My little politics blog

None of this means that Obama is going to win, or that McCain can't. But a favorable electoral college map is not one of McCain's strengths going into this.

Much has been made of the multi-cultural, ancestral heritage of Barack Obama.

Research to date has all but ignored the Kentucky heritage
of this candidate for the presidency of the United States.

Barack Obama's roots reach back into pioneer Kentucky,
as well as into the American Revolution.

If Davis insists on using polling to allocate the Michigan delegates, it would seem logical to use the exit poll from the day of the election, which has the virtues of being contemporaneous with the election and consisting of people who actually voted in it. What does the exit poll reveal? If all candidates had been on the ballot, support would have broken down: Clinton 46, Obama 35, Edwards 12, Kucinich 2, Richardson 1.

The exit poll also suggests that very little of the uncommitted support was intended for Clinton. By doing some very simple algebra, we find that uncommitted supporters would have given 77.1 percent of their support to Obama, 19.1 percent to Edwards, and 3.8 percent to Clinton had all names been on the ballot.

And interestingly, some significant fraction of Clinton's support would have gone to Edwards and Obama had their names been on the ballot. Specifically, 11.6 percent of Clinton voters indicated that their first choice was in fact Obama, and another 6.6 percent John Edwards.

I took the liberty of reassigning Michigan's vote based on the exit poll results. In accordance with the exit polls, the Uncommitted vote was assigned 77.1/19.1/3.8 to Obama/Edwards/Clinton, and the Clinton vote was assigned 81.8/11.6/6.6 to Clinton/Obama/Edwards. The vote that went to the other candidates (Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel) is a little tricker to figure, but it appears that 33.2 percent of the "other" vote would have gone to Edwards, 22.3 percent to Obama, 44.5 percent would have stayed with one of the minor candidates (essentially none would have gone to Clinton). Using these figures and the district-by-district results prepared by thegreenpapers.com, we come up with the following reallocated Michigan vote.



If one accepts Davis's argument that polls are an accurate way to evaluate the voters' intent in Michigan (and uses the election night exit poll -- the only poll conducted within a three-month window surrounding the Michigan primary) then Clinton would have beaten Obama by about 50,000 votes in Michigan.

We can also use these reallocated vote totals to assign delegates based on the usual formulas. Note that John Edwards failed to achieve 15 percent viability in any congressional district, so all of the delegates are assigned to Clinton and Obama.



According to this procedure, 69 delegates should be assigned to Clinton and 59 to Obama; none to the other candidates. Interestingly, the 69-59 split exactly matches the one now proposed by Michigan's Democratic Party.

Lanny Davis' solution is not a compromise. On the contrary, it is so intellectually dishonest as to render a compromise more difficult.

Poblano on Lanny Davis' proposed "compromise" on Michigan and Florida -- and how ridiculous it is:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/adventures-in-lannyland.html

Lanny Davis wrote:

And so he should be punished. The upshot of Davis' chutzpah is that Clinton should get 102 out of 130 delegates in Michigan.

So Michigan isn't penalized for breaking the rules (can you imagine what that precedent will do for future primary schedules?). Clinton isn't punished. She is rewarded with a number of delegates she would never have won in a normal primary. Obama is punished. And Clinton gets almost 78 percent of the delegates from Michigan in a state where she was running neck and neck with Obama before the illegitimate primary.

Recall that 538's demographic assessment of how Obama would have done in Michigan if it had been counted as a regular state (and not broken the rules) is as follows: 65 to 63 for Obama. There is no conceivable way that Clinton would have won Michigan by a margin of 102 - 28, or 78 to 22 percent, a far bigger margin than Clinton win in any other primary or caucus. And yet that's what the Clintonites are demanding.

This is what they are aiming for: stealing this nomination by the Rules Committe and then corralling the super-delegates to back them. If the supers do not go their way, they have already warned that Florida and Michigan Democrats may not back Obama in the fall.

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

Clinton isn't punished. She is rewarded with a number of delegates she would never have won in a normal primary. Obama is punished. And Clinton gets almost 78 percent of the delegates from Michigan in a state where she was running neck and neck with Obama before the illegitimate primary.

[..] There is no conceivable way that Clinton would have won Michigan by a margin of 102 - 28, or 78 to 22 percent, a far bigger margin than Clinton win in any other primary or caucus. And yet that's what the Clintonites are demanding.

sozobe wrote:

Poblano on Lanny Davis' proposed "compromise" on Michigan and Florida -- and how ridiculous it is:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/adventures-in-lannyland.html

Wait.

So Davis is not just proposing to seat the whole Michigan delegation on the basis of the outcome of the vote back then, although Obama's and Edwards' names weren't even on the ballot... no, he is proposing to reallocate the whole vote for Uncommitted, which was the vote of choice for those who were against Hillary, on the basis of the opinion polls of the time? So, Hillary gets to keep all her votes while the Uncommitted votes are redelegated on the basis of opinion polls, so she gets a plurality of those as well? As if the Uncommitted voters were representative of the whole electorate, rather than of those who explicitly did not want to vote for Hillary? He wants to assign Hillary a plurality of Uncommitted voters, even though you would think that, you know, anyone who would have wanted to vote for Hillary would have done so, since her name was on the ballot?

Did I get that right?

The mind boggles. I honestly wouldnt have expected anyone, not even one of the notorious Hillary surrogates, to sink to that low a level of duplicity.

nimh wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Poblano on Lanny Davis' proposed "compromise" on Michigan and Florida -- and how ridiculous it is:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/adventures-in-lannyland.html

Wait.

So Davis is not just proposing to seat the whole Michigan delegation on the basis of the outcome of the vote back then, although Obama's and Edwards' names weren't even on the ballot... no, he is proposing to reallocate the whole vote for Uncommitted, which was the vote of choice for those who were against Hillary, on the basis of the opinion polls of the time? So, Hillary gets to keep all her votes while the Uncommitted votes are redelegated on the basis of opinion polls, so she gets a plurality of those as well? As if the Uncommitted voters were representative of the whole electorate, rather than of those who explicitly did not want to vote for Hillary? He wants to assign Hillary a plurality of Uncommitted voters, even though you would think that, you know, anyone who would have wanted to vote for Hillary would have done so, since her name was on the ballot?

Did I get that right?

The mind boggles. I honestly wouldnt have expected anyone, not even one of the notorious Hillary surrogates, to sink to that low a level of duplicity.

I don't see the problem. Michigan voters awarded 57% of Michigan's delegates to Hillary, and 43% of Michigan's delegates to uncommitted.

Uncommitted delegates are free to go to either Hillary or Obama, so there is nothing wrong with Hillary trying to get some of them.

Trying to find back some of the other stuff I've read about this... here's Sullivan:

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

Lanny Davis wrote:

And so he should be punished. The upshot of Davis' chutzpah is that Clinton should get 102 out of 130 delegates in Michigan.

So Michigan isn't penalized for breaking the rules (can you imagine what that precedent will do for future primary schedules?).

Andrew Sullivan wrote:

Clinton isn't punished. She is rewarded with a number of delegates she would never have won in a normal primary. Obama is punished. And Clinton gets almost 78 percent of the delegates from Michigan in a state where she was running neck and neck with Obama before the illegitimate primary.

Recall that 538's demographic assessment of how Obama would have done in Michigan if it had been counted as a regular state (and not broken the rules) is as follows: 65 to 63 for Obama. There is no conceivable way that Clinton would have won Michigan by a margin of 102 - 28, or 78 to 22 percent, a far bigger margin than Clinton win in any other primary or caucus. And yet that's what the Clintonites are demanding.

This is what they are aiming for: stealing this nomination by the Rules Committe and then corralling the super-delegates to back them. If the supers do not go their way, they have already warned that Florida and Michigan Democrats may not back Obama in the fall.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/lanny-davis-com.html

oralloy wrote:

nimh wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Poblano on Lanny Davis' proposed "compromise" on Michigan and Florida -- and how ridiculous it is:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/adventures-in-lannyland.html

Wait.

So Davis is not just proposing to seat the whole Michigan delegation on the basis of the outcome of the vote back then, although Obama's and Edwards' names weren't even on the ballot... no, he is proposing to reallocate the whole vote for Uncommitted, which was the vote of choice for those who were against Hillary, on the basis of the opinion polls of the time? So, Hillary gets to keep all her votes while the Uncommitted votes are redelegated on the basis of opinion polls, so she gets a plurality of those as well? As if the Uncommitted voters were representative of the whole electorate, rather than of those who explicitly did not want to vote for Hillary? He wants to assign Hillary a plurality of Uncommitted voters, even though you would think that, you know, anyone who would have wanted to vote for Hillary would have done so, since her name was on the ballot?

Did I get that right?

The mind boggles. I honestly wouldnt have expected anyone, not even one of the notorious Hillary surrogates, to sink to that low a level of duplicity.

I don't see the problem. Michigan voters awarded 57% of Michigan's delegates to Hillary, and 43% of Michigan's delegates to uncommitted.

Uncommitted delegates are free to go to either Hillary or Obama, so there is nothing wrong with Hillary trying to get some of them.

Well, your approval of something is generally regarded as a signal that that something is in fact wrong, by most here on A2K.

So in a weird way you're helping confirm that this is indeed ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

nimh wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Poblano on Lanny Davis' proposed "compromise" on Michigan and Florida -- and how ridiculous it is:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/adventures-in-lannyland.html

Wait.

So Davis is not just proposing to seat the whole Michigan delegation on the basis of the outcome of the vote back then, although Obama's and Edwards' names weren't even on the ballot... no, he is proposing to reallocate the whole vote for Uncommitted, which was the vote of choice for those who were against Hillary, on the basis of the opinion polls of the time? So, Hillary gets to keep all her votes while the Uncommitted votes are redelegated on the basis of opinion polls, so she gets a plurality of those as well? As if the Uncommitted voters were representative of the whole electorate, rather than of those who explicitly did not want to vote for Hillary? He wants to assign Hillary a plurality of Uncommitted voters, even though you would think that, you know, anyone who would have wanted to vote for Hillary would have done so, since her name was on the ballot?

Did I get that right?

The mind boggles. I honestly wouldnt have expected anyone, not even one of the notorious Hillary surrogates, to sink to that low a level of duplicity.

I don't see the problem. Michigan voters awarded 57% of Michigan's delegates to Hillary, and 43% of Michigan's delegates to uncommitted.

Uncommitted delegates are free to go to either Hillary or Obama, so there is nothing wrong with Hillary trying to get some of them.

Well, your approval of something is generally regarded as a signal that that something is in fact wrong, by most here on A2K.

Balderdash!

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So in a weird way you're helping confirm that this is indeed ridiculous.

Nothing ridiculous about Hillary trying to respect the will of Michigan voters.

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

nimh wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Poblano on Lanny Davis' proposed "compromise" on Michigan and Florida -- and how ridiculous it is:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/adventures-in-lannyland.html

Wait.

So Davis is not just proposing to seat the whole Michigan delegation on the basis of the outcome of the vote back then, although Obama's and Edwards' names weren't even on the ballot... no, he is proposing to reallocate the whole vote for Uncommitted, which was the vote of choice for those who were against Hillary, on the basis of the opinion polls of the time? So, Hillary gets to keep all her votes while the Uncommitted votes are redelegated on the basis of opinion polls, so she gets a plurality of those as well? As if the Uncommitted voters were representative of the whole electorate, rather than of those who explicitly did not want to vote for Hillary? He wants to assign Hillary a plurality of Uncommitted voters, even though you would think that, you know, anyone who would have wanted to vote for Hillary would have done so, since her name was on the ballot?

Did I get that right?

The mind boggles. I honestly wouldnt have expected anyone, not even one of the notorious Hillary surrogates, to sink to that low a level of duplicity.

I don't see the problem. Michigan voters awarded 57% of Michigan's delegates to Hillary, and 43% of Michigan's delegates to uncommitted.

Uncommitted delegates are free to go to either Hillary or Obama, so there is nothing wrong with Hillary trying to get some of them.

Well, your approval of something is generally regarded as a signal that that something is in fact wrong, by most here on A2K.

Balderdash!

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So in a weird way you're helping confirm that this is indeed ridiculous.

Nothing ridiculous about Hillary trying to respect the will of Michigan voters.

Sorry, but it was not only HER campaign staff which helped pass the restrictions on Michigan, SHE herself signed a pledge to not 'participate in any way' in the election there. So what you are claiming is not true in the slightest; Clinton is not trying to respect the will of anyone.

And I'm afraid that the first statement is quite accurate.

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

See, this is why you aren't taken seriously; you spout off without knowing what you are talking about.

you spout off without knowing what you are talking about.

See, this is why you aren't taken seriously; you spout off without knowing what you are talking about.

Clinton didn't pledge to not 'campaign' in the state, she signed a pledge to not participate in any way in the state's primary.

Text of the pledge:

Quote:

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

Plz note the word 'participate.' Keeping your name on the ballot is participating in the election.

It was Ickes and Wolfson and Terry Mac from Clinton's campaign who helped strip the delegates from MI, while they were working for her. It can easily be said that Clinton is MORE responsible for them losing all their votes then Obama or anyone else, really.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

See, this is why you aren't taken seriously; you spout off without knowing what you are talking about.

I understand your difficulties in arguing against reality, but your childish claims that "no one here takes me seriously" don't really do anything to bolster your arguments.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

you spout off without knowing what you are talking about.

No I don't.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

See, this is why you aren't taken seriously; you spout off without knowing what you are talking about.

Clinton didn't pledge to not 'campaign' in the state, she signed a pledge to not participate in any way in the state's primary.

Text of the pledge:

Quote:

Four State Pledge Letter 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina
August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _______________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

Plz note the word 'participate.' Keeping your name on the ballot is participating in the election.

That depends how you define participation.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It was Ickes and Wolfson and Terry Mac from Clinton's campaign who helped strip the delegates from MI, while they were working for her. It can easily be said that Clinton is MORE responsible for them losing all their votes then Obama or anyone else, really.

There was an effort to let Michigan have a revote within the rules of the primary process.

Hillary supported that effort. Obama blocked that revote.

Now that it has been shown that Clinton pledged not to participate in MI, and that her camp were some of the primary drivers behind the move to strip them of ALL the delegates, you have shifted your argument to the fact that Clinton supported a re-vote - once it became clear that without one, she would have no shot at the Dem nomination whatsoever.

A high-school debater could tear apart your weak case;

you just dropped two important points while attempting to move on to a third. Sorry, but you need to address the fact that you dropped those two points before we can move on to any other arguments.

That is, if you wish to be taken seriously.

So, Hillary willfully disrespected the will of the voters - and now that she is losing, is trying to respect them?

I guess the fact that she stands to gain a lot from her 'respect' at this time makes most people a little skeptical as to whether or not her respect is in fact genuine.

A more accurate case for you to make would be to say that Hillary is taking actions to help herself and her campaign at this time. Respecting the voters has nothing to do with it at all. You merely seek to characterize it that way for some personal reason, but have no actual evidence that this is true; other then her words, which, being a politician, are not exactly evidence that this is what she truly believes.

If she 'respects' the voters of MI so much, why did she agree to sanction them? Why did she sign the pledge? Why did she state - on the record - that their votes would 'count for nothing this cycle?' Why did she not start bringing up the idea of seating them until she was FAR behind in pledged delegates?

There is plenty of evidence that her argument is self-serving in nature, and nothing more.

Cycloptichorn