Open Thread: Fun Presidential Charts

How many previously pledged delegates have changed their (0.00 / 0)

minds?  Seems like I've heard of quite a few, and all of them seem to have gone from Hillary to Obama and none the other direction.

---

by: StopCornyn @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 18:08:29 PM CDT

Michigan and Florida (3.00 / 1)

Seat the two delegations with the votes slipt 50-50. They would be seated at the convention, but would have no affect on the outcome. That is better than not seating them and have voters in two key states pissed off in November.

---

by: Ken22640 @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 20:26:32 PM CDT

Michigan and Florida (3.00 / 1)

At this point, I think the solution is to go back to the base rule and give each of the pledged delegates from Michigan and Florida a 0.5 vote.  

I could care less if party members from Michigan and Florida get to go to the convention.  Those people may be ticked but will work for the ticket.  What matters is figuring out a way to respect the voters of Michigan and Florida.  Those are the folks we are going to need in November (not just for the Presidency but also for the House).  

From the news out of Michigan, Obama seems to be getting the majority of the uncommitted delegates.  If you halve Michigan and Florida, Senator Clinton only picks up about 24 net pledged delegates.  At this point, barring a collapse by Obama, that would still give him a pledged delegate lead of more than 100 when all is said and done.  If he can get support from Senator Edwards, he would make that up instantly.

It's time to begin thinking about November and compromising on Michigan and Florida is about November.  

---

by: tmess2 @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 21:29:28 PM CDT

man (0.00 / 0)

how about a graph of HRC fundraising over the past 24 hours.  phew!  I still think Obama will run out the clock and be the nominee, but all the Dem activists whining that the party leaders have no fight should start taking notes.  Obama would be insane not to at least offer her VP -- he's a wuss and she'd be the Democratic Dick Cheney.  

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 23:32:17 PM CDT

Hillary for VP if you want to sink the ticket (3.00 / 1)

Obama doesn't need her baggage for VP.  And I wouldn't her as VP again.  One thing she has guaranteed from me personally by the way she has campaigned is that I would never consider voting for her in a primary in any future race, and would only support her in a general holding my nose because I agree with her ideologically.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 00:12:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There will be a Clinton/Obama ticket (1.00 / 1)

or Obama/Clinton ticket.

Both these candidates will be on the ticket come November. Anyone who thinks otherwise has about a month to come to reality.  

---

by: Pat C. @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:58:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What (0.00 / 0)

How can you state this as a fact?

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:17:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

when (0.00 / 0)

it becomes a fact, I'm sure you'll know.  

---

by: Pat C. @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 16:17:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hillary would be an anchor around his neck. (3.00 / 1)

If he puts her on the ticket with him, you can guarantee that the Repubs will be showing ads with her remarks about how she and McCain are ready to be commander-in-chief, but he's not.  That, and he would never be able to trust her.

Oh, and Obama's not a wuss - unlike Hillary, he's smart enough to understand that once the nomination fight is over, we'll need to unite as a party so we can defeat the Republicans.

- 7.12, - 7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

---

by: Big Tex @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:11:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

of course (0.00 / 0)

my original remark was 80% troll, but I do think Obama needs a strong VP nominee. Richardson aint gonna cut it.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:41:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Richardson > Hillary (5.00 / 1)

He has more experience than Hillary in a wide variety of rolls as a very successful governor of a swing state, secretary of energy, diplomat, etc.  He is from the west and can provide a regional balance, would help among Hispanic voters.  He obviously has better and more friendly connections with the Obama campaign, and doesn't carry the kind of baggage or negative image that Hillary has.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 14:21:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Baggage? (0.00 / 0)

would you be referring to the 15 million Democratic voters who have voted for Hillary?   Just curious.

---

by: JohnB @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 16:33:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm referring to the controversies (3.00 / 2)

and the (well deserved) reputation as a ruthless and dishonest politician who thinks she is entitled to win.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 17:54:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hmmmm (0.00 / 0)

you don't think these 15 million voters would be important to Obama, were he to get the nomination?

---

by: JohnB @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 14:15:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course they would be (0.00 / 0)

Rour bringing that up is a change of topic from my post that you responded too.  There's gonna be 90-100 million more voters at least that aren't part of that 15 million, and Hillary wouldn't help much with them.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 17:41:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think he needs someone (0.00 / 0)

who is going to appeal to Hillary supporters in order to facilitate bringing the party back together after the election, but not Hillary herself.  Richardson would be a good VP choice in a lot of ways, but he doesn't address this need.

- 7.12, - 7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

---

by: Big Tex @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 17:44:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who would you suggest then? (0.00 / 0)

One of her supporters?

Richardson would appeal to Hispanics, who are a big part of Hillary's constituency.  He has the reputation as an experienced and seasoned politician and diplomat that can appeal to those who support Hillary because they don't think Obama is experienced enough.

He's one of the best possible choices to balance the ticket for experience, to appeal to Hispanic voters, to provide regional balance (Hillary and Obama are both associated with the North/North East), his connections to the Democratic establishment (which largely correspond with the Clinton's, given his service in Clinton's administration), and for his reputation as a moderate pro-growth governor.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 18:05:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's a good question (0.00 / 0)

Richardson would definitely help with Latino voters, and his experience would be a definite asset to an Obama administration.  But Obama is going to need to appeal to the Hillary supporters who say they won't vote for him in the general election when he gets the nomination, and Obama's big problem is determining the motivations of these people.  I admit I haven't seen a breakdown of the polling to support this, but my impression is that they're mostly older white voters, not Latinos.  

I've heard a lot about older white women who support Hillary because she may be the last chance they have of seeing a woman become president in their lifetimes.  Those voters could be brought back into the fold if Obama selects a woman as running mate.  But how many of these voters are actually being motivated by race rather than gender?  And would naming a white running mate satisfy those voters?  If so, then picking someone like Kathleen Sebelius or Janet Napolitano might be his best bet.

- 7.12, - 7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

---

by: Big Tex @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 18:52:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

interesting (0.00 / 0)

I've spoke with several latino voters around Austin who dont' think Richardson has latino coat-tails.  Small sample size yes, but I'm not sure he rallies the community in the way we might expect.  And judging from his performance on the stump during the primary, he's not going to get anyone else on board.

I don't think his VP has to be white, but being female would be beneficial.  Sebelius probably won't do it as she is a strong Barack supporter (and another "Judas").  Feinstein would be my perfect non-Hillary pick, but she won't help on the political end.  If I wasn't so concerned about our chances in the general, I'd suggest Harold Ford.  But, I think Edwards or Gore would be the best "healing" picks, if either of them could be convinced to sign on.

Of course, reading the Obama tea leaves, I fully expect Bloomberg to be the pick. He wouldn't overshadow Barack like Edwards or Gore would.  He would fit in with Barack's agenda and attempted appeal to centrists. And he would bring economic credibility in a race where the Republican "doesn't know a lot about the economy."  Despite Barack's economic pandering in Ohio and Pennsylvania, if you look at his advisors, I really think he'll pursue a centrist economic policy as President, which fits in with Bloomberg.

It wouldn't help him on the foreign policy front, but "100 years in Iraq" might neutralize that issue.  Let's hope.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:48:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You may be right about Richardson (0.00 / 0)

Now that I think about it, there may be a lot of Latino voters out there who don't even know that Richardson is Latino - I admit I didn't myself until this election cycle.  And he does have the charisma of a tree stump.

Edwards or Gore would be good if they could be convinced to do it, but I seriously doubt that either would be inclined to do so.  As far as Edwards, I think he's already shot down the idea of being a running mate for either candidate, but of course you never say never in politics.

An excellent choice that I didn't think of before would be Blanche Lincoln - she's a woman (well, obviously), she's a Hillary supporter, and she's a centrist in a southern state with swing potential.  And Arkansas has a Democratic governor, so we wouldn't lose a seat in the Senate once she leaves to becone VP.

Bloomberg - ugh.  I think you're wrong about Obama pursuing a centrist economic policy as president, and I hope you're also wrong about him picking Bloomberg.  I don't see him gaining anything from having Bloomberg on the ticket.  Bloomberg doesn't help him unify the party, doesn't appeal to women, doesn't give the ticket any regional balance, and I think his appeal as a centrist is overrated.  If he were going to do something like that, he'd be better served by asking Chuck Hagel to be his running mate.

- 7.12, - 7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

---

by: Big Tex @ Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:33:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama would be wise (0.00 / 0)

to select Ted Strickland, Ed Rendell, Wes Clark or Evan Bayh, I think.

---

by: David Mauro @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 13:00:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Krugman says Obama is sinking for a reason (0.00 / 0)

Op-Ed Columnist

Self-Inflicted Confusion
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 25, 2008

After Barack Obama's defeat in Pennsylvania, David Axelrod, his campaign manager, brushed it off: "Nothing has changed tonight in the basic physics of this race."

He may well be right - but what a comedown. A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it's talking about math. "Yes we can" has become "No she can't."

This wasn't the way things were supposed to play out.

Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him - and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton's initial financial and organizational advantage - he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.

Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment - yet he still can't seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.

What's gone wrong?

According to many Obama supporters, it's all Hillary's fault. If she hadn't launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero - if she had just gone away - his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.

But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you'd think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security.

It wasn't. The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?

Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn't winning over working-class voters because transformation isn't what they're looking for.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama's soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that "we are the ones we've been waiting for" (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama's eloquence does not.

Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign's Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn't the campaign's central theme.

Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton's health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.

During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can't afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run - but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don't think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.

No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.

The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?

That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks - and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.

They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.

But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn't mesh well with claims to be bringing a "new politics" and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.

And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there's a very good chance that they'll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall.  

---

by: Steve B @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 23:22:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

HRC Campaign 10 Million in Debt (3.00 / 1)

A fiscally responsible candidate would use that $10 Million she just raised to pay off the $10 Million debt she's accrued over the past few months.  I don't think deficit spending would be a sound economic policy for a future leader.  I mean look at how well it's worked for our current President.

---

by: Casey Walker @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:33:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

that's ridiculous (0.00 / 0)

she'll be able to "retire the debt" later even if she withdrawals.  

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:34:31 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

True (0.00 / 0)

...and with what she made according to those tax returns, she can afford to.  Just don't want to see those hard working Americans she's fighting for get stiffed.  That was my only concern.

---

by: Casey Walker @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:30:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But at whose expense? (0.00 / 0)

Will she retire that debt with money from her own pocket?  Or will she work a deal with Obama when even she finally begins to realize that it's over, for him to pay off some or all of her debt in exchange for her dropping out of the race?  Because if she does that, she's taking money that Obama can use to help him and the rest of the party win in November, and putting it into the pocket of Mark Penn where it won't do us any good.

- 7.12, - 7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

---

by: Big Tex @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 17:50:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

debt retirement (0.00 / 0)

As demonstrated in the last few days, Hillary has many supporters who are willing to cover whatever money her campaign.  Barring that, candidates often work out arrangements with the nominee (see Giuliani) where they cohost fundraisers with both candidates getting contributions.  I'm sure there are many of maxed-out Barack supporters who would toss Hillary $2,300 when/if she ends up conceding.  It's a common arrangement.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:33:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

oh (5.00 / 1)

and I think she should default on the Mark Penn debt. :)

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:34:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Amen to that! n/t (0.00 / 0)

- 7.12, - 7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

---

by: Big Tex @ Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:35:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

re: debt retirement (0.00 / 0)

But that money - whether it's coming from her supporters, from Obama's, or from one of those fundraisers - is money that could be better spent supporting down-ballot candidates, or on GOTV, or in any number of other areas.  I'm thinking about how much more it would have helped us as a party if that $10 million Hillary raised had been sent to the DNC, for example, instead of her using it to prolong a nomination battle that she isn't going to win.  According to her numbers, a lot of that money came from small-ticket donors, many of whom I'm guessing don't have bottomless pockets.  We're burning so much money, energy, enthusiasm, and good will in this nomination battle that could be put to so much better use winning in the general election, be it the presidential race or the down-ballot races.

- 7.12, - 7.54 / "Health care reform will never take place until Rahm Emanuel is strangled with the entrails of Frank Luntz." - Diderot

---

by: Big Tex @ Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:50:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Willfull Ignorance (0.00 / 0)

That is the only way to explain this.  For her and her supporters to not look at this and note that she does not have, and has not for a while, a chance at victory is like a man waking up in the morning, viewing the sun's rays falling upon him and cheerfully declaring that it must be night still because its dark out.  Fools.

Just the humble opinions of but one man

http://thejonesyreport.blogspo...

---

by: Jonesy @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:36:21 AM CDT

interesting diary about Texas (0.00 / 0)

over at DK - discussing the Skelly & Doherty races, and the chances of Texas becoming a swing state

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

AIDS Walk Austinmy Walk Page

---

by: BeckyH @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:33:20 AM CDT

Dkos Diarist Turns Attn to Texas (0.00 / 0)

Admiral Naismith at Dkos has turned his attn to the state of Texas in his "Focus On ..." state series.

Shout outs to BOR, TK, and some of  our hard charging candidates in  Part One of Two.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

---

by: boadicea @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:38:19 AM CDT

Dates to watch (0.00 / 0)

This campaign could end on May 6, May 20, or June 3. It won't go to the convention.

May 6 might give Obama the signature wins in NC and IN that would allow us all to agree that it's over. I sure hope so. But if Clinton wins IN and NC isn't a 20 point blowout, the supers may decide to wait a while longer.

On May 20 (KT and OR), Obama will clinch the majority of pledged delegates. That should trigger the "Pelosi Club" superdelegates, who have promised to support the pledged delegate leader.  However, KT is likely to be a Clinton blowout, and it's hard to call a fight for the guy who just took a shot to the jaw. For PR purposes, Obama needs a solid win in OR to make up for KT.

June 3 is the last primary date, after which the supers won't have any excuse to remain silent. According to MrSuper (mrsuper.org) most of them made up their minds long ago, and are just deciding when to announce. Remember, Obama only needs 75-100 of the 300 uncommitted superdelegates, and the Pelosi Club already gives him most of that.

Two dates when the campaign won't end: May 13 (West Virginia) and June 1 (Puerto Rico), both of which are likely to be strong for Clinton.  

---

by: LSadun @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 17:22:08 PM CDT