LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksNews just came in that Clinton has won the New Mexico caucus nine days after the polls closed.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... ew-mexico/
News just came in that Clinton has won the New Mexico caucus nine days after the polls closed.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008 ... ew-mexico/
Had won would be a more appropriate way of putting it. 9 days is a political lifetime away given what has happened since. Obama and Clinton will most likely come away with an equal number of delegates from NM so it's a hollow victory.
Hiallary 14 Obama 12.
State Democratic Chairman Brian Colon made the announcement after a marathon hand count of 17,000 provisional ballots that had to be given to voters on Feb. 5 because of long lines and a shortage of ballots. The final statewide count gave her a 1,709-vote edge over rival Sen. Barack Obama, 73,105 or 48.8 percent of the total vote to 71,396 or 47.6 percent.
Average expenses per TD in 2011:- FG €36,412, Lab €28,756, FF €45,219, SF €44,413, SP €23,654, PBP €31,866, WUAG €49,911, IND €37,805, CC €13,112.
It is anything but a hollow victory. When the vote happened is not important. What is important is that after two weeks of Obama wins, when many were presuming they would never hear of another Clinton win, one has been announced. It will energise her supporters and change the impression that swing voters have from one of 'he is inevitable' to 'this is still a live battle'.Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach
In primaries and caucuses, psychology comes a close second to delegates. Obama had a major psychological advantage. This reminds people that she actually can win things too. The psychology of that is important, particularly at a time when it was also announced that she had increased her lead in key states.
BTW they do not end up with equal delegates. She ended up with 14, he with 12. That has already been announced.
People are not dumb. They recognise that this race happened 9 days ago and is old news - Clinton's lead there was already known about since then. It will do nothing to erase Obama's delegate-lead. Wins in Ohio and Texas will help but in the end, the superdelegates will choose the winner and there is a need for a reality-check on that. Noone will win enough elected delegates to claim the nomination. Do we have consensus on the latter point?It is anything but a hollow victory. When the vote happened is not important. What is important is that after two weeks of Obama wins, when many were presuming they would never hear of another Clinton win, one has been announced. It will energise her supporters and change the impression that swing voters have from one of 'he is inevitable' to 'this is still a live battle'.
In primaries and caucuses, psychology comes a close second to delegates. Obama had a major psychological advantage. This reminds people that she actually can win things too. The psychology of that is important, particularly at a time when it was also announced that she had increased her lead in key states.
BTW they do not end up with equal delegates. She ended up with 14, he with 12. That has already been announced.
As a matter of interest the campaign is starting to get a bit more to the point.
Clinton has got rid of the yellow jacket, isshe going for the senior states person look? She is directly hitting Obama on his record.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/ ... nnSTCVideo
Looks like the gloves are coming off.
That has been obvious for about one month. It will be the superdelegates to decide it. But that is what they are there for. They were created after one-too-many nutters got nominated because they energised the grass roots but proved utterly unelectable. The problem with primaries is that they are more left wing (in the Democrats) or right wing (in the Republicans) than ordinary voters. So the candidate who appeals to the grassroots isn't always someone who in November will appeal to middle ground electors. Superdelegates are there to bring a note of realism into the proceedings, because most are people who run in real elections and have a better grasp of who is electable than people caught up in the mood of the moment in the grassroots might. (McGovern was a classic example of someone the grassroots chose who was utterly unelectable. Ditto with Goldwater. Dukakis was a third example.) If there is a tight race, they are there to judge who is most electable and help get that person the nominee. Obama is more popular than Clinton. But he has unannounced skeletons. She has had all her skeletons aired. So ultimately the supers will decide whether to go with a popular but untried novice (obama) who might bomb badly in the real race, or a less popular but tried and tested Clinton (who wouldn't bomb but might unite the Republicans).People are not dumb. They recognise that this race happened 9 days ago and is old news - Clinton's lead there was already known about since then. It will do nothing to erase Obama's delegate-lead. Wins in Ohio and Texas will help but in the end, the superdelegates will choose the winner and there is a need for a reality-check on that. Noone will win enough elected delegates to claim the nomination. Do we have consensus on the latter point?It is anything but a hollow victory. When the vote happened is not important. What is important is that after two weeks of Obama wins, when many were presuming they would never hear of another Clinton win, one has been announced. It will energise her supporters and change the impression that swing voters have from one of 'he is inevitable' to 'this is still a live battle'.
In primaries and caucuses, psychology comes a close second to delegates. Obama had a major psychological advantage. This reminds people that she actually can win things too. The psychology of that is important, particularly at a time when it was also announced that she had increased her lead in key states.
BTW they do not end up with equal delegates. She ended up with 14, he with 12. That has already been announced.
One thing that might decide it is if they focus on four areas:
1. Who won the bigger states. (That would be Clinton if she continues her performances in large state primaries. )
2. Who gets the Democratic base. (The polls say Clinton - she gets the bluecollar base. Obama gets independent support)
3. Who won the primaries rather than caucuses. (Primaries by their structure are more democratic. Caucuses can have inbuilt restrictions over time, location, etc.) (That would appear to be Clinton.)
4. Which is more important: the base or independents? That is a matter of judgment. Without the base you cannot win. Obama might have a problem there. She may be less able to win independents. But she may get independent women. So the decider on Obama is how likely he is to get the base. If he gets it, they may nominate him. If they cannot be sure he will get it, they will probably go with Clinton.
Why bother with primaries at all then. Just give it to Hillary. These superdelegates are what is beating Hillary. Most voters thought they were making the decision and now they see the game as rigged. Just when some were forgetting the sleeze along came 800 lizards to remind them.
If the super delegates decide this time at the convention it will be the first time ever that this has happened - so it is not rigged as you say. The last brokered convention was back in 1952 - before super delegates. They are there to prevent a tie or a situation like this where no candidate wins the required amount of pledge delegates to win.
The super delegates are for the most part the elected officials: senators, congress and governors from each state legislature.
Westair. Please desist. There are 2 candidates so how could 1 of them not have a majority. If there were 3 candidates then it would go to a 2nd vote and each delegate could vote as they wished. I can tell you that when a state votes and allocated say 15 delegates it makes a mockery of the whole thing to find out that there is over 800 superdelegates. 99% of the voters did not know about this and the reaction is that their state means very little. Of course it is rigged. They want their candidate, in this case Hillary to have a big advantage. What they really fear is a brokered convention. If this occured the delegates could pick anyone. This year they might pick say Senator Jim Webb who is a real hero. This uncertainty is what made conventions so exciting. I did not think the last one was so far back.
Reply With Quote