Obama '08?

I think it is simply a case of different actors in the game each trying to have his/her own way and optimize their outcomes. More stupid vanity & hubris than dirty.

The national party functionaries (who believe they are more important than their state counterparts) wrote the "rules" for state organizations - rules which included penalties for state party organizations that don't comply. The state governments, which under the constitution are sovereign, and not at all beholden to the functionaries of any party organizations, determine election rules and dates, though the state party organizations do have a voice in the process.

In the case at hand, some states chose dates that "violated" the "rules" set down by national party organizations that have no authority whatever over the state governments - in effect the states told them to piss off. The national party organization can only retaliate against the state party, and to do so involves cutting off its nose to spite its face.

Obama, Japan, roots for accidental namesake by Shaun Tandon
Tue Feb 12, 2:15 AM ET



Barack Obama, who has been credited with tapping support in unlikely places, is enjoying a groundswell of enthusiasm in a small city in western Japan, which is delighted to share his name.

Obama, Japan, is rooting for candidate Obama, hoping that if he becomes the US president he will put this ancient fishing town of 32,000 people firmly on the tourist map and, just maybe, choose it for an international summit.

Supporters in Obama -- which means "small shore" in Japanese -- have held parties to watch election results, put up posters wishing the senator luck and plan a special batch of the town's "manju" sweets bearing his likeness.

"At first we were more low-key as Hillary Clinton looked to be ahead, but now we see he is getting more popular," Obama Mayor Toshio Murakami said.

"I give him an 80 percent chance of becoming president," the 75-year-old said with a proud grin.

Murakami sent a letter last year to Obama, enclosing a set of lacquer chopsticks, a famous product of this town on the Sea of Japan (East Sea) in Fukui prefecture's Wakasa region.

"I will present you the chopsticks of Wakasa paint and I am glad if you use it habitually," Murakami said in the English-language letter. "I wish you the best of health and success."

Murakami noted that Barack Obama's birthday, August 4, happens to be "Chopsticks Day" in the city.

Obama, who is also a hero in his father's native Kenya, has been gaining in a neck-and-neck race with Clinton, in part by winning over voters in states that rarely back members of their Democratic party.

Murakami is now preparing another package for the candidate that will include a good-luck charm from the local Obama Shrine.

"For the first letter I found his address on the Internet, so I don't know if he got it," Murakami said. "But this time I asked the (US) embassy for his exact address, so I'm sure he'll get it."

Lest cynics find the city's efforts naive, it was Obama himself who first drew attention to the connection.

Obama, speaking to Japan's TBS network in December 2006, said that when he flew once to Tokyo, an officer stamping his passport told him of the town.

"He looked up and said, 'I'm from Obama,'" the senator said.

A professor saw the footage and contacted the mayor, who insists that his support for Obama goes beyond just his name.

"It seems to me that President Bush isn't aggressively addressing global warming, but Obama would. And I like how he opposed the Iraq war," he said.

Murakami also hoped a President Obama would sign a peace treaty with North Korea. It is no small issue in Obama, one of the seaside towns where agents from the communist state kidnapped Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s, setting off a long row between the countries.

The election is being closely followed by many in 1,500-year-old Obama, a port nestled by snowy hills that in ancient times supplied food to the emperor when he lived in Kyoto some 75 kilometres (40 miles) to the south.

"When you look in Obama's eyes and hear his voice, he's very impressive," said resident Rieko Tanaka.

"Hillary is a bit old-fashioned and she's the wife of Bill Clinton, so I think a new person should lead the USA," she said.

Tomoyuki Ueda, 40, a company worker dining at a restaurant serving the town's celebrated mackerel, said it would be healthy for the United States to elect its first African-American president.

"I think both Obama and Hillary are qualified, but if Obama becomes president he could correct problems of racial discrimination," he said.

Seiji Fujihara, a head of the local tourism board, said he has only met a black person once, but believed Obama's election would make the United States "more equal" on racial issues.

Fujihara started a club for self-styled Obama supporters in the city and plans "I love Obama" T-shirts.

"We know we can't vote. But if we send out a message, we can help push him to victory," he said.

georgeob1 wrote:

I think it is simply a case of different actors in the game each trying to have his/her own way and optimize their outcomes. More stupid vanity & hubris than dirty.

Well then we got a hell of a lousy actor so far in the White House

Quote:

The national party functionaries (who believe they are more important than their state counterparts) wrote the "rules" for state organizations - rules which included penalties for state party organizations that don't comply. The state governments, which under the constitution are sovereign, and not at all beholden to the functionaries of any party organizations, determine election rules and dates, though the state party organizations do have a voice in the process.

In the case at hand, some states chose dates that "violated" the "rules" set down by national party organizations that have no authority whatever over the state governments - in effect the states told them to piss off. The national party organization can only retaliate against the state party, and to do so involves cutting off its nose to spite its face.

I realize that, George. However, you cannot penalize MI and FL for violations made while the rules were applicable, and then change the
ruling based on one candidate who is scrambling for points, resp. delegates. It ain't right and I would hope that the American people
won't stand for such unfair tactics, should it become an issue.

I have the same or similar problem re delegates, butrflynet. Dys reminded me it's part of the constitution...

The MD polls were ordered (by a judge) to stay open until 9:30 PM (Eastern Time) due to bad weather so results won't be coming out from there for another hour yet...

From Clinton camp: Deputy Campaign manager also resigns.

Cycloptichorn

I realize that, George. However, you cannot penalize MI and FL for violations made while the rules were applicable, and then change the
ruling based on one candidate who is scrambling for points, resp. delegates. It ain't right and I would hope that the American people
won't stand for such unfair tactics, should it become an issue.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't think you're in the majority with your opinion that Hillary must win large. What she needs to do is put the brakes on his momentum and defeating him in Texas and Ohio will do that. She won't even need Texas if she can get Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Well, Cyclo got some Hillary insiders on his side in his analysis:

[size=14][b][url=http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/12/the-clinton-campaign-sets-expectations-very-high.aspx]The Clinton Campaign Sets Expectations Very High[/url][/b][/size] "[O]ne thing in that big [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin]Times story[/url] on the Clinton campaign today seemed worth noting: [list]"She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she's out," said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. "The campaign is starting to come to terms with that." Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

The key word here is "comfortably." Why is the campaign saying this, even anonymously? If they win both states narrowly I don't see why they are finished (unless those wacky delegate allocations in Texas put them at an almost impossible disadvantage)."[/list]Meanwhile,

Why would anyone with true insider knowledge (which usually goes hand in hand with loyalty) reveal a weakness in her campaign? I think they're playing this reporter for some reason, although I'll admit I can't imagine how.

In any case, I can't imagine Hillary Clinton dropping out even if she wins Texas and Ohio by only one vote each. Remember, this is Hillary Clinton we're talking about.--Finn

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Just compare the states in which each of them have won.

Clinton
New York
New Jersey
California
Florida
Michigan (however suspect)

Obama
Illinois
Missouri
Georgia

These are the big prizes for each - which looks more impressive?

One might argue that Obama needs to win Ohio and Pennsylvania to have a chance.

Um. Since when is it just up to the bigger states, in the end? Whoever gets the most delegates, wins - and whether you get 500 delegates from three big states or from eight small ones doesn't matter, its still 500 delegates. I mean, obviously you cant get to the victory without winning any big states, but you don't have to win the more impressive list of 'em, if you can make up the missing numbers from smaller states.

I mean -- if the logic of "you don't have a chance of winning if you don't win the more impressive list of big states" held up in American elections, Bush would never have been President... just compile the lists of big states for 2000 and see which one "looks more impressive". doesn't matter. If a bunch of small states for Obama together yield more delegates than a couple of big states for Hillary, then Obama wins

My comments relate to electability in the general election and have nothing to do with delegate counts in this primary.

2004

Bush won
Texas
Ohio
Florida
Missouri
Georgia

Kerry won
California
Michigan
Illinois
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania

In 2000, they broke the same way


I'm not making an argument that a candidate has to win all of the big states, but it stands to reason that the more they win the better their chance.

If Clinton wins Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, she'll have won three of the big states that went for Bush plus five that went to Kerry and Gore.

Obama will have won two of the Bush states but only one Kerry-Gore state

This doesn't mean that Clinton will carry the "Bush States" in 2008, or that Obama will lose any of the "Kerry-Gore" states but if
she wins the primaries in most of the "Big States" then it's logical to assume that she would have a better chance than Obama in winning them once pitted against a Republican in the general election.

Assuming, again, that Clinton wins Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, if you give her "Big States" to McCain and let Obama have all of the others, McCain wins.

This is a measure of electability that can provide super delegates the cover to vote for Hillary even if she a few less delegates in total. Again, the super delegates were created in order to get more seasoned politicians into the mix so that they can take the nomination away from a one dimensional candidate who appeals to the base, and give it to someone they believe can win with it.

Note: Before there is a knee-jerk landslide of scorn, I am not suggesting that Obama is a one dimensional candidate who can't win. Remember we are talking about seasoned politicians. They will look for plausible cover to vote the way that best serves their interests. Don't make the mistake of believing these people are committed to do "the right thing." If, in their estimation, they benefit most from Clinton as the nominee and they can find cover, they'll give it to her. This is not an anti-Democrat screed. Republican politicians will do the same thing.--Finn

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

FL and MI will not count, so don't bother counting them.

Think about it in terms of delegates, Finn. This weekend's races and today's races combined for about 235 or so delegates. Obama won the weekend with an average of more then 60% of the vote and probably will get somewhere around there today as well.

Ohio and Texas combine for 224 or so delegates. If Clinton wins both of those states, she still can't make up the delegate deficit that she lost in February! And that's not counting WI and Hawaii which probably will go to Obama as well.

In fact, TX is 1/3 caucus; Hillary could win the popular vote by 5% and still get less delegates due to the nature of the contest there.

The point is that it probably isn't going to reach the convention. There's a 6-week gap between March 4th contests and Pennsylvannia. There will be tremendous pressure for whoever is behind on March 5th to drop out of the race. The super-delegates will likely exert much of this pressure by backing the winning candidate.

I have a news flash for ya - Clinton's campaign is doing terrible and she isn't going to win TX or OH by much, if at all. She won't be able to make up the deficit.

Cycloptichorn

Let's make a bet on Michigan and Florida delegates

If, as you suggest, Michigan and Florida delegates don't come into play I will start a thread on A2K that's titled Do You Know Why Cycloptichorn Knows More About Politics Than Finn?

And if Michigan and Florida delegates do come into play you will start a thread on A2K titled Do You Know Why Finn Knows More About Politics Than Cycloptichorn?

In any case, Florida delegates don't have to count (although they will in one fasion or another). That she won in a key state over Florida will count for something with super delegates who are seeking to cast their vote for the most electable candidate (that's what they're supposed to do after all).

Of course if Obama cleans Hillary's clock from here on in the FL and MI delgates will be moot as will the super delegates. This is your prediction I assume.

If we set the parameters of 'don't count' to, 'the nomination is decided prior to a decision on the FL and MI primaries,' the I accept. Gladly.

Cycloptichorn

Michigan and Florida won't come into play. Hillary got the votes she got based solely on name recognition. You don't change the results of the World Series because of what happened in the Grapefruit League. Candidates were told not to campaign there. To go back and try to make the results binding proportionately would be unconscionable. Regardless, if something weird occurs and Cyc is wrong. It won't change the fact that he understands politics a lot better than you do.

I realize that, George. However, you cannot penalize MI and FL for violations made while the rules were applicable, and then change the
ruling based on one candidate who is scrambling for points, resp. delegates. It ain't right and I would hope that the American people
won't stand for such unfair tactics, should it become an issue.

This doesn't mean that Clinton will carry the "Bush States" in 2008, or that Obama will lose any of the "Kerry-Gore" states but if she wins the primaries in most of the "Big States" then it's logical to assume that she would have a better chance than Obama in winning them once pitted against a Republican in the general election.

fishin wrote:

The MD polls were ordered (by a judge) to stay open until 9:30 PM (Eastern Time) due to bad weather so results won't be coming out from there for another hour yet...

Obama will be the projected winner as soon as the polls close.

Obama carried white men in Virginia. Hillary should concede. The Fat Lady has sung.

Raw vote has Obama almost TWO to ONE!!!