Democratic Party Changes the Rules After The Game

Turkana writes in TheLeftCoaster.com: "The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee has made its decision about the Florida and Michigan delegates. I'm not going to bother with the details, because the vast majority of those who have been screaming about the roooooolz have no actual understanding of them, anyway. So, I'm going to keep this simple and straightforward: those of you who have been screaming about the rules, please show me where the rules provide for the DNC to simply allocate pledged delegates to a candidate who was not by any of the absurd allocation rules voted those pledged delegates. I don't care about what you think was fair, or what you want people to believe someone once said about the two states and their alleged rules violations, or who you think has won or is more electable or is nicer or more honest or whatever some of you love to rant about, no matter whether or not it relates to the actual posted topic. I want you to show me the rule that says a candidate who was not voted pledged delegates from a state can simply be awarded pledged delegates by the DNC. Because the rules were changed, today, in the middle of the game, but not by Hillary Clinton or her supporters.

Anyone who truly believes that our nominating process is honest and democratic has no idea what they're talking about. That doesn't mean that we won't have a legitimate nominee, because when the party is run by adherents of Calvinball, there is no such thing as legitimacy or illegitimacy. But legitimate does not mean democratic. Which the Democratic Party is not."

Electibilty is the Name of the Game

From TheStreet.com on April 1, 2008 by John Fouts: "Barack and Michelle Obama sent a message to the media early in the primary season. Barack said:
"I'm confident that I will get her [Clinton] votes if I'm the nominee, it's not clear that she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."
Then Michelle said on supporting Hillary Clinton:

"I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone."
The logic behind those statements went unquestioned by the media. Ever since, the media has begun saying how Obama supporters would defect from a Clinton candidacy, ruining the Democratic party and handing the election to Sen. John McCain.

A poll last week put that thesis to shame. Gallup polled Democrats on their likelihood to defect from a Democratic candidate and crossover to support McCain: 28% of Clinton supporters chose McCain over Obama, while only 19% of Obama supporters abandon Clinton for McCain.

Enough said for the lazy analysis in the media.

This is bad news for Obama come a general election. Clinton has very strong support among women, and this election offers a classic scenario they know well: A lesser experienced man gets all the breaks on the way to being promoted to a better position. The media forgets sexism and intently focuses only on race.

Furthermore, Clinton has strong support among Latinos. Some of those Latinos may defect from Obama to McCain as the Arizonan can boast a reasonable record on immigration. McCain has no plans to demagogue illegal immigration in the general election, which would hurt many Republicans with the Latino vote.

Clinton also has strong support from older voters. Those voters may choose to vote for McCain over Obama. Obama has created a generational divide in his campaigning and chosen to cede seniors to Clinton. McCain proves popular with seniors, and white seniors may prefer McCain to Obama. In his speech on race, many pundits thought Obama threw his white grandmother "under the bus" by pointing out her racism. I think this will hurt Obama in this age group.

Nevertheless, so-called McCain Democrats (defectors) appear to exist. McCain has gained in national polls in recent weeks, running much stronger against either Democrat. If defections come from Democratic candidates in sufficient numbers, it may swing the election to McCain in November.

Yet, the media for the most part has ignored the poll, instead blasting Clinton for remaining in the race. In the words of media columnist Howard Kurtz:

"This is the new media narrative that the former first lady is confronting, that she is prolonging the agony and is just being selfish by refusing to pack it in."
The turnaround is stunning considering the huge controversy over Obama's pastor two weeks ago. Even Obama stated over the weekend Clinton had no reason to exit the race, despite high profile statements from some of his surrogates such as Sen. Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) and Gov. Bill Richardson (D., N. M.).
Blue States vs. Red States
The myopic media coverage made its way into analysis of another recent poll. A MSNBC/WSJ poll showed that Obama has rebounded from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal. The poll showed Clinton and Obama tied at 45% apiece among Democrats. The media said the poll proves Obama is poised to continue his romp over Clinton. Of course, it should surprise nobody Obama has rebounded with Democrats. The media has ensured this with cozy coverage, lauding his speech on race in America.
But we shouldn't jump so fast to conclusions as something critical went missing in their analysis. Here's the money quote many failed to notice:

"While the senator's support among Democrats is little changed, he did slip among conservatives and Republican voters, groups that had shown some attraction to Sen. Obama's message of changing partisan politics in Washington."
Obama had convinced many in the media that his campaign remains different. He will unite the country and overcome the blue state-red state divide with his bipartisan tone. Maybe, maybe not; it's an unproven thesis.
The media missed the true problem with his pastor's well publicized diatribes that appeared in sermons. Patriotism will become an issue, not race. Wright's statements of "God Damn America" will be repeated again and again in the general election. Republicans feel queasy attacking Obama on race, but patriotism has long been fair game.

The attacks won't come from the McCain campaign; he has denounced racial attacks. But given what they did to Sen. John Kerry, a fellow Vietnam veteran, in 2004, it does seem likely some conservative group will run "swift-boat" style ads on Obama's patriotism. They will talk about him not wearing a flag pin; they will play the tape of his wife saying she's never been proud of her country. Lastly, they will play Pastor Wright's anti-American statements.

Obama's favorability ratings could drop like a stone in middle America, including key swing states such as Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. Obama may recover by giving another speech on patriotism. But if the attacks come late in the election, it may be too late for him to recover.

Obama's unifying message sounds wonderful, and I wish it were possible. But I believe it won't happen in this election. Whether some people like it or not, the presidential election map still comes down to the electoral college math plain and simple. States still appear blue and red on close observation.

Turning back to 2004, George Bush beat John Kerry by 286 electoral votes to 251. Two key swing states in the election were Florida and Ohio. McCain maintains solid margins over Obama in both of these states according to the running average at realclearpolitics.com. McCain has even pulled ahead of Obama in the blue state of Pennsylvania.

Should Obama lose those states, he would need to find other swing states to turn the tide. Some had pointed to Missouri as one of those states or Virginia, but a new Rasmussen poll has McCain opening up a wide lead in Missouri over both Clinton and Obama. The blue state-red state divide stays intact.

Clinton polls marginally worse than Obama in national polls against McCain. But she fares much better in the swing states of both Ohio and Florida. If she were to win one of those races, now McCain would be behind the eight-ball needing to pull off some upsets. Winning the national vote guarantees nothing in a presidential election -- just ask Al Gore.


The Delegate Race Looks to the General Election
Clinton likely wishes the Democrats used the electoral college to determine the election or winner-take-all. She would have sewn up the nomination with her big states already. Instead, Obama leads because of proportional representation of delegates and wins in many caucuses.
The Democratic delegate system has come under intense scrutiny. The close and quirky contest has revealed several problems for the Democrats that they may have to solve to avoid a brokered convention come August in Denver.

First, the Democratic party has to deal with two renegade states that attempted to buck the primary system: Florida and Michigan. The party penalized the states by nullifying the primaries and declining to seat their delegates. The Republicans, on the other hand, removed half of the delegates maintaining the competitive nature of those primaries. Clinton scored "victories" in both of the contests, which have been questioned.

The wins appeared valid to others, especially Clinton. In Michigan, Obama's campaign decided to delete his name from the ballot in the state in preference to focusing on South Carolina. This was a campaign strategy -- not a requirement. At the time, Clinton had great support among superdelegates and unions in the state. Voter turnout was small.

In Florida, all of the candidates pledged not to campaign there in adherence to the approved early state primaries schedule. Again, the strategy favored Obama. He did not have to waste resources in a state where Clinton held huge leads in the polls. Voters in the sunshine state turned out strong for Clinton, and she won handily on huge voter turnout. She, in fact, received several hundred thousand more votes in the state than the winner of the Republican primary, McCain.

But a new investigative piece by Wayne Barrett throws new light on these two states. Barrett argues that Republicans were critical in leading the charge to move up both of these primaries, and in Florida tied the bill to ensuring a paper trail to electronic voting. Worse, the Democratic party did not have to create such a harsh punishment for the two states. It makes one question why Howard Dean's 50-state strategy shrunk to 48 states.

The Clinton campaign has been pushing for these wins to count. The Obama campaign has been coy about their status and has not made any effort to support a re-vote or any other simple solution. It's a stalemate at this point where the delegates stay in limbo.

The Democratic delegate system is complex having both pledged delegates and superdelegates. Pledged delegates are mostly decided by either caucuses or primaries, basically representing the voters. Superdelegates are elected officials or party officials with strong ties to the party. A superdelegate vote counts for the same amount as a pledged delegate.

The system sounds decidedly undemocratic. Yet in this very close race between Clinton and Obama, neither side seems likely to arrive at a majority without winning a large number of the superdelegates, approximately 796. Clinton holds a slight margin of superdelegates, while Obama holds a wider margin among pledged delegates. She requires more superdelegates than Obama to win the nomination.

If the contest continues an essential tie, the superdelegates will be forced to decide on a candidate. It would be a first since the system was created in 1980 by the Democratic party and many hope it happens before the convention in August.

Those superdelegates will have to decide on the electability argument, and I think many may find Clinton has a better chance to defeat McCain in the general election based on an analysis of electability in swing states and their effect upon the electoral college. "

Obama Wants Republicans to Choose Democratic Presidential Candidate

From Salon.com: "The Obama campaign hopes to register 100,000 Pennsylvania voters as Democrats before the state's March 24 voter registration deadline.
Vincent Rossmeier

Mar. 14, 2008 | Pennsylvania's Democratic primary is still over a month away, but Barack Obama's campaign is already out in full force in the Keystone State.

Obama has tried to downplay expectations for his performance in the state thus far, saying during a speech Tuesday that Hillary Clinton "is favored to win in a blowout." But both the Politico and the Los Angeles Times have published stories recently about the Obama campaign's efforts to register thousands of independent and Republican voters as Democrats before the March 24 voter registration deadline. The vote itself will be held on April 22; as it's what's called a "closed" primary, only registered Democrats will be allowed to participate in the Democratic half of the primary.

If the Obama campaign is to pull off an upset, the new registrants will be vitally important. As the Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown observes, "The final tabulations [of the voter rolls] from the Department of State could offer the first tangible indications of whether Obama can catch Clinton in a state where she holds the advantage."

So far, Clinton has tended to have an edge over Obama in closed primaries. With some exceptions, Obama typically attracts more support from Republicans and independents than his opponent, and he'll definitely need their votes this time around. The demographics of the state's Democrats seem to favor Clinton, and many of the state's most powerful Democratic politicians have endorsed her, including Gov. Ed Rendell and the mayors of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

While the Politico piece focuses on the Obama campaign's efforts to convert Republicans and independents, an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer from Wednesday indicates that the strategy adopted by Obama officials in Pennsylvania is similar to what they've employed in many other states. Marcia Gelbart and Dwight Ott write, "The Obama campaign is largely going after the coalition of voters it has relied on to win elsewhere: African Americans, college-age students, and independents who register as Democrats for the primary." In recent days, Obama organizers and staffers have reportedly been highly visible on Pennsylvania’s numerous college campuses.

According to the L.A. Times, the Obama campaign is seeking to register an additional 100,000 voters as Democrats in the next two weeks. Currently, there are 3.89 million registered Democratic voters in the state.

Obama himself has even been tapped for a video explaining registration and voting procedures. The video, which was posted to his campaign Web site's blog on Friday, can be viewed below. "

Obama Does Not Get Majority of Democratic Voters in Primaries

From NationalReview.com:
"In open primaries, some of Barack’s best friends are Republicans.

By John McLaughlin


There’s an important story in the Democratic primaries that the mainstream media either are missing or don’t want to report: In open Democratic primaries, the most supportive political segments for Barack Obama have been Republicans and conservatives.

Admittedly, these groups do not make up a large part of the Democratic-primary electorate. But the trend has been noticeable since Iowa, where entrance polls at the Democratic caucuses reported that the strongest segment for Obama was not registered Democrats, who voted 31 percent for Sen. Clinton and 32 percent for Obama, but rather the 3 percent who were registered Republicans. They voted 44 percent for Obama and only 10 percent for Clinton. Independents similarly gave Obama more support than Clinton, by 41 percent to 17 percent .

Because of Iowa’s special status and convoluted rules, one might think these results would not be typical. But on February 5, Super Tuesday, which had a mix of open and closed primaries, a similar phenomenon occurred. Among the 79 percent of voters who were affiliated Democrats, Clinton won 52 percent to 45 percent . Independents, who accounted for 18 percent of the vote, preferred Obama 53 percent to 37 percent . But there was another 3 percent who claimed to be Republicans, and they voted for Obama 53 percent to 36 percent .

Could this be a realignment? Conservative Republicans leaving their party to become Obama acolytes? Or was it perhaps strategic voting for the weaker candidate in a general election?

Virginia’s open primary on February 12 was the next test. There Republicans made up 7 percent of Democratic primary voters, and they overwhelmingly favored Obama, 72 percent to 23 percent . The 22 percent of voters who were independents weren’t far behind, at 69 percent for Obama and 30 percent for Clinton. Virginia Democrats were a bit less enthusiastic, at 62 percent to 38 percent . But the strongest Obama vote came from the 12 percent who called themselves conservatives, a group drawing members from all three party categories. They voted 73 percent to 24 percent for Obama.



A week later, in Wisconsin, Republicans accounted for 9 percent of Democratic primary voters. They went for Obama 72 percent to 28 percent. Another 28 percent were independents; they favored Obama 64 percent to 33 percent. Registered Democrats went 53 percent Obama and 46 percent Clinton. As in Virginia, the 14 percent who called themselves conservatives voted 59 percent to 40 percent for Obama. (Most of the numbers in this article are from CNN and Fox News exit polls and can be found on their websites.)

Is there a secret “YAF for Obama” movement? Are McCarthyites going gaga for Barack?

Finally, last week saw an open primary in Texas, and Rush Limbaugh called for some strategic crossover voting. Polls had shown that in a hypothetical November showdown, Clinton trailed John McCain by about 5 points, while Obama led him by a similar margin. So Rush told his massive conservative dittohead audience: Vote for Hillary! We need Hillary!

Did Rush swing the Texas election? Probably not. Exit polls showed that 10 percent of Democratic primary voters were Republicans, and they voted for Obama by 53 percent to 46 percent over Clinton. That’s a higher crossover rate and a closer margin than in most other states, so there may have been something of a Limbaugh effect, but the overall pattern remains: Republicans voting in Democratic primaries clearly favor Obama. As in other states, the 24 percent who claimed to be independents voted for Obama 52 percent to 46 percent . Only the 67 percent of self-proclaimed Democrats voted for Clinton, by 53 percent to 47 percent.

What’s going on here? Why are Republicans and conservatives so strongly supporting the most liberal senator in the country?

The answer is a simple case of “never overlook the obvious”: Obama attracts these unlikely supporters because he’s running against a woman who has an 80 percent unfavorable rating with Republicans. Why wait to vote against Hillary Clinton in November when you can do it now? Why waste a vote on Rev. Huckabee when God wants you to vote against Sen. Clinton?

Luckily for Senator Clinton, there’s no crossover voting in the Keystone State. It’s up to Obama to win his own party’s voters, with no help from Republicans and anti-Clinton independents. If he can do that in Pennsylvania, the nomination is almost certainly his. If he can’t, his popularity among non-Democrats will be cited both for him (as evidence of his broad appeal) and against him (as evidence that Clinton is the truer Democrat). What both these analyses overlook is that most of those Republican and independent Obama supporters weren’t really voting for Obama; they were voting against Clinton."

— John McLaughlin is CEO of McLaughlin & Associates.