp drags it's feet in the MI re-vote proposal.<BR/><BR/>But the biggest mistake of all:<BR/><BR/>4.)he people of those states did not protest in the time where it could have made a difference. Not hardly a peep. With rights come also responsibilities.<BR/><BR/>OF THE PEOPLE<BR/>BY THE PEOPLE<BR/>FOR THE PEOPLEStatistikhengsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14117706673612587798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-71373714769219363422008-04-08T04:42:00.000-04:002008-04-08T04:42:00.000-04:00Please....I know there's tremendous pressure to sa...Please....<BR/><BR/>I know there's tremendous pressure to say something new during the dead period prior to PA, but your Corzine scenario is not even coherent, like something out of a bad pot-boiler. Bayh and other acolytes are trying to spin stories like a top, but the bottom line is this: Super Ds aren't going to Clinton unless (a) Clinton skunks Obama in PA; unexpectedly wins (or comes exceptionally close) in NC, Indiana and OR; runs the table in WV, KY, etc.; and the polls turn upside down in a McCain match-up; or (b) Obama is caught in flagrante delicto with an armadillo.<BR/><BR/>In the meanwhile, Maggie Williams is simply trying to tread water to see what else turns up. It's a logical thing for her to do, but that doesn't mean there is any logic to her assertions. What with Penn, Bosnia, the hospital story and everything else in play, any distraction is a bonus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com