Swiftboating backlash?

Although historically negative advertising has been very effective in many elections, I think the upcoming Obama and McCain campaigns have the potential to change the way elections are run. Not so much because they are virtuous - though I think both candidates are good guys - but because voters may actually have become sophisticated enough to reward a higher road.

This may be too optimistic but clearly Obama's campaign against Clinton appeared to benefit from taking a higher road. When Clinton attacked in debates and in advertising, Obama usually paried rather than fought back. I think many Americans found this very appealing. Clinton supporters feel that she was treated unfairly by press and by the Obama campaign but I think on balance both the Democratic and Republican primaries were dignified and without nearly the amount of negative campaigning there could have been given the years of political and personal baggage from most of the candidates involved in the races.

In terms of Obama vs McCain I think Obama has a huge edge in the sense he can easily lable McCain a Washington insider as he talks about Obama vs McCain's "change" themes. On the other hand McCain cannot label the young and politically inexperienced Obama much except as being young and inexperienced - arguably very desirable traits to many Americans in the current election as long as the candidate is smart and appealing as Obama certainly appears to be to most.

Electoral Showdown: Obama Leads Strongly

Barack Obama is squarely leading John McCain in both national polls of the popular vote and also the far more important electoral vote count, though McCain strategists will find some comfort in the fact that the "solid" electoral base for McCain appears stronger than the solid base votes for Obama.

However if we split the tossup states listed here at RealClearPolitics
Obama wins the Presidency handily.

Show Obama the Money

Barack Obama has raised tens of millons more than John McCain, but McCain is the one with huge personal wealth. USA Today reports

Where the Obama's appear to have a net worth of about a million, John McCain is awash in money with net worth in the range of about 27+ million and a wife who is worth well over 100 million thanks to her inheritance of a beer distribution business that she now runs.

Unfortunately for the McCains personal wealth does not translate into political success. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton both had more than Obama but still lost elections and billionaire Ross Perot managed a distant third place in the general election despite his immense personal wealth, which many believe he would have used if his prospects were greater to win.

McCain's Daughter: Blogger

Kudos to John McCain's daughter who is blogging her experiences along the campaign trail and elsewhere. I was surprised that Mitt Romney's sons did not get more attention for their efforts blogging, but I think many bloggers think this are publicity stunts more than sincere expressions from key insiders in these campaigns. There is a bit of the former I am sure, but fakes are easy to spot and I haven't seen any indications that these candidate kids are not writing most if not all of their own stuff.

Obama is up, McCain is down

The early polls pitting John McCain against Barack Obama suggest that Obama is in the lead in electoral votes, and that clearly Obama is the man to beat as states line up for the voting in November.

Before the big campaigns start in earnest it is impossible to predict how things will shake out, though the basic early conditions clearly favor Obama, and strongly. His remarkable political machine has created a huge groundswell of support that appears likely to increase as the Clinton factions come over to Obama. McCain remains challenged in terms of funding and hard support from the traditional key Republican sectors who historically have not favored McCain's traditional maverick stances.

Obama and Clinton Meet at Senator Feinstein's Place... in secret

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton met today in Washington. Clinton will speak tomorrow, conceding to Obama, but it is not at all clear what they talked about. There is huge buzz about whether Obama might name Clinton as his VP. Most pundits are saying he will not but they appear to have very little inside information.

Swift Boats .... Launching

Now that it is Obama vs McCain in the general election look for a fairly dignified level of direct exchange between these two senators along with a *hurricane* of personal destruction stories from advocates for each side.

A friend mentioned a story to me about John McCain verbally abusing his wife in public. I'm still not convinced the upcoming book is a reliable source, but you can bet the claim will make it into the pro-Obama blogOsphere very quickly:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html

If true this is a very alarming anecdote but does this rise to the level of showing McCain is an abusive bad character? Will this be countered with Obama drug use stories from the McCain Swiftboating teams?

Are blogs reporting, and you deciding, or is all this out of hand?

Clinton to Concede on Friday

Hillary Clinton will concede the election on Friday, apparently following a large number of influential calls today suggesting that it was important she not stay in the race now that Obama has effectively clinched the party's nomination.

Hillary "No Decision Yet"

Despite millions of votes in the primary, Hillary Clinton appears to be in the small minority of Democrats who think she's got a shot at the Primary, even as Obama has clinched the decision based on current and almost certain totals. In fact by morning more superdelegates will commit to Obama, giving him an even more insurmountable lead in the Primary.

My take is that Hillary is now "running for VP", and her strong speech was basically telling Obama "you need my peeps".

Obama, however, is unlikely to choose Hillary as a running mate based on most reports that suggest the gravity of the Clintons is simply too overwhelming to support her as VP and Bill as ex president in residence.

But hey, we are talking about party politics where ... anything can happen.

It Is Obama

Even as the final state votes come in favoring Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama now has clinched the nomination based on the delegate total after the South Dakota primary.

Clinton is speaking in New York at 9:45 EST but it's still not clear if she will officially concede or wait until later to do so. Clinton's speech is both powerful and intriguing as she's not yet giving a clear indication of her intentions.

We'll know more in a few minutes....

Obama Within 7 Delegates - Will Clinch For Certain

Obama may actually clinch the nomination *before* the polls close today, though strategist Karl Rove speaking on Fox appears to have it right - the Obama campaign wants to win tonight based on pledged delegates putting them over the top rather than the party hack vote from superdelegates.

Obama To Clinch Nomination at 10pm EST

It's now *very* clear that Barack Obama will clinch the Democratic nomination within minutes - and probably within seconds - of the close of the polls tonight in Montana at 10 pm EST.

Many superdelegates have already said they'll be committing to Obama at the close of the polls, including some of the most potentially influential superdelegates such as Jimmy Carter and several US Senators.

Hillary Clinton may not concede the race tonight though I'm guessing she will do so, and immediately announce her unqualified support for Obama. Network TV is reporting that Clinton has said she'll accept an Obama VP spot based on conversations with campaign insiders.

Electoral Vote Mapping McCain and Obama

This site has a great idea - track the state by state voting polls and then assign electoral votes based on that to see if McCain or Obama has the edge in the National Election.

Unfortunately the methodology has a serious flaw until the Demcratic primary is over, and that is the fact that Clinton supporters are likely to shift their perceptions dramatically once Obama is the "annointed" candidate. My view is that almost all of Clinton's support will flow to Obama even though at this time there are many Clinton supporters saying they won't vote at all or will even support McCain.

My view is supported by the 15 day average which shows Obama winning general election while the 50 day average favored McCain. By next week, when the Democratic Primaries are wrapped up and Obama will be the presumptive adn perhaps the actual winner, I think the electoral voting will line up with national polling and show Obama with a strong lead over McCain.

Obama to Clinch Nomination within minutes after SD Polls Close

Extremely reliable sources are reporting that some superdelegates will pledge to Obama *immediately* after the polls close in South Dakota on Tuesday June 3rd.

The pressure to commit to Obama and effectively line oneself up with the next President is already weighing heavily on the remaining superdelegates and it is likely the party will seek to have a large block - enough to put Obama over the top - commit to him Tuesday night.

Prediction: Obama will clinch the nomination Tuesday, and Clinton will concede Wednesday morning.

Half a disenfranchisement is better than a whole

The Democratic Party rules committee has decided to give half power to the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Had this decision been made earlier it would have seemed wiser than now,and Clinton is suggesting she may dispute this decision later. The inept process has made the end of the Democratic Primary as much an example of contentiousness and poor planning as party unity, which is still sorely lacking for the Democrats.

The Clinton campaign is now making the (correct) case that more voters cast a vote for her than for Obama, although the process is not about total votes and thus it's not clear how you should allocate, for example, caucus activity since those states did not have a popular vote.

As with the 2000 election we are seeing that our "democracy" is ... seriously flawed. Rather than simply count everybody's vote in both primaries and the general election we have system that are designed to "balance out" the process but have been co-opted by party insiders to make it messy and questionable. The solution is very, very simple. One person, one vote, abolish delegate voting and abolish electoral college.

Obama resigns from church over controverial pastor comments

There are many ironies and defects in the American political experience and Obama's resignation today from his church of some 20 years, the Trinity United Church of Christ, brings out several of those defects and ironies.

The most glaring one is that the church is not Obama. Clearly his plan and his presidential decisions would be well within the pale of Democratic mainstream American approaches to conflicts here and abroad.

However, it's also true that the church is probably more representative of Obama's views about America than he's letting on. Clearly this was a church that used racial conflict themes as a way to energize the members. Ignoring the debate about that strategy most Americans don't like that approach.

Also provocative is the endorsement of liberation theology - a concept popularized in central America during those severe conflicts that often winds up accepting (or even endorsing) violent socialist revolution as a good solution to the problems of societies, which many in Liberation theology see as the evils of US style corporate capitalism. Even if you buy this point of view, it is not even in the ballpark of mainstream American values.

Ironic that the Church's recent rhetoric, the frenzied media response, and Obama's quitting at a strategic time are all part of the political process - a process we are supposed to work hard to keep separate from religion.

So, on with the game! Let the *second inning* ? Begin as Obama, the very likely nominee, begins the battle with McCain. Those guys may have energy for it but I'd have to say I think most of us are pretty darn weary of it all!

Democrats Meet on Michigan and Florida's Fate Soon

Saturday will bring discussion and a probably decision by the Democratic National Committee on how to treat the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Although Clinton has more pledged support in the meeting it appears unlikely that the committee, which I understand had voted earlier to NOT seat these delegates, will now reverse itself. Most likely would seem to be a compromise that will seat some of the delegates. Even seating all of them would not put Clinton over the top, and any major departure from the original gameplan is likely to create a backlash from the superdelegates who can put Obama over the top.

Prediction: Bet on Clinton to get some delegates seated and Obama to win the big show, probably as soon as next week when it appears likely a large block of superdelegates will move to his support based on pressure from the party.

Dem leaders: It's over. Hillary: Its not over until I get to sing

The Democratic Primary has dragged on for over a year, tiring even the most fervent political junkies. Several strategic gaffs by party leaders and state foolishness have led to contention and disenfranchisement of two major states, but Obama maintains a narrow lead over Hillary Clinton even if you allocate Florida and Michigan delegates very disporportionately to Clinton.

With party leaders lining up (indirectly) with Obama in this fashion it's probably only a matter of a few weeks before we'll see a large enough block of superdelegates move to Obama to put him over the top. This ability to manipulate the results "after the voting" is partly why the Democrats have superdelegates in the first place, though I have seen no good explanation for what is obviously a system that horribly mangles the "one person one vote" philosophy that is supposed to lie at the heart of democracy. The electoral college system is bad enough, yet at least it is an attempt to balance state's rights with national rule rather than disenfranchise voters. The Democrats have managed to add in a power elite component to boot - superdelegate votes have thousands of times the impact of a normal party member vote.

Predictions? Very tough in this case. The Clintons are *very pissed off* and it is not clear they will put what leaders think are the party's best interests ahead of their own concerns. Complicating matters is that it's not clear party leaders have a good sense of what is in the best interests of the party. Contention keeps you in the news and my view is still that the Clinton Obama battles are not going to hurt Obama's chances in the regular election. As a candidate of "change" it is to his advantage to appear early and often on TV screens across America while McCain sits almost unnoticed in the corner.

The Popular Vote Totals: Michigan and Florida Factor

There's finally some buzz in the media about the issue of Florida and Michigan disenfranchisement. The Florida and Michigan Votes do not appear to shift the delegate count to Obama by my earlier calculations but it is true that if you count - as they stand now - the Florida and Michigan votes Clinton is actually beating Obama in the popular vote by a very narrow margin.

The issue of disenfranchising Florida and Michigan is, as we have noted before, a terrible defect in the Democrat's primary process although it also seems unreasonable to simply give Obama zero votes in Michigan and the relatively small Florida number which is partly because he did not campaign in Florida. Obama was not even listed in Michigan. That said, even if the election had been held on the "sanctioned" date so the delegates would count, it's likely Clinton would have won Florida handily and probably Michigan as well.

Here is a great chart of the popular vote totals from RealClearPolitics

Given that there is not a good alternative, what is the right answer? Both Obama and Clinton appeared to see strategic advantage in this approach, which is why we had no protests from either at the time. Are the rules more important ... or the votes?

I think the clear answer is a revote in these states. This was the right answer in 2000 when Gore would have won Florida had voter intention been properly measured but was not due to defective Butterfly ballots in Palm Beach County.

Hillary's Assassination Comment

Hillary Clinton's sound byte sized comment that appeared to suggest one reason to stay in the campaign is that Obama might be assassinated is, as usual, getting hopelessly and stupidly discussed in the media.

*Obviously* she pretty much meant what she said. She meant "shit happens that can affect the campaign dramatically" and it does happen. Both Clinton and Obama almost certainly get threats every day from many sources and unfortunately we live in a violent culture. It's not unreasonable for a person to factor this in to the campaign equation.

However *obviously* this was an inappropriate statement. Discussing assassination in this context only inflames the debate and issues largely irrelevant to the campaign. She let slip a concern any intelligent observer of American politics must consider.

Now media people, let's talk about real issues.

Recount - A Film About the 2000 Election Problems

Kevin Spacey will star in HBO's "Recount" which will be shown Sunday and dramatically address issues that still swirl around the 2000 USA Presidential Election where GW Bush beat our Al Gore despite losing the popular vote and a razor thin margin in Florida.

We've talked a lot about the recount here at President Picker. Gore clearly should have won Florida, but not for the reasons often cited which are vote fraud (no indication of much of that) and Supreme court stopping the recount proposed by Gore (which was not a full recount and would have left Bush with the win according to most standards of counting). However, Gore *would have won* if you factor in the clear intention of voters in Florida. Thousands of the punched butterfly ballots of Palm Beach County were spoiled because they had votes for both Pat Buchanon and Al Gore when the voters clearly would have voted only for Gore if they had understood the poorly designed ballot. Also, an analysis of overvotes indicates that counting them would have shifted the win to Gore (overvotes are where voters left scratches or marks or extra punches).

Recount is somewhat biased towards a Democratic partisan viewpoint but otherwise does a commendable job of detailing how complicated and political the decision making became in Florida 2000.

I personally take a bit of comfort in recognizing that the founders anticipated resolving this type of vote trouble which is why the "safe harbor" provision left it to the state legislature to allocate the electors (as they used to do in all cases - popular vote allocation of electors is a somewhat modern notion).

Still, the system failed - dramatically - and could fail again. How to prevent this? Abolish the Electoral College before we have this happen again. This means fraud or irregularities in a given area will matter much less, and be far less likely to affect the outcome.

Obama Wins Oregon

Obama has handily won the Oregon Democratic Primary by a large margin - some 58% to 42% Clinton in the still unofficial vote tally.

Speaking in Iowa it's now clear Obama will not only play the frontrunner, he's strategy is to play the elected candidate, talk much more about McCain than Clinton, and challenge the Clinton campaign to make their case against his candidacy which they are not inclined to want to do. This appears to be a plan that will seek to immunize him against a last minute superdelegate coup by Clinton - an act that even the media would be likely to challenge so severely that it's become a non-strategy for the Clintons who are down to their last few cards. As we showed earlier this week even an allocation of most of the Florida and Michigan delegates to Clinton is unlikely to affect the delegate outcome and although she can make a claim to the popular vote that is somewhat unfair since Obama did not campaign much in Michigan and Florida and popular vote appears to have gone out of style in the 2000 election, though this electoral and delegate craziness remains one of America's great shames.

Obama in Iowa "We have returned with a majority of elected delegates"

Barack Obama is speaking in Iowa and getting very close to claiming victory in the Democratic Primary. It's a good strategy to make it much harder for the Clinton campaign to work the Florida and Michigan and Superdelegate angle - an incomprehensible mess left over from a poorly structured primary.

The Obama campaign is keeping up the "hey, we have won this now!" spin as he spoke today in Iowa. He's even cleverly throwing out kudos to Hillary Clinton, lauding her participation and saying he's grateful to her .... and now going on to suggest the party needs unity.

So has he won? Of course not. Obama however has a clear lead in elected delegates, and as we calculated earlier this week even if you assign a generous number of the Florida and Michigan delegates to Clinton she'd still have fewer than Obama. Therefore it's unlikely that the Clinton's will turn as many superdelegates as Obama. Superdelegates will want to go with a winner, so look for a large block of them to soon announce that they are pledging to put Obama over the number needed to win - this could happen as soon as this week. At that point Hillary will very likely drop out so the Democrats can have a unified convention.

Clinton Crushes Obama in Kentucky

As happened in the West Virginia primary Hillary Clinton soundly won today's Kentucky democratic primary with 65% of the vote to Obama's 30%. Clinton must be thinking "oh what a difference an Iowa makes" as she contemplates a strategy that now appears to have failed to gain enough support early in the primaries to carry her on to victory. Although it is not clear that Obama's 11 consecutive victories before Pennsylvania were the key factor in his probably primary victory, I think a combination of strategic errors cost Clinton an election she would have won with a different approach. The key mistakes:

1) Waiting *far* too long to gripe about Florida and Michigan's missing primary votes. Clinton's point is very valid that these states have been disenfranchised. In fact to any clear thinker this is an outrage. Yet I think the Clinton strategy was very foolish, waiting until she was the underdog to complain about this. Now the question is one of fairness to the states who had their votes voided vs fairness to the process of electing which was also seriously compromised here. A revote is the answer, and the Democratic party should fund a new vote unless it can be shown that the outcome would be very unlikely to have an effect on the outcome of the race.

2) Failing to name Obama as her choice for VP after Edwards dropped out of the race. This would have won her superdelegate support and might have turned the tide in some states - most importantly it would have stolen Obama's momentum at a critical time.

McCain vs Obama's Iran Smackdown

The McCain and Obama campaigns are obviously out testing strategies for their general election matchup. Obama is speaking much more aggressively, calling McCain for example a "creature" of Washington and lambasting his stance on the Iraq War. McCain is getting tag team help from no less than the President of the USA himself, GW Bush, who is calling Obama's approach to foreign affairs the "appeasement" that Bush says has historically failed in dealing with other countries.

As usual this election will probably be won or lost with the indecided voters who have yet to make a firm decision. A key indication of the outcome will be how the Hillary Clinton voters react to her likely demise. If, for example, West Virginia and other conservative southern states go towards McCain the Obama campaign will be pressured to "conservatize" Obama in ways that won't make his key support base happy.

Bill Clinton in Oregon

Bill Clinton was here in Oregon today wrapping up a final Oregon Hillary hyping tour before the Oregon primary vote gets counted on Tuesday. Here in Oregon we vote by mail, so many people have already sent in their ballots or won't vote at all.

Still, many will wait until Tuesday to vote and although the outcome here is likely to favor Obama and very unlikely to affect the fact that the superdelegates are going to make this decision, it's fun to see Oregon get more national attention than in the past.

Meanwhile John McCain was on Saturday Night Live and appeared to do well. It will be fascinating to watch how McCain works a strategy to keep his conservative credentials but also appear very hip and cool to the younger voters who are currently overwhelmingly in the Obama camp. Will McCain seek those young votes or focus more on stripping away the Clinton Conservatives such as older women and some southern men who indicated they'd vote for Hillary over Obama but for McCain over Obama.

McCain is 71, Obama is 46. Will this be an issue? Count the years on it.

Race and Gender? let's talk about it.

The media discussion about the role of race and gender is almost hopelessly naive and misguided. By any reasonable measure the Democratic primary process has blown completely out of the water the notion that race or gender bias are key driving forces in our society. They are *factors* but they are no longer major factors.

Lost in much of the debate is the fact that relating to a candidate on the basis of race or gender is NOT an indication of prejudice. I was glad to see two high level insiders on Bill Moyers tonight essentially agreeing that the WV vote for Clinton was not so much about race as it was about relating to the candidates. Obama as a northern bright and dynamic guy would have lost regardless of race. Perhaps a small percentage is a "racist" vote, but the fact he's the presumptive nominee of the party and the national frontrunner really should give pause to the many who think the national dialog remains too racially or gender biased for clarity. On the contrary I worry that we are now at risk for making too many topics off-limits because they will be unfairly labelled as "code" for race or gender issues that should not be discussed.

So the news is good - America is a more open minded society than many have suggested. Let's honor this and stop trying to take so many topics off limits. Talking about gender and race - rather than stifling debates and questions - is the best way to honor the national diversity we all enjoy in this country.RR

John Edwards Endorses Obama

John Edwards has endorsed Barack Obama in what may be considered another sign of Clinton's diminishing chances at the nomination. Coming strategically a day after Clinton's huge victory in the WV primary, Edwards will shift media focus away from that thorn in Obama's side.

Watching the two stand together on stage waving and hearing Edwards say "we" a lot in his speech, I got the idea he's on the *very* short list for VP. As a populist southerner Edwards would appeal to the block of southern democrats who are not showing much support for Obama.

Bob Barr = 2008's Ralph Nader?

Well, not exactly politically, but Barr could certainly become a spoiler for McCain in a very close election if he pulled away a few percent of the conservative voters.

Bob Barr is running as a Libertarian, though he'd likely appeal to very conservative voters and would be running as something of an alternative to John McCain - a more appealing choice for some conservatives who like Bob's no holds Barr'd very conservative agenda and can overlook the tarnish he took on his reputation when Larry Flynt revealed some of Barr's earlier indiscretions during his first of three marriages.

Ironically though Barr is now working for the ACLU, a group hardly noted for their pro-conservative stances.

Florida voters disenfranchised ... again

The extremely poor coverage of the big story of this election has been a disgrace of mainstream media incompetence more than bias but I think both are a problem in this election. Party insider politics rather than voting are determining the outcome of the election. Most in the press are fretting that it will be Clinton who would pull a backroom play while they fail to talk much about the most significant aspect of the Democrat primary so far - the disenfranchisement of *every voter* in Florida and Michigan.

The first problem is that the popular vote should be determining things rather than state by state voting. The idea is to mimic our seriously problematic electoral college system which determines the national election, but with all the superdelegate and back room disenfranchisements it's not having that effect anyway. The people - not the party hacks - should control all the elections and America is dangerously close to failing in that area ... yet again.

Did the voters make the decision to hold these primaries early? NO! Did Florida and Michigan voters decide to delete their votes? NO! Party hacks determined this outcome though I don't understand how or why. Presumably both the Obama and Clinton campaigns saw strategic advantages to this or they would have bitched louder. But that is not particularly relevant. The key question regarding teh nominee should be simply this: Who do Democrats want to represent them? Party insiders have made it hard to determine this with clarity. The race is extremely close and a huge number of delegates may not be seated. The superdelegate process is an anti-Democracy outrage, clearly designed to take control away from voters and give enough control to party insiders to determine the outcome.

Florida voters must be getting used to being disenfranchised - in 2000 the butterfly ballots of Palm Beach County were seriously flawed (they were designed by Democratic Party officials). Ballot spoilage threw the entire state - and the presidency - to George Bush. The focus was all on the chads which would *not* have affected the outcome had a recount been allowed. However the Palm Beach Butterfly ballots - Designed by a democrat - almost certainly threw the election to Bush.

Yet the Democratic Party had few qualms about the decision to delete the Florida vote from the current primary.

It is certainly true that rules should matter, both campaigns agreed to these rules (why?!), and Obama supporters are right to say that it's not "fair" to allocate to Clinton votes that might have gone to Obama if Florida party hacks and national party hacks had not mangled this process, but it's *even more unfair* to disenfranchise the Florida voters - again.

However if they did allocate the delegates according to votes in Michigan and Florida here are some scenarios:

Michigan popular vote: 55% to Clinton, 40% Uncommitted to Obama -
Clinton gains 23 delegates.

Michigan split the uncommitted vote: 75% to Clinton, 20% Obama -
Clinton gains 85 delegates

Florida: 50% to Clinton, 33% to Obama. Clinton net gain of 36 delegates.

Thus if we count these states Clinton would gain a net of either 59 delegates or 121 delegates depending on how you allocate the Michigan uncommitted vote.

As of today 1884-1718 = 166 votes separate Obama and Clinton so even the rosiest picture for Clinton would still have her trailing Obama by some 55 delegates, throwing the election squarely to the superdelegates and more party hack back room wheeling and dealing.

A solution to this mess? Clearly, new elections are needed in Florida and Michigan. Party hacks decided against this earlier in the year, but they were wrong to discard the only fair option. However this is very unlikely to happen. Welcome to our new Banana Republic voting system.

Gamesmanship is deciding the outcome of the election. Ironically this is likely to lead to an Obama victory as his strategists have more masterfully played their cards than Clinton's have and Obama really does seem to have a kind of groundswell support sorely lacking in Clinton voters.

Historically there has always been gamesmanship and strategy - but the extent to which that trumps the pure and unadulterated Democracy we all should seek is the extent to which we have a good vs a bad system. What shoud be clear to all after the elections debacle of 2000 and the questionable backroom politics of 2008 is that we have a bad system that is subject to uncertainty and manipulation.

The solution is simple - one vote to one person and no electoral college.

Clinton Wins West Virginia

The votes are not yet in but Clinton will certainly win the West Virginia Democratic Primary, throwing somewhat more uncertaintly into the complex and poorly constructed Democratic primary process. Although most pundits are exaggerating the demise of the Clinton dynasty West Virginia to some extent confounds the notion that "it's over", given that Clinton is likely to win by as much as 20% or more. Race appears to be a key factor in this victory, though it's simplistic to see race as a one way factor in an election where Obama consistently can count on some 80 or even 90% of the African American vote in most states.

Surprisingly few have challenged the incomprehensible system that almost all the candidates and parties signed on to over a year ago, but it's making it very hard for the Democrats to define their process clearly in the face of this close election.

If Clinton can leverage this victory into better treatment for the Florida and Michigan delegations which in turn might shift superdelegates to Clinton, the race would become even closer, and Obama's "frontrunner" lead could evaporate overnight. Is that likely? No, but neither was the GW Bush victory over Al Gore in 2000, and the Democratic process is looking more like it could hinge on defects in the process or on elitist insider plays rather than the popular vote.

Battleground: Oregon

Here in Oregon the TV advertising is starting to get very heavy, especially for Obama. It appears he may be trying to set up the campaign to effectively "declare victory" after this primary, arguing that his delegate total is greater and superdelegate total about equal.

However I'm inclined to think that both campaigns are going to settle this at the convention- probably in an amicable fashion and probably with Obama as the victor although skeletons in the closet could still rear their ugly heads and totally derail either campaign. This election is in the hands of the superdelegates now and it is not at all clear how they'll respond to the circumstances.

The Democratic party really should be ashamed to have such an un-Democratic process for choosing candidates. Although there are a handful of justifications for having "elite" voters with much more power than regulary people, the notion flies so flagrantly in the face of true Democracy and good elections practices that it's surprising the party hacks didn't realize this would create problems in a close election.

Clinton Wins Indiana

Although the Indiana race is going to be close the exit polling, which is almost *always* correct, indicates that Hilary Clinton will win Indiana by a narrow margin:

Male (45% of vote ) 51% for Clinton 49% for Obama
Female (55% of vote) 53% for Clinton 47% for Obama

The Male and Female stats cover all the bases, and therefore the likely outcome, assuming the exit polling was done fairly well, is that Clinton will get (.45 x .51 .2295) + (.55 x .53) = 52.1% of the total Indiana vote and Obama will get 47.9%. There is enough error in polling that this outcome is not certain, but it is very probable.

Contrary to what many think the exit polling in Florida was correct to suggest that Al Gore won the state. The key factor in Gore's "loss" in Florida was that the butterfly ballots of Palm Beach County which led to thousands of spoiled votes due to double voting. The exit polls can't measure this spoilage - they have to assume that people's votes actually *counted* where in the case of Florida the cast ballots were destroyed.

An important tangent to that is that the chad situation - even if Gore's Supreme Court challenge had moved ahead with a recount - would still have decided the election for Bush. Only certain unusual treatments of hanging chad counts, or the calculation where the spoiled palm beach ballots were mathematically allocated to Gore would have given him the edge. In a sense most of the analyses there were wrong. Republicans did not steal the election, but Gore did in fact win it. Blame our foolish Democracy and ballot procedures which fail to do a good job in some close elections.

North Carolina to Obama

Barack Obama has won the North Carolina Primary, beating Hilary Clinton in the state with the largest number of remaining delegates. Indiana also voted today but that race is too close to call by the TV networks.

President Selector from SelectSmart

Not sure who to vote for? Select Smart has a candidate selector that will ask you several questions and help you find the right man..or woman... for the job:
http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

Indiana Primary Looms. Obama and Clinton Stumping as Usual

One simply has to marvel at the *stamina* of American politicians, who spend pretty much 16 hours per day on the campaign trail for more than a year. While John McCain can take something of a break from the breakneck schedules of his opponents and focus on the November election, Clinton and Obama remain locked in a very close race that will probably be determined by superdelegates during the Denver Democratic Convention coming up in a few months.

Although Obama had the big "mo" until recently, he is not plagued with the Reverend Wright issue which has given Clinton a very needed boost in the polls both in primaries and in the national polls that pit Clinton or Obama vs McCain in the general election.

Obama as Liberation Theological Manchurian Candidate = Ridiculous

As Americans we like to see things in Black and White (no pun intended here), where gray is the color of compromise and the color of politics. It's unfortunate to see the contest for the Presidency swirl around the ranting of a retired pastor who clearly does not speak for Obama.

Although Reverend Wright's naive and misguided liberation theology themes are a legitimate issue, they should not be considered a major issue. Why? Because Obama's record is clear on many topics already, and he's not getting elected to be the national pastor. It's very reasonable to take Obama to task regarding his long term relationship with a person who holds the US Government in such great contempt, but it's not reasonable to reject Obama's answers out of hand.

The story is a perfect storm of fodder for right wingers like Sean Hannity, who is always on a crusade to cut down moderates and left-wing politicians like Obama. More than anybody Hannity has massaged this minor issue into a major one. One can only wonder if Hannity would even *pay attention* if the issue were racist rantings of white pastors. I don't think Hannity is a racist, but I believe he's hyping this issue beyond reasonable measure to further the Republican political agenda.

It's working.

Rev. Wright or Rev. Wrong?

In a speech today, Barack Obama tried to thread the needle between absorbing a lot of damage from Rev. Wright's controversial rants and abandoning his long term pastor and friend. It is extremely ironic that the biggest threat to the Obama campaign is coming - dramatically - from somebody who you would think would be very sympathetic to Obama's quest for the presidency and therefore would.... be quiet rather than loud and shrill.

Of course part of the deal here is that Obama to some extent must remake himself in an image more palatable to the white voters he'll need for a victory. I certainly don't believe Obama thinks the US Government is as dispicable as Wright seems to suggest in many sermons, but it's also reasonable to think that Obama is toning down his own left wing sensibilities to "fit in".

On the other hand I'm guessing that Obama has been for the most part very straightforward about his views in all this. His affection for Wright does not stem from a shared worldview, rather from a respect for the influence that leaders like Wright have had on the African American Community. Obama would probably prefer that people respond to reasoned, quiet reflection about the world. But they do not - many people respond to loud and irrational conspiratorial ranting filled with hyperbole and odd allusion. Wright is a master of this style and one can hardly fault Obama for paying attention.

Voters need to pay attention to what Obama says, not what Wright says. If Obama said "I agree with Wright" that would be news, but simply having an associate make some outrageous claim is not very worthy news.

McCain's High Road

John McCain and Barack Obama have so far shown remarkable restraint in terms of "going negative" in their campaigns. If Obama is the Democratic nominee I expect these personal crusades against negativity to continue, but also almost guarantee that the soft money campaigns will be doing a lot of dirty work. Swiftboating will be the mainstay of both campaigns as the candidates will be able to honestly say they have nothing to do with the negativity while their distant supporters bash away.

But I don't understand all the whining about negative campaigning . Like positive campaigns, people refuse to pay attention to issues and pundits and media refuse to address the issues. Ergo, it's a wild west out there and will always be that way in our quirky American pseudo-Democracy, the best Democracy money can buy!

On to Indiana

As the already small delegate gap between Clinton and Obama narrows the campaigns head to Indiana, largest of the remaining states in the contest. It's now very clear that a convention decision will determine the outcome and it is possible that decision will be made on a second or later ballot. Neither Clinton or Obama will have enough Delegates on the first round unless most of the Superdelegates commit to one or the other. I'm guessing we'll see superdelegates who are very reluctant to commit, fearing they'll pick the wrong side. That in turn may lead to a lot of back room bargains as the convention approaches. Stay tuned because the game is just beginning.

Clinton Wins Pennsylvania Primary

Update: Clinton wins 55% to 45% with 99% reporting

The networks are not calling it yet but the exit polling makes it clear Hillary Clinton will win the Pennsylvania Primary.

CNN's Exit poll data indicates the results will be as follows:

Clinton Male Vote %: .42 x .47 = 20%
Clinton Female Vote %: .58 x .55 = 32%

Clinton Total vote: 52%

Obama Male: .42 x .53 = 22%
Obama Female: .58 x .44 = 26%

Obama Total Vote 48%

Pennsylvania Penses

With less than a day before Pennsylvania voters take to the polls Hilary Clinton maintains an edge in most polls. Many pundits suggest that an Obama win, or perhaps even a narrow Clinton victory, could end Clinton's race for the presidency but I think this is foolish. The Dems are heading for a convention decision and that decision will depend to some extent on Clinton's performance in the Pennsyvania and Indiana primaries. Losses or very narrow wins by Clinton probably mean that superdelegates will be going with Obama and the popularity that he still seems to have going even if Clinton "catches up" somewhat in delegates based on these later races. It'll be hard for superdelegates to vote against the majority of delegates decided by voters, though certainly stranger things have happended in American politics.

Odds? I'd say 57/43 in favor of Obama with little chance the PA vote will change things.

McCain's Temper, Obama's Associates, and Hilary's Cookie Baking. OMG, what scandal!

I'm so sick of TV media's pitiful coverage of the issues in election 2008. I used to blame .... us ... because clearly people are more interested in nonsense than important stuff, but I now think that the media is as guilty as our own prurient interests in creating the superficial nonsense that passes as presidential analysis.

So, I encourage you to shut off your TV and simply visit the candidate websites. They aren't completely forthcoming but at least they address real issues there:
Hillary Clinton John McCain Barack Obama

Democratic Debate on ABC crosses the line of reasonable dialog.

The normally insightful David Brooks of the NYT is defending many of the preposterous questions in the ABC debate where substance did not just take a back seat to prurient stupidity, it was almost totally eclipsed by nonsense questions and trivial commentary.

Brooks is certainly right that people have a right to know more about Obama, but this was not by any means the way to understand a candidate.

Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolis are better than this - way better - so I'm not clear why they decided to replace questions of substance with lapel pins, guilt by association, and Bosnian sniper silliness.

Obama Clinton Debate. Civil and Thin

The Clinton Obama debate last night was very unsatisfying as both Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolis persisted in asking silly or irrelevant and "guilt by association" questions rather than trying to dig into the candidates policies and differences.

Stephanopolis really has no business working on these debates given his former close associations with President Clinton's campaign. I understand he is no longer even a friend of the Clintons but he's hardly a good choice for the most impartial person in the ABC crowd of political reporters. Gibson, a well informed and thoughtful anchor, continued the media's foolish and shameful focus on irrelevancies such as Obama's Reverend Wrightnesses and Hilary's Bosnia Bulletizing.

Pennsylvania Primary Approaches

From here in China our American system sure seems distant, but unless I am misreading things people here are much more intrigued with Obama than other candidates. Of course that could also be said of the USA, where Obama´s appeal is as much about his speaking style and personal history as policies or other factors.

Realclearpolitics.com summary of polls still suggests a Clinton win in Pennsylvania, making the Democratic Primary about as close as it can get moving into the Convention.

Hillary's Last Stand? Obama the Manchurian Candidate? Nonsense!

Media pundits like the "journalists" over at the FOX disinformation Network have been increasingly shrill in their questionable (or in the case of Fox, strategic) criticism of Clinton for what appear to be very minor campaign exaggerations and omissions from her personal history.

FOX is also revelling in the Democrat sparring combined with hugely exaggerated concerns about how Rev. Wright's left wing nonsense may have tainted Obama into becoming some sort of Socialist Manchurian Candidate. Even the somewhat liberal Juan Williams was stupidly nodding his head in agreement as Laura Ingraham, glowing, suggested how Rev. Wright's mostly foolish, though sometimes just provocative views on the US global role should lead to some sort of anti Obama Intifada.

Note to pundits: Are you so poisoned by fame and money that you have no interest in helping Joe SixPack American digest the nuances of the critical vote in November? Rational cases can be made for and against all the policies advocted by McCain, Clinton, and Obama. This would add to the debate, and to all the candidates credit they want that dialog to happen.

But you pundit shi*heads! won't allow it. Sure, it's partly our fault for tuning in to hear the nonsense, but it is mostly YOUR FAULT for being bored with real analysis and reporting this like a horserace rather than a policy showdown. Shame on you all.



I

Guilt by Association, Guilt by Exaggeration?

The media frenzy over comments by Hilary Clinton that she was under fire in Bosnia when in fact she was only under the threat of fire are really a stretch by pundits who have tired of the real issues or simply do not want to address them in any depth.

TV Journalists - and one has to use that term very lightly these days - are failing in dramatic fashion to inform people about issues and pit the candidates against each other for the right reason - addressing policy differences. Instead, we see nonsensical concerns over exaggerations and personal associations.

Comments by Barack Obama's bombastic former pastor, Rev. Wright, are also being discussed breathlessly as if Obama's sitting in a church pew during a handful of emotionally charged rants by his pastor somehow means he has become a disciple of some anti-US cult.

Clearly, many of Wright's views are not in synch with most of mainstream America although these views are in touch with perhaps 20-40% of the public here (and perhaps 70% of the European Union) who view the USA as a modern capitalist empire that facilitates much of the exploitation in the third world.

Although personally I find the controversial Wright views about the USA *profoundly* naive and rationally unsupportable they represent debatable positions. The ignorant TV punditry should be talking about a national dialog on why these issues have such traction in some intellectual communities rather than giving them the blanket dismissal and angrily attacking Obama for not leaving his church in protest.

It is crystal clear that Obama totally disagrees with many of the characterizations Wright has used over the years.

The guilt by association is nonsense and a sign of the foolishness of liberal pundits combining with the strategic plays by conservative pundits to keep this in the news.

Obama: 1 Million on Google in February!

Daya over at WebGuild is tallying up the Google advertisnig campaign spends, noting that Obama spent a whopping one million on Google advertising in February vs Clinton's 67,000.

Analysts generally credit Obama with a brilliant use of online social networking and resources.

Pop media just can't handle the truth

I'm so sick of the way hardball, CNN, FOX, and other major outlets latch onto the *most trivial* issues in the campaign rather than address things of substance. My respect for Chris Mathews and other poli pundits is waning as the absurdity of their concerns over Rev. Wright, Bosnia sniper fire, and other issues trump their concern over what the candidate plans to do when in office.

One way to look at this is that America has three choices now - Obama, Clinton, and McCain. There are differences between these three - especially McCain and the others - and these are what should be getting examined now almost ad nauseum, until all Americans can vote their conscience....informed.

Instead, we get silly "he said / she said" garbage featuring guilt by association, slightly misleading comments treated as dispicable lies, and more garbage.

Mathews! Wake up to your own stupidity dude!

Democrats benefit from extra exposure on the campaign trail

Although most pundits suggest that the Democrats are suffering from the extended battle for the nomination between Clinton and Obama, I think this is giving them a huge advantage in the national election. While Clinton and Obama still have legions of reporters and reports following their every move around the USA, McCain has become something of a footnote to the process after wrapping up the Republican nomination. In short, the amount of *free media* for Obama and Clinton is huge compared to McCain's exposure.

This will change after the Democrats pick a candidate and McCain and either Clinton or Obama start the "real" fight for the Presidency, but by then voters will be much more familiar with the Democrat and also will be suffering from campaign fatigue after a national process that started earlier and has lasted longer than any Presidential (or any other?!) race in history.

Obama in Medford Oregon

Southern Oregon is hardly known as a key Presidential campaign territory, but Barack Obama is in Medford today, speaking shortly to over 2500 people waiting for him in and around the "Kids Unlimited" Gym in an event in part sponsored by the local branch of a national union. The venue apparently has been chosen because of the education connection rather than the size, which is far too small for all the people who wanted to go to the event. Many people are now waiting outside for Obama who reportedly will address the crowd there as well as inside.

Bill Richardson to Endorse Obama

CNN is reporting that Governor Bill Richardson, thought by some to be a strong VP possibility for Hillary Clinton, will be endorsing Barack Obama for President.

Endorsements from major figures are courted very aggressively, especially in this close race, and it would seem very likely that Obama has been talking to most 0f the former Democratic contenders to get their support.

Obama still leading nationally in most polls

Barack Obama is still favored by most Democrats even after over a week of mostly negative news centered on Obama´s close personal association with the outspoken former minister at Obama´s church.

Addressing the nation and the situation in a recent speech Obama is credited by most with providing one of the most articulate and positive expositions on race in America. Although it is not clear that this speech settled all the issues, it is clear that it provided a high level of damage control and probably the mainstream media, feasting on the controversy, will leave the issue behind as soon as another easy talking point challenge comes along.

The Politics of Race

America cannot seem to escape an obession with issues surrounding race. Decades ago racial discrimination created huge tensions, and launched the civil rights movement which in turn brought to prominence many civil rights leaders who went on to create significant social, legal, and moral progress in the quest for racial equality.

Now, racial issues are usually talked about in more subtle ways, with many crying foul or, worse, suggesting their opponent is using "code" language to bring a racial attack without actually talking about race.

The mainstream media's current obsession is with two race related stories - Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Barack Obama and Obama's preacher's controversial sermons. Neither story adds much if anything to our understanding of the candidates, and it is unfortunate that we the people find this type of debate more relevant than real issues such as global development, war, health care, and the economy.

Geraldine Ferraro. Feminist pioneer or ranting racist?

The new political sensibilites are really straining my credulity.

Reasonably, Barack Obama invokes MLK and other themes that very appropriately draw on his African American heritage on pretty much a daily basis. Obama appropriately and accurately expresses his pride in his heritage and the fact the Democrats deserve a lot of social credit for having a woman and an African American as the top nominees of the party.

Enter Geraldine Ferraro, a feminist pioneer and civil rights *activist*, who suggests the transparently obvious notion that race is a factor in Obama's success.

Then..... all hell breaks loose and Ferraro is branded a racist.

There is a a rational argument that suggests that although Obama is certainly *gaining* some votes because of race he is also *losing* some because of his race. Thus the balance in voting is hard to calculate and if race is invoked it is some sort of code language that is trying to pull him down.

Yikes - but that argument is not being made and is pretty questionable mathematically.

Rather I'm hearing otherwise intelligent people suggesting that "race has nothing to do with this" even as they themselves express approval about the racial diversity of the campaign. Folks you simply cannot have it both ways. Race is either a factor in this or it is not a factor. If you think it's a minor factor say that, but to suggest that race is of zero consequence in this campaign is, in a word, nonsense.

So, how is race and gender influencing the Obama Clinton contest? This would require a close look at exit polling, and hopefully we'll see more of this rather than the nonsensical punditry going on all over the networks as this mini-scandal dominates the coverage of the election.

Obama Wins Mississippi

Barack Obama has won the votes in the MI primary, although it's not clear if he'll win the majority of the delegates thanks to quirky rules that do not award MI delegates in proportion to the vote.

The Republican situation remains quiet as John McCain has locked up the nomination.

Despite some back and forth grumbling among the Democrats, the debates there have been very civil overall, a strong indication that nobody wants to rock the Democratic boat too hard.

Clintons like a Clinton Obama ticket...Obama...not so much...

Barack Obama is saying he doesn't want the second spot on a Democratic ticket even as both Bill, and Hillary Clinton have begun to suggest this option regularly. I think this is because strategically the option works better for Clinton than Obama. First because having Obama on the ticket would gain Clinton more voters against McCain, where it's less likely that loyal Clinton voters will do anything other than vote for Obama if he's the Democrat to support when the time comes.

Also, many would argue Obama is the more likely "VP" candidate due to less experience - experience he'd then get and go on to be president.

Will this strategy work for Clinton? Probably not so much in the remaining primaries though it might soften the Obama momentum going into the convention, but the strategy is very likely to appeal to party insiders who ultimately may make this decision. They'll want a solution that alienates as few people as possibly, and this may be what they come up with.

Obama takes Wyoming

Barack Obama handily took Wyoming's Democratic caucuses, trouncing Clinton with his 60+% of the caucus vote.

It's almost crystal clear now that even with a sweep of the remaining states by either Clinton or Obama, the Democrats are going to take the decision to the Convention. Some commentary is suggesting that the wild unpredictable second ballot could determine this outcome at the Convention.

The Clinton's have begun to speak very openly about a Clinton Obama ticket, and I think cautiously not suggesting that Hillary would necessarily be at the top. This is brilliant strategically because many voters - polls suggest 70% - want both on the ticket and if Hillary can become the candidate offering that desirable option she may be able to pull superdelegates to her side before the convention.

More on Power and Obama

The Scotsman has given a whole new meaning to the word "Peeved" as an interview with Samantha Power - a top Obama aide - led to her untimely resignation today after calling Clinton "a monster".

Here's the Peev interview with Samantha Power, the newly resigned Obama aide:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp

Obama Campaign's Samantha Power resigns

Foreign Policy advisor to Obama, Samatha Power, resigned after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster" in an interview where Power appeared to think she was off the record because the tape recorder was off.

Power, who authored a recent work on the Rwandan genocide and the failures of the US response under Bill Clinton's presidency, is a brilliant analyst with a powerful (in fact arguably she'd have a very, very "left wing") vision of how the US should change our role in the world.

Is Obama taking "too high" a road in his campaign? Admirably both he and John McCain are trying hard to steer the ship of American politics in the direction of positive debate and recognizing that we are all diminished by the negative nonsense that has been a pervasive part of politics ever since...the first elections.

However negatives are what people respond to most, especially the folks who are undecided about who they'll vote for. Taking negatives off the table may have unintended consequences and we'll see how long this approach lasts. I predict we'll see a lot of negativity coming *indirectly* from supporters who have no official relationship to these campaigns.

Man the Swiftboats! Full negative speed ahead?

Pennsylvania a last stop? No way.

As much as I enjoy all the commentary on CNN, FOX, and especially MSNBC, I don't think the "experts" are in touch with America enough to have *any clue* about what is likely to transpire.

For example many seem to think a Clinton / Obama ticket is not likely. If Clinton wins I think is it about 90% likely she'll pick Obama as running mate. It would be idiotic not to do this. Karl Rove proved in past elections that playing powerfully to your base was a good tactic in general elections, and Obama would give Clinton the chance to play both to her base and also to act more conservative than otherwise, scooping up support from the middle ground.

It is not as clear to me that Obama would choose Clinton for VP because she in many ways contradicts his theme of change from the past. Obama would probably pick Wesley Clark or another moderate with a strong military presence and background in an effort to move his campaign to the right enough to appeal more to moderates who will be uncomfortable with Obama's very liberal politics.

CNN Democratic delegate counter

CNN has a neat Democratic "Delegate Counter" where you can play with scenarios much like John King does on the magnificent CNN wall touchscreen in their political reporting center.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html

McCain locks GOP nomination, Huckabee drops out

John McCain is now the official and undisputed GOP nominee as he has enough delegates to win the convention and Mike Huckabee has bowed out.

Many pundits are foolishly suggesting that the Clinton Obama race is helping McCain. That race is still tight after Clinton victories tonight in Ohio and Texas and will almost surely go to the convention. However the Dems should be thrilled with this result - media attention has been squarely focused on Obama and Clinton for months and this will continue. McCain will be almost a news afterthought until the Democratic nominee is decided, so regardless of whether the Dems choose Obama or Clinton at the Convention the free publicity from an ongoing race is - almost literally - priceless as it places these two squarely in the minds of the undecided and apathetic voters who ultimately make the decisions in American politics - decisions based largely on name recognition, negative campaigning, and other trivialities.

Clinton Wins Texas

Exit polling is so close that they are not calling Texas for Clinton yet, but she's likely to win given the current totals which have Clinton up by about 2%. Exit polling is closer:

Exit polling shows this:

Male (43%) Clinton: 46% Obama: 52%

Female (57%) 53% Obama: 46%

Note even before the math that since there are more women voting than men and Clinton is winning with women more than Obama with men she's probably got it barring glaring exit poll errors.

The maths suggest the final tally is this:

Clinton: .43 x .46 + .57 x .53 = 49.9%
Obama: .43 x .52 + .57 x .46 = 48.58 %

OK, this is *so close* I can see why they are not calling it for Clinton. But President Picker is not so cautious, because we are a blog and have far lower journalistic standards than, say, Fox news. Wait .... let me rephrase that...

Clinton about to win Texas

Although the networks, cowed by exit polling errors in New Hampshire, are afraid to call Texas for Clinton it appears very clear she's the likely winner in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island with Obama winning Vermont.

Although one can reasonably question what relevance "win" has in a contest where delegates are propotioned according to vote rather than "all or nothing" as in many Republican races, media attention focuses so narrowly on "wins" that this is an important metric.

What is clear is what Tim Russert pointed out tonight on MSNBC - the race will continue for through the convention and seating of Michigan and Florida will be a very important issue, as will superdelegates.

Donna Brazille, a superdelegate and CNN analyst, seemed to make a FreudianEsque slip tonight when she suggested the superdelegates would lean to the candidate with the best chance of a Presidential win. Based on almost *every single poll*, this is Obama rather than Clinton.

It's mini-Super-Tuesday - have you won yet?

With Texas and Ohio on the line John McCain may lock up his nomination today, and certainly is well on the way to the Republican Nomination. A recent BBQ at his house had McCain sizing up some potential running mates, though it's not at all clear who he'll choose. Although Huckabee may be appealing to the right wing of the party it's not clear McCain would gain a lot of votes with Huckabee because conservatives are either going to vote McCain or sit out this election. A more likely strategy than to go for conservatives is probably to shift to the center and try to play the "liberal" card against the Democrats, painting Obama or Clinton as far left. This strategy worked very well for Richard Nixon vs George McGovern and to a lesser extent in Bush v Kerry in 2004, where the Democrats were painted as "unpatriotic" despite the fact both had served in active military where the opponent had not.

Marc Andreessen on Barack Obama

Internet legend and pioneer Marc Andreessen has some detailed and interesting observations about Barack Obama, who Marc, his wife, and a friend met with at some length a year or so ago.
http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/03/an-hour-and-a-h.html

As he notes himself Marc is not necessarily a political expert, though I don't think anybody can really hold that title. Andreessen is, without doubt, an extremely sharp and influential technology guy so his effective endorsement of Obama is yet another feather in Obama's cap, with tomorrow's Texas and Ohio outcomes looking like they may effectively be the *national* outcome.

FOX News on March 4: Hilary Clinton's Last Stand

Chris Wallace on FOX news today is calling Tuesday "Hilary Clinton's Last Stand" and although this is not entirely inappropriate it seems to be overly dramatic. The likeliest outcome for Tuesday will keep Clinton and Obama close in total delegates, and leave the complex issues of superdelegates and seating Michigan and Florida delegates squarely on the table. Ultimately party insiders are the most likely to have the key say in all this as they can convince large blocks of superdelegates to vote "for the party". The most likely beneficiary of a brokered deal is probably Obama who seems to have more popular support now as well as a much better chance of beating McCain. This last item is key, and will sway Party management to encourage Clinton to back out of this and annoint Obama, perhaps in exchange for the VP slot (doubful) or a key cabinet post (somewhat likely).

RealClearPolitics has a great summary of major polls over the past year that show the remarkable and recent Obama surge among Democratic voters:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

The graph results seem to suggest that at about the time of Obama's strong Super Tuesday showing, Democrats stopped simply assuming Hilary Clinton would be the nominee and gave careful consideration to Obama who they found more appealing. Given Clinton's consistent showing in polls of some 47% probably Clinton simply didn't gain any converts, while Obama has pulled in the undecideds and shifted a few making him the presumptive nominee.

One of the many great challenges of the American Democracy process is the fact that in one sense it is the undecided voters that ultimately make the decisions. Because voting can't assign extra points for being better informed or caring "more" than your neighbor, votes all count equally (Democrat superdelegates aside!). Thus those who have only marginal interest in the outcome and are easily swayed by campaign tactics are a key voting block, and may ultimately hold the key to success in this presidential election.

The last Hiatus?

As the final big primaries approach Democrats Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama remain locked in a tight race, though many think that if Obama wins in two or even one of the three remaining big states he will effectively "earn" the nomination by making it very hard for Clinton to continue to claim she has more broad based support than Obama and very unlikely for her to exceed his popular vote totals.

Although Pennsylvania still appears likely to go to Clinton, Ohio is getting closer and Texas now appears to favor Obama.

March 4 will be a big day for both candidates. Big wins for Obama likely will mean the race is over, but more close races will probably keep Clinton in through the convention when a lot can happen quickly. For example if the Florida and Michigan delegates are seated, and if a majority of superdelegates switch to Clinton she could gain the nomination even after losing most of the states in the popular vote. Given the Democrats concerns in 2000 it's hard to know how all this will shake out. Disenfranchising voters has been a key Democratic criticism of Republicans yet this is exactly the penalty they extracted from Michigan and Florida for holding primaries early. On the other side of the coin is the fact that Superdelegates have far more voting power than regular people, leading many to consider this elitist politics.

McCain successfully lobbies himself out of a problem

The McCain Iseman scandal died as fast as it sprung to life with the New York Times making weak supporting gestures about the story in the face of an almost blanket McCain denial. I'm guessing there was a small amount of smoke here but no fire, and that if anything this episode helped galvanize support for McCain among the hard core conservatives who have shunned him until recently.

However, if recent polls are close to the truth, McCain is going to have a very tough time competing with Barack Obama. Most polls put Obama up by close to 10% in a faceoff with McCain, and in my view this number is likely to *increase* if Obama wins the Democratic nomination and Hilary Clinton supporters start to rally more strongly behind him.

Obama's Momentum into the final stretch

Although neither Obama or Clinton will have enough votes to win from the primary voting, most analysts reasonably suggest that if Obama wins Texas and Ohio he will effectively be the presumptive nominee.

More complicated are the scenarios where Clinton wins narrowly in the last three big states of TX, PA, and Ohio. This would leave Obama and Clinton with similar delegate totals and put the race firmly in the hands of the superdelegates as well as a possible change in the elimination of the Floridan and Michigan delegates from the process.

It appears increasingly unlikely that Florida and Michigan delegates will be included given the Obama momentum and also the polling indicating he's far more likely to beat McCain than Clinton. Democratic Party players want to win in 2008 far more than they want a particular candidate, so expect the party to rally around Obama if his March 4 performance is good. If not, expect more indecision as the wild workings of American politics move along.

Corruption in Politics is rare

I'm tired of hearing people talk so much about corruption in politics when it is really very rare. Few endeavors are held to as close a level of scrutiny as politics, and although there are many very minor abuses throughout the system, major corruption is very rare.

We want to find individuals at fault when it is our seriously flawed money-driven-political-marketing-pork-barrelling political nightmare that is to blame.

The McCain non-scandal is a great example of how a personally virtuous person, acting reasonably, will still be viewed as engaging in questionable activity. Yet even as his personal actions appear to have been perfectly legal and reasonable, they reflect the deeper problems with the system where a cute young lobbyist is a lot more likely to get the ear of a Senator than a dedicated balding gadfly.

Contrary to what most people think there is almost NO voting in direct exchange for political contributions. However contributions play a huge role in the process and certainly distort it, but much earlier on. How? Only people who have the support of a broad section of special interest groups that can fund them have much of a chance at political success. Lobbies and money come in to play before the election, when candidates are picked for their views. Powerful lobbies do not change votes with campaign contributions, rather they change the *candidates* into those more likely to vote for them. It's more subtle than buying votes and perfectly legal, but reflects the key problem with the system which is NOT personal corruptibility, rather it is marketing and finance driven politics.

What is the solution? Public funding hardly seems the answer, though better forms of free public information may be helpful. The internet is already helping to level the playing field such that information can be disseminated at a fraction of the cost of other media.

Nader Enters the Race

Ralph Nader has entered the presidential race, though his effect this time will be trivial as Nader last much of his support during the 2000 Presidential campaign when many feel his 5% of the popular vote effectively threw the race to George Bush in his win over Al Gore. Gore won the popular vote handily but Florida's razor-thin vote margin eventually was decided in Bush's favor, giving him the electoral votes and win.

Personally, I've lost most of the respect I had for Nader feeling that his economic philosophy is more anti-corporate than it is pro-people. Corporate abuses - even in the past when they were arguably more flagrant - pale in comparison to the disadvantages people face if they cannot participate in the big corporate economy that drives our world. Roadblocks of the type Nader favors that put legislation and regulation in the way of corporate progress hurt the poor, because they raise prices on products and make it much harder for companies to deliver goods and services effectively. There is a minor safety advantage but it's trumped in most cases by the cost disadvantages.

I'm sure there are exceptions to this - where safety is worth the cost to the corporation - but I don't think Nader advocates for intelligent ROI analysis. Rather, like many people who are mathematically challenged, he simply won't address the huge costs to society of regulatory structures that inhibit innovation and profit.

McCain's non-scandalous scandal

The John McCain lobbyist scandal seems to be dying down in light of the New York Times' failure to produce anything other than rumors of the appearance of impropriety combined with McCain's sharp denial of any romantic involvement or betrayal of the public trust.

Frankly, I think the story's somewhat foolish original intention was not to accuse McCain of illegal or immoral activity, rather to suggest that even McCain is not immune to the lure of the huge gray areas in political ethics. These are challenges McCain has talked about times both in regard to his involvement in the Keating S&L scandal and challenges with our process in general.

McCain's case is interesting because I'd suggest it is pretty clear what happened, but media speculation and frenzy simply cannot handle middle ground very well:

McCain had a friendship with lobby girl which was flirtatious but probably not scandalous - I doubt they slept together and may never have had any romance, though I'm guessing he technically lied saying "no romantic involvement".

Like other Senators, McCain participated in our crappy lobby system in legal ways.

Vicki Iseman's influence over McCain him was a notch above the normal due to the flirtatious and/or romantic overtones, but she did not *directly* ask for favors and he did not *directly* offer them. McCain is a man of honor and it would have been totally out of character for him to act otherwise.

Isemant did get more attention than average, but nothing that would approach illegal preferential treatment or breach any reasonable ethical standards other than the one that suggests our current and past lobbying systems are poor ways to do the people's business.

Note that decisions and clients are on the record, so where is the record of corruption here?

Appearance of impropriety here? Sure, but that's not enough.

American Politics: Shame on us all

While issues go largely ignored in the media we've got politics center stage pretty much 24/7 now as personal attacks go overreported, indiscretions are speculatively addressed, and pundits spend most of their energies on irrelevant analyses of the horserace.

Shame on the big media.

It would not bring as many viewers, but it would be helpful to have a thoughtful examination of the various policy platforms of all the major candidates. The debates to their credit often address these issues of subtance, but the big media generally fails to follow up on the details or the implications of these platform differences. It's not really their fault, rather it is ours, becausa we don't want the complicated truth - we want the simple sexy nonsense.

Shame on us!

Lot is at stake in Texas Primary, March 4th.

The March 4 Texas primary was not expected to be all that significant in the early stages of the Democratic primary process, but it is now clear that Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are close to "must win" states for Hillary Clinton. Clinton still leads the polls in all three although her Texas-sized lead in Texas has evaporated, leaving Obama and Clinton within a few percentage points in the Texas primary.

If Obama wins Texas it weakens Clinton's case even further that she is the best choice for the Democrat who can win in the general election. With most polls showing Obama as the stronger candidate against John McCain and many Democratics shifting from undecided to Obama, the Clinton Campaign arguably must sweep the 3 big states in a few weeks or start to prepare to conced the race to Obama.

Clinton to Obama: Kum-ba-ya dude, Kum-bay-ya

The Clinton Obama debate was almost as civil as the previous one, with the exception of a Clinton shot regarding Obama's use of one of his supporter's turn of phrase - a ridiculous accusation Clinton feebly tried to support only to be booed by the crowd. Yet Clinton also had the nights most appealing exchange where she called for party solidarity, expressed respect for Obama, and got the crowd to their feet.

Clearly, Democrats will be pleased with either of these candidates. What isn't clear is whether Obama might choose Clinton as VP if he wins. Clearly she'd be foolish not to choose him, creating a ticket that would likely be invincible against any McCain combination.

Huckabee's Hooters

MSNBC is reporting that Mike Huckabee's wife spent the night at Hooters Las Vegas after taking in some sort of boxing match or show. This is not news, but the headline was irresistable, and news worthiness hardly drives presidential politics. In fact one could argue that debates aside, the media has virtually no interest in issues - they are reporting the titillating nonsense that appeals to the prurient interests of our ill-informed American public. That would be you and me folks.

McCain Iseman New York Times .. Scandal...or not?

John McCain's candidacy may be threatened as what appears to be a fairly explosive revelation comes to light that he was romantically involved with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist who was representing companies that were affected by McCain legislation.

Details of the situation so far are not clear, though it seems more likely to me that the New York Times has left out unverified details than included spurious ones. That said, the story as written does not necessarily suggest anything other than bad judgement. I have seen nothing to suggest McCain treated Iseman's companies any differently, and in the game of power politics I think we tend to see corruption where it simply does not exist. Senators are hardly going to jeopardize their careers and reputations

Rush Limbaugh is absurdly suggesting this is some sort of left wing NYT conspiracy to endorse and then derail McCain. Limbaugh should have no credibility with anybody with an IQ above 70 - his snake oil politics and hypocrisy are so glaring it is a wonder anybody listens to his nonsense.

McCain and Vicki Iseman

A breaking story in the New York Times is suggesting that there may have been some form of inappropriate relationship between John McCain and a Lobbyist by the name of Vicki Iseman.

McCain's campaign seems to be handling this without denying the reports, rather suggesting that this is an inappropriate topic.

Based on the New York Times reports, McCain and Vicki Iseman developed a very comfortable relationship during her lobbying efforts several years ago. The Times suggests that McCain aids felt so strongly about the potential problems that they effectively broke up the two, who they feared were having a romantic relationship.

Unfortunately for Republicans, it is not going to be easy to gloss over this type of relationship given the powerful attacks against Bill Clinton for his many dalliances which led to Clinton misleading legal authorities and impeachment proceedings which failed to remove Clinton from office but created one of the great political crises in recent history.

Who is Vicki Iseman? See her bio here

Obama wins Wisconsin and Hawaii. TEN primaries in a row. Check please?

The Barack Obama juggernaut moves on with clear wins tonight in Wisconsin and Hawaii, leaving little doubt that Obama is the clear Frontrunner in the democratic race. Polls which only a month ago were strongly in Clinton's favor are evening up and the Wisconsin and Hawaii results are likely to keep the pressure on as young voters and *men* swell the Obama campaign ranks.

The male vote appears to be an important factor in the Clinton Obama race, where men appear to have concerns about a woman in charge. However I think a key factor that is now clear is simply that Obama proved himself viable as a Democratic candidate, and electable in the national race against the Republican contender. Democrats have been conflicted about Hillary Clinton for some time, and Obama appears to be their way "out" of that conflict.

All that said the

Pundits and Plagiarism: Shut UP!

As the USA enters an era of challenged prosperity, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, global responsibilities that are greater than at any other time in history, and many challenges here at home....

The pundits are talking about whether Barack Obama copied a few words from his friend in a speech.

This is *complete* nonsense and although I don't blame the Clinton campaign for cleverly misdirecting everybody into this absurd issue, I *totally* blame Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Chris Mathews, and more and more for buying into this absurdity. This absurdity simply should not make the news, but like other mildly contentious stupid points it trumps real issues - really the *only* thing these clowns should be reporting.

What is wrong with TV news people? They rarely choose to report anything but items of entertainment value and the horserace details. Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear some intelligent discussion of policies? Is that too much to ask?

Clinton still leading in several upcoming primaries

Many polls continue to show Clinton ahead in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio as the Democratic Primary continues in a virtual delegate dead heat between Obama and Clinton. Most polls are showing Obama with a lead in Wisconsin and Hawaii today. Wins in those states will demonstrate even more clearly how powerfully the Obama campaign has emerged as the front running campaign.

Today's absurd accusations from the Clinton campaign about speech plagiarism by Obama appear to be a strange way to score negative attention points during this critical time, and are likely to blow over tomorrow during the Wisconsin and Hawaii primary reporting frenzy.

On, Wisconsin!

Primary eyes are on Wisconsin this week as that "all American" state votes for the Democratic nominee. While McCain has only the finishing touches to put on his nomination, the Democratic race is very likely to go to convention, and the outcome there is not at all clear.

Obama has run a virtually flawless campaign, rising from near political obscurity to the be new national favorite and arguably the most likely winner of the big prize - the Presidency of the USA.

Presidential heir apparent Hilary Clinton is now locked in the tightest of races with Obama - a race that ultimately could hinge on how she manages issues such as inclusion of Florida and Michigan delegates, states banned by the Democratic national committee for holding early primaries, and superdelegates, most of whom remain uncommitted.

My take on superdelegates is that they will *not* necessarily help Clinton even though she currently has more of them pledged to her, though last week it was reported that she has lost 3 superdelegates during a time where Obama has won 13.

I think the most likely outcome at the convention is that many superdelegates will agree to support the person with the most popular votes and this will give that person a strong lead. Of course there could even be debate about who won the most votes as the Florida and Michigan voting legitimacy is debated.

Campaign Hiatus

It feels odd, but nice, not to hear the overwhelming and excessive coverage of the primaries for these few days between the last set of primaries and Wisconsin coming up in three days. Washington is voting as well but most of the delegates are distributed there via the caucusing which is completed already.



The superdelegate issue now takes front stage as it is extremely unlikely that either Obama or Clinton will go to the convention with enough votes to win. Many superdelegates appears to be holding off on committment, partly because they probably want to go with the winner, and partly because they are concerned about their own political reputations if they pick people that were not in favor in their own district or election territory. Superdelegates are about 20% of the total.



At this stage of the game it appears unlikely that we'll see superdelegates *overturn* the verdict of the popular vote. If Obama continues to perform in future primaries as he has in the last 8 primaries, his vote and delegate totals would be high enough to make if very hard for Clinton to convince superdelegates to vote for her as well as hard to justify a superdelegate win. A more likely scenario however is that Clinton will win in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, making the total delegate count *so close* that the party will need to do some soul searching to determine how to avoid contention at the Democratic convention.

Democratic Superdelegates

It's now very clear that Clinton Obama is likely to go to a convention for decision, perhaps making superdelegate voting the key to the nomination. CNN reported this morning that without *huge* winning margins for one candidate, neither can clinch this nomination without superdelegate votes.

So, how will this shake out? I'm guessing most of the superdelegates are waiting to jump on board with the winner of the popular voting, which may be just as well. If the "popular" nomination is overturned by insiders many will be angry, though I continue to think the most likely scenario is Clinton/Obama, a combination that may be dictated at the party level during the convention.

Delegates

McCain has all but sewn up the nomination, even before his impressive win in Virginia that should prove Mike Huckabee is simply not viable as any threat to the McCain Campaign. In fact the best strategy for Huckabee now is to suck up to McCain in the hopes of a VP nomination that is less likely to be forthcoming if he simply gums up the works and makes McCain look bad. That said, he's clearly hoping to have some leverage at the convention with enough delegates to be able to secure a VP spot. This appears less likely after yesterday's loss in Virginia.

What about Ron Paul? Arguably the most passionate and articulate spokesperson of the values Republicans claim to hold dear remains in the race, but with too little support to make much of a difference. His internet popularity was very interesting but failed to turn his campaign into the powerful force that Huckabee's became. I think Paul actually had more money initially than Huckabee and may still be pulling in more donations.

You call that negative?

The term "negative campaigning" should be reserved to mean the nasty, mean spirited, or misleading stuff that has become so common in American politics. Here, CNN calls a Hilary Clinton Wisonsin campaign commercial "negative" when all it does is goad Obama for refusing a debate, which he has done because stratically it is wise for him to do so and for Clinton, generally a better debater, to try to bring on more debates. This is not exactly the type of thing we saw back in the elections of the 1800s where candidates took outrageous shots at their opponents.

We can have a spirited, healthy interactions free from the media-induced nonsense that tends to color everything in the most confrontational light.

McCain Train Gets a Head of Steam

John McCain's strong campaign remains challenged a bit by Huckabee, but after today's strong showing in Virginia and the "Potomac Primaries", he remains the clear leader. The key question that remains on the Republican side of the presidential equation is whether McCain will pick Mike Huckabee as running mate or try to choose a moderate who can help him win in the states that have moderate political bases. I doubt McCain knows what he'll do yet because it is still not clear how conservatives will treat his candidacy.

Obama Keeps on Rolling

Barack Obama won the Virginia Democratic Primary and all the other primaries today, making him undefeated since February 5's close Super Tuesday results. Although this was expected it's another boost to Obama's roaring campaign.

Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas are big primaries and although all are currently polling for Clinton, I think Obama's campaign machine in full gear will be formidable when he starts speaking more in those states. His "Rock Star" quality, combined with the ability to talk inspirationally but very vaguely about policies, arguably make Obama the front runner now. Totals are not in yet but I think he'll be pulling just ahead of clinton in delegates after today, even with superdelegates included.

Obama extremely likely to take the delegate lead after today's results

Polls show Obama with a large lead in Virginia. After the Virginia Vote is in tonight, and even with Clinton's superdelegate advantage, Obama is likely to have the higher delegate total though regardless of today's result Clinton and Obama will remain within dozens of delgates of each other.

Pennsylvania, Texas, and Ohio's importance are increasingly with each passing Obama victory. Most see all three of these big states as likely to go for Clinton. Some of last month's Ohio polls had Clinton more than 20 points over Obama, though recent Obama victories could change all that.

However, based on all the information available to date we are still predicting a narrow Clinton victory - probably at the convention - and probably with the announcement of Obama as Clinton's VP. This would be the killer combination for the democrats and likely make them virtually unstoppable in the general election against McCain and his likely running mate, Huckabee.

Stay tuned...

Democratic Convention: Superdelegates and Excluded States

As Clinton and Obama vie for the Democratic Prize the likelihood that two factors the democrats will find uncomfortable may come into play in the decision. Superdelegates are one factor -they represent about 20% of the delegate total in a handful of influential party players. Here is a Superdelegate running total. With most still uncommitted, I think it's increasingly unlikely that we'll see these superdelegates make the difference. The issue is becoming controversial enough that most will stay uncommitted until a concensus position develops - perhaps as late as the convention but if Obama continues to rule the primary roost look for many superdelegates to shift to his camp. Clinton is far more vulnerable to claims of playing insider hardball than Obama, so ironically the superdelegate issue may wind up working to his advantage. He can claim a Clinton superdelegate lead is from party politicking where his superdelegate gains are legitimate.

I think a more important factor could be the inclusion of the results of the Florida and Michigan primaries. These both went to Clinton and would swing the delegate total even more strongly in her favor. In fact if Clinton takes New York and Pennsyvania the count should stay close right up to the convention.

Big Mo for Obama?

Does Obama have so much momentum now that Clinton cannot stop him from winning? Bill Kristol suggests today that Obama's recent victory sweeps will propel his campaign to have a clear delegate lead soon.

It is certainly clear that Obama, unlike Clinton, has captured the imaginations of many young voters as well as many mainstream Democrats. Where Clinton offers capability, experience, and the first serious female candidate to run for President, Obama offers the same affirmative action advantages to the democrats but also inspires confidence and enthusiasm. Historically the people that win are not the smartest and most capable - they are those with leadership qualities. Obama's superb speaking style, which combines power and humility, gives him leadership points that simply do not match Hilary Clinton's persona.

With many Obama wins in caucus states where a few can influence many, it's not clear Obama can translate his appeal to the big audiences of Ohio and Pennsylvania. California went to Clinton and this is a strong indication that in populous states Clinton still has the edge. Will this be enough to win? No. The decision is now very likely to be made at the convention, and increasingly it looks like the superdelegates issue could make all the difference.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Dems will have a convention!

Although it's not clear yet that the Democratic nomination will require a series of convention votes this is looking more likely as Barack Obama storms ahead with excellent showings in states that just a month ago looked like they were leaning to Hilary Clinton. The pundit talk has moved to superdelegates - the 20% factor in the Democratic nomination that can swing things away from the popular vote. I'm now thinking that many superdelegates may remain uncommitted through the convention in an effort to 1) boost their own importance and 2) help the national committee if it needs to balance off superdelegates to even up the score. It may prove wise for the Dems to either vote to NOT count superdelegates to avoid a populist backlash if the nominee was not chosen by the popular vote, rather by schmoozing the right party insiders. Clinton would be the one more likely to win in this fashion and it's hard to make a case in favor of this voting style given the 2000 election where GW Bush won without the popular vote, much to the dismay and outrage of Democrats.

It's all about the O...Obama

Barack Obama swept today's Democratic primaries winning in WA, LA, and Nebraska. Although this was expected it's another boost to Obama's campaign train, and the size of the victories was great enough that he's got powerful bragging rights tomorrow.

Although Clinton is still expected to take Pennsyvania and Ohio, huge states with large numbers of delegates, it's looking more and more like the election could hinge on the superdelegates.

Huckabee wins again

As everybody discusses the inevitability of a McCain win on the Republican Primaries Mike Huckabee just keeps on ticking, today winning the Kansas primary handily. With a few more wins like this in areas clearly out of the Southland, Huckabee is likely to land his ticket to the Vice Presidency.

Clinton Obama vs McCain Huckabee would provide Americans with intriguing choices as McCain and Clinton are both moderates in their parties where Huckabee and Obama are right and left wing respectively. I think in this case the VP debates would be very fun to watch.

Delegate Count before today's Feb 9 primaries: Clinton by a nose but only because of superdeletgates

RealClearPolitics.com is counting the Democrat delegates and boy are they close. Clinton holds a very slight lead *if you include the superdelegates*, Obama leads with popular vote delegates. I'm sure Howard Dean and other party leaders are dreading the possibility that superdelegates could make the difference in the winner, throwing the party

On Tim Russert David Brooks suggested that Clinton has the edge because the remaining states have lower education levels and he suggests that slightly favors Clinton, and also that Superdelegates may make the difference.

A paper obtained from the Obama Campaign by Russert had these totals *before* the superdelegates come into play:

Obama: 1806
Clinton: 1789

Wow, that's CLOSE!

Race and Voting

John McCain has all but locked up the Republican nomination but the democrats appear to have months to go before the decision is made.

I'm really surprised by the Obama surge but I think on the Dem side you now have legions of very enthusiastic new voters pitted against the old Democratic guard who tend to want Clinton. There are also specific demographic factors that have become very important, and contrary to much mainstream foolishness on race issues it appears that: There does appear to be racism, but it's not coming from mainstream white America. Exit polling data indicates that Latino voters may be voting for Clinton in some part because of race, though it's hard to tease out that factor in most polls.

We also see that African Americans are voting in huge percentages for Obama. Is this race based voting? It's hard to argue it is not when you have, say 80%+ when the candidates have effectively identical policies with respect to issues that surround race.

We probably won't know until after the primaries are over and somebody takes a good look at exit polling questions about race, but I'd guess that even though there is some race based voting it won't be the key factor in this race, partly because the two groups that appear to be most sensitive to race issues - Latinos and African Americans - each represent about the same percentage of the population and appear to have different ideas about who to support.