Editor-at-Large: Sean-Paul Kelley News Editor: Tina Contributing Editor: Quiet Bill Contributing Editor: Stirling Contributing Editor: Alex Thurston Special Contributor: Numerian Special Contributor: Brian Downing European Correspondent: Hannes Artens
Abu Aardvark ACS Blog The Arabist Blah 3 Booman Tribune Corrente Wire Disturbing Trends Drudge Retort Electric Politics Glenn Greenwald The Gist Registan The Huffington Post Informed Comment Intrepid Liberal Col. Patrick Lang The Left Coaster Mahablog Mish's Global Econ Lance Mannion MyDD Total WonKerr Seeing the Forest The Sideshow Skippy the Bush Kangaroo TalkLeft Undiplomatic View From Iran Watching America The Young Turks
aliasBruce Armchair Generalist Arms Control Wonk Jack Cluth Feministing NewsHog Off The Kuff The Reaction Rook's Rant Rubber Hose Scholars and Rogues State of the Division Xymphora
Mixed Bag of Candy: BAGnewsNotes PKU News St Martin Private Eye Scoop.com.nz Lazy Laces Rick's Picks: Final Girl Waiter Rant Security Focus Zero Day Americana Roots Quiet Bill's Corner: Effect Measure Brian Downing's Picks: Al Jezeera Asia Times Night Watch Emirates Journal Soldiers for the Truth The War Report Iraq Casualties Global Security Numerian's Numbers: Mother Jones Tom Dispatch Der Spiegel Big Picture Calculated Risk Bonddad House Bubble Prudent Bear
Well this election season is certainly interesting.
Democratic results as of 11:53 Central indicate that Obama has swept the day winning in Louisiana, Washington and Nebraska. So far Obama has won 18 states to Clinton's 13. Clinton has 1095 delegates to Obama's 1070. Edwards has 26. 2,025 are needed to win the Democratic nomination.
Republican results indicate that Huckabee will win in Kansas and Louisiana, and trailing by only 1% in Washington. McCain has won 13 states, Romney 11 and Huckabee 8. McCain has 719 delegates, Romney 298 and Hukcabee 234. Ron Paul has 14. 1,191 are needed to win the Republican nomination.
in at least two states and also includes super delegates. Obama went into the race slightly ahead in delegates earned by votes so it's hard to see how Clinton could be ahead. And if she is, I'd say it's time for a revolution.
I will accept Clinton if she wins. But I will consider her an illegitimate choice (not unlike bush in the 2000 supreme court fiasco) if she is installed as the nominee after losing the election.
Saying she is ahead doesn't make it so.
For the record, I thought it sucked that the Democratic party disenfranchised the vote in Florida and Michigan to begin with.
To be fair to both candidates and to the people of those states, we need a do-over. The ballots cast the first time around are not valid because voters operated under the assumption their vote did not count and Hillary Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan.
I did inhale.
that the democratic party does not currently function democratically? (i would argue that this is true of the american political process as a whole, but that's a separate argument). the whole point of the primary process is to maximize voters' exposure to the candidates in each state. but over time, this has been attacked from numerous directions. the first two primaries, er, the first caucus and first primary, are open to voting by independents, which means that the first and most talked-about decision process is not even carried out by the party's registered voters. these states, like every other individual state, are unrepresentative of the whole US, and their privileged status as first-voting states is protected by the national party for no stated reasons. most of the other states have moved their primaries to early february, which makes it impossible for voters in these states to get much actual exposure to the candidates. the national party defends this system because a bad system is better than no system. individual states, like FL and MI, have tried to increase their own importance by moving up their primaries, which makes sense for their own sake but would further screw every other state that isn't IA or NH.
my point is that even if we ignore the hundreds of millions of dollars that go into advertising (advertising, by its nature, tries to convince people to believe in things they wouldn't otherwise believe in), we still have a system in which 'fairness' to the democratic voters of america doesn't enter into the picture.
i agree with you, but so what?
outfoxed Obama by not removing her name in Michigan, I think the Obama supporters never saw that coming and wished they would have thought of the possible outcomes. I stopped listening to delegate counts, everyone seems to have their own version of new math when counting them up.
Actually, I'm gonna say that Obama outfoxed Hillary by pandering to the Iowans. Without that win, he wouldn't be where he is today - and it was very unclear that he would receive so much support in Iowa.
Also, as you can see by Don's grumblings - there is going to be trouble if Hillary only wins by including Michigan and/or Florida delegates.
Guess we'll see what happens in TX, OH, WI and PA.
Huh? I thought Romney dropped out. How is it he's getting so many votes in the primaries?
or they could just be sending a message
If they want to send a message they could vote for Reagan!
"ahead in delegates earned by votes"
Any state that uses a caucus system can't call itself democratic.
Washington State for example:
The voters of Washington State rejected the caucus system by a vast majority...and still it is employed. I myself was not allowed to vote yesterday because I had to be in Vancouver BC yesterday for a trade show.
Caucus systems favor upper income, that is why they are employed
Because they have the time to go to these things? But aren't they in the evening? Can you explain? :)
if you figure that out, you've discovered the flaw in american democracy. it clearly does favor upper income - check out voting rates between income quintiles, it's not even close to being even, and i think it's even worse for caucuses. the why has stumped far greater minds than i - engels and lenin skirted the issue in all of the snippets that i've read. my guess is that it's about empowerment - if you're poor, you're focused on scraping by the little you can, and nobody is going to teach you that the big picture (i.e. politics) is important to your survival. there's a big body of sociology research that points to greater amounts of fatalism in the poor. by contrast, my parents, family, and family friends have been getting me to look at the big picture since i was in diapers. part of it is having the time to show up to vote, more of it is having the time to follow current events, and even more of it is feeling like i (and other middle class and wealthy people who are likely to vote) have some level of effect on the world, as a protagonist instead of an object.
See if you can figure it out without my help...here's some clues:
Yesterday:
I had to attend a trade show in Vancouver BC, to represent my product for my best customer. Had I not done so the cost me could have been as high 5,000.00 USD/year...that's a pretty high poll tax.
Friend #1 Was sick with flu and did not attend. Should have gone though and made hundreds sick...
Friend #2 Was working her police Job, could not attend.
Friend #3 Was relocating his mother in Texas. His mother had a stroke.
Posted by S Brennan | February 10, 2008 3:10 PM
You'd think the gang of idiots that put up Ellen Craswell as a gubernatorial candidate would be eager to join the Huckabee surge..
The Learning Center
Advertise Liberally