Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

* First, the popular vote. If you add up the Democratic votes from 21 of the 22 states that voted yesterday, you'd see that Senator Hillary Clinton won by a hair. In fact, if this had been a national election, we might be in recount-ville right now.

These numbers, tallied by The New York Times, are based on incomplete returns and do not include Alaska because its results did not represent "one man, one vote":

Mrs. Clinton: 7,427,700, or 48.83 percent;

Mr. Obama: 7,369,798, or 48.45 percent;

John Edwards: 411,740, or 2.70 percent.

We called up Christopher C. Hull, an adjunct professor at Georgetown and author of "Grassroots Rules," which is about the Iowa caucuses, and asked him why Mr. Obama has won so many caucuses.

Mr. Hull said the Obama campaign is just really good at organizing. "It's about pounding the phone, building your lists, having an exact, hard count and moving supporters to the meetings," he said.

Plus, Mr. Obama is "a movement," he said. "A movement is about filling supporters with adrenaline, and that's exactly what it takes to win a caucus _ motivated activists who care deeply about their party or a candidate or an issue. He's winning caucuses because they're good organizers and because the activists are inspired."

Charles Cook, author of the Cook Political Report, agreed that Mr. Obama's strong suit is inspiration, whether it is motivating people to go to a rally (remember the 30,000 who showed up for him and Oprah in South Carolina?) or a caucus.

"Where he really excels is at getting a smaller number of people energized enough to go out and do something," Mr. Cook said. "The drawback is that that intensity is harder to leverage across a larger universe of a primary electorate. If there were more caucuses, he would be doing even better."

I have no idea what you are talking about, fbaezer, but I am sure it makes sense.
I got Missouri right (ie Obama) but I was way off on the %.
I, like Soz, got up extra early this morning and tried to make sense of where the candidates ended up, and all of the analyzes. The focus, I think we agree, is on delegates, particularly in the Dem race. On we go to Saturday and then to next Tuesday.
I enjoyed yall's commentary during the overnight. Thanks.

PS Some of my employees are quite interested in the whole process. One of them, a 30-something, asked what would happen if the Dems finished the primary season with no winner. He is a smart guy, but he never has experienced a national political convention that was anything other than a coronation ceremony. I am trying to remember when the last political conventions (Dem or Rep) actually had some suspense.

With 50-55 states and 2000-4000 free agents running around, it could be quite a circus. The last brokered convention was the Republican convention of 1976, with neither Jerry Ford nor Ronald Reagan having a majority of the delegates coming into it. Reagan announced his Veep choice, the liberal senator Richard Schweiker (R-PA), and try to goad Ford into naming his, figuring whoever he chose would alienate half the party. Ford didn't take the bait and was eventually nominated. The bitter convention was at least partly responsible for Ford--then a sitting President--losing to Jimmy Carter in the general election.

Even old enough non-Americans remember Chicago '68.

This leads to the second commentary.
Obama did not win on Supertuesday. Hillary did not knock him out. Barack will gain momentum all the way through March 4. Texas and Ohio will not decide the candidate. Nor is Pennsylvania likely to.
It seems that both candidates will go to the stretch, and then to the Convention.

My questions:
What will be the role of the so-called "superdelegates" in case of a standstill?
Will we witness a decision by the "nomenklatura"? Will the party bosses move the scale?
If so, what will the reaction of the delegates be?
Will the people on the Democratic side bicker, ever more bitterly, all the way to August, while the Republicans coalesce around McCain?
Is the Democratic party ready to lose, yet again, even with an incompetent Republican in the White House and a recession looming?

How He Can

By Diego von Vacano
Wednesday, February 6, 2008; 1:00 PM

The Democratic race may be far from over, but last night's results show one thing for certain: Hispanics overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton. In California, Clinton won on the strength of the Latino vote, and it also helped her in Arizona and New Mexico. Her success is due in part to her positions on the issues and her broad appeal to the lower and working class, where the bulk of Latinos remain. She may have also benefited from Barack Obama's failure to engage Hispanic Americans on the issue of race.

It is unfortunate but true: There is some suspicion, competition and uneasiness between Latinos and African Americans. To the extent that Obama either ignores race or simply accepts the label of "black," even though he is of mixed race, he will not appeal to Latinos. But Obama can improve his standing among Hispanics by better emphasizing how his own understanding of race matches theirs.

Throughout his career, Obama has tried to follow Martin Luther King's dream -- that of a nation where people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." In this dream of a postracial America, what matters is human dignity, not superficial racial characteristics. Most people in America, however, have not yet moved away from the dual paradigm of race. This has created unfair expectations about what Obama should be like or what he should do.

There is a way out of this racial conundrum: to point to the new racial paradigms that are becoming more salient as Hispanics become more prominent in the United States.

Obama's insistence on treating race as a secondary matter is morally laudable. Yet most people rely on their putative "race" to make sense of the world and of their own identities. Since the arrival of the Spanish to the Americas in the 15th century, the idea of racial difference has shaped moderns sensibilities. Europeans came to define themselves against the Amerindian or African "savages." Eminent philosophers such as Immanuel Kant posited the superiority of whites over nonwhites, as did great statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson. In reaction, some great African American minds, such as W.E.B. Du Bois, responded by arguing that blacks "as a race, have a contribution to make to civilization and humanity, which no other race can make." Thus did America's view of race become binary -- you were either white or black.

One way out of this old, often noxious paradigm is to ask Americans to re-imagine the way they understand race. Obama, with his visionary approach and inspiring rhetoric, could be the man to do this.

Hispanics are now the largest ethnic minority in the United States, having recently surpassed African Americans in numbers. Obama can learn from their perspective on race. He should borrow the idea of mestizaje from the Latino tradition.

This idea is the key racial notion in Hispanic culture, and it stands for the mixing of races. It argues that all people are of mixed racial descent, and that there is no "pure" race. We are all the synthesis of many racial origins, which often lie below the surface of accidental skin colors. In a country as diverse and fluid as the United States, this synthetic paradigm of race makes sense.

From the Latino perspective, Obama is a mestizo, just like all of us. Hispanics, who are often treated as a single "race," in fact can be of Amerindian, Spanish, African, German, Japanese or any other ethnic origin. African Americans often have roots that can be traced to Africa, Native American nations and Europe as well. And "whites," who we often assume are a monolithic group, in fact can be of a combination of English, German, Irish, Italian, Scandinavian, or other European origins, with possible ancestry also in Africa, Asia, or Native America.

As the great Mexican philosopher José Vasconcelos wrote in 1925 in his work "The Cosmic Race," we are all members of "a synthetic race." If Obama more forcefully embraces this notion, he will go far in gaining the Latino vote -- for he will show that that he understands that Latinos, too, are part of one large American family.

The writer is an assistant professor of political science at Texas A&M University and author of "The Art of Power: Machiavelli, Nietzsche and the Making of Aesthetic Political Theory."

Interesting.

Who were the last responding precincts, do we know? Big cities?

I'm thinking along racial lines.
I would suppose that, for example, "residential South Saint Louis" (where I learned English) would be among the last: heavily populated, heavily democratic, lots of "ethnic" votes.

If there is no nominee selected by his predicted mid-spring date, or by Puerto Rico's June vote - the last presidential primary on the Democratic calendar - Dean said the party would likely bring both sides together to work out a deal.

"Because I don't think we can afford to have a brokered convention," he said. "That would not be good news for either party."

Caucuses a Redo for Mich., Fla.?
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 6, 2008
Filed at 4:56 p.m. ET



LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- The Democratic National Committee is pressuring Michigan and Florida to hold presidential caucuses so the delegates they lost for holding January primaries could be seated at the national convention, a top Michigan Democrat said Wednesday.

DNC member Debbie Dingell of Michigan said it's unclear whether either state would hold caucuses since they've already held primaries, Michigan on Jan. 15 and Florida on Jan. 29. She said the DNC is asking the states to consider such a plan.

Florida Democratic Party spokesman Mark Bubriski said the party has no intention of holding another election.

''We've said all along that we're going forward with our delegate selection program using the vote on January 29,'' he said. ''We've got more delegate applications than ever.''

Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said the DNC isn't saying anything it hasn't said before to Michigan and Florida.

''Everybody involved, the candidates, the DNC and we, need to remain open-minded. So if someone comes up with a creative way that meets everyone's interests, we can do that'' and get the delegates seated, he said.

DNC spokesman Damien LaVera had no comment.

The stakes are increasingly high as Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton compete for the delegates they need to win the party's presidential nomination, a contest that could stretch to the spring.

The decision could end up being made at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, which makes the question of whether the Michigan and Florida delegates are seated an important strategic point.

Clinton won both states' primaries. Obama was on Florida's ballot but had pulled his name from Michigan's ballot because the state broke DNC rules by moving its primary to Jan. 15. That forced his Michigan supporters to vote for ''uncommitted'' and hope for a share of the uncommitted delegates.

It's unlikely that Clinton would favor holding caucuses, which could open the door to Obama victories in two states she has won. But there also is pressure to hold some kind of alternative election that meets DNC rules so the states don't have to wait to find out if the delegates will be seated.

Both states were stripped of their delegates for violating DNC rules by holding early primaries. Democratic leaders in both states expect the delegates will be seated at the convention, and Clinton recently said she would ask her delegates to support seating the Michigan and Florida delegations.

So far Obama has not heeded her call to do the same, and it's unlikely he would if it means Clinton would get the larger share of delegates from both states.

Florida has 185 pledged delegates and 25 superdelegates who face not being seated at the convention; Michigan has 128 pledged delegates and 28 superdelegates.

Brewer said he has continued to talk to both campaigns, stressing that Michigan is an important state for either candidate to win in November. Florida officials have said their swing state also could be crucial to a Democrat getting into the White House.

One more quote from the blog above:

Quote:

"Where he really excels is at getting a smaller number of people energized enough to go out and do something," Mr. Cook said. "The drawback is that that intensity is harder to leverage across a larger universe of a primary electorate. If there were more caucuses, he would be doing even better."

Cyclop's confidence aside, I think there is a possibility of the Dems getting to the convention without either Clinton or Obama having a lock

The 1968 convention was indeed raucus but I don't think Dean is correct that the last contested convention for the Presidential nomination was 50 years ago. I am 61 and I recall watching conventions as a lad with my mom (who was a liberal Dem and civil rights activist in the south and a political junkie like Nimh and, I'll bet, if challenged, could probably have out-drunk Nimh-Dude under the table). But I digress.

The super-delegates issue that fbaezer raises is important if, indeed, Clinton and Obama arrive virtually tied. They, some 575 of them, will cast their votes in theory not on personal preference or how the voters in their states voted, but on the perceived electability of the Clinton or Obama campaign vs McCain (or whomever).

Sounds okay, but it smells like the smoke-filled room, where those super-delegates-many of whom are elected officials-may be perceived as having their own interests at heart.

On the one hand I would enjoy seeing an open convention, but on the other hand if the decision is left to the super-delegates, there could be a lot of unhappy rank-and-file Dems who toiled in the trenches.
-johnboy-

The Obama grassroots campaign isn't currently focused on Super Delegates. They're still focused on boots on the ground accumulating as many pledged delegates as they can via the populous votes in the remaining states that haven't voted.

By winning a majority of delegates via the populous vote it will be rather difficult for the Clinton campaign to fight for an after-the-fact rule change for Michigan and Florida while ignoring the voting results in the 48 states who followed the rules.

That's probably why the Clinton campaign is focusing on Super Delegates. They think they can get the Super Delegates to do it for them.

One putdown of Obama's results by what sounded very much like a strident Hillary supporter was that, basically, the only states he won were his homestate, states where African-Americans were massively available to mobilise for him -- and caucuses. He said, there's been hardly a proper primary that Obama won, and he used it as an argument to say that Obama would have a big problem in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania - all big states with primaries rather than caucuses, and relatively little in the way of "latte liberals".

One more quote from the blog above:

Quote:

"Where he really excels is at getting a smaller number of people energized enough to go out and do something," Mr. Cook said. "The drawback is that that intensity is harder to leverage across a larger universe of a primary electorate. If there were more caucuses, he would be doing even better."