Rekna

I'm curious as to who everyone views is leading in the democratic primary. I have intentionally left off the "tied" option as I want a view of who people believe is leading even if it is by a hair.

When I say leading i'm not talking about the delegate counts but instead in the race as a whole.

SecretMethod70

Clinton...but by a hair.

Incidentally, I find it quite interesting that Clinton is so often referred to by her first name whereas the other candidates are not. Ever since I had this pointed out to me, I've avoided doing so. I don't like the implications with regard to respect.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Rekna

This is because the name Clinton is more ambiguous as people don't know which you are talking about. Where as with Obama you know you are talking about Barak as people wouldn't assume it to be his wife that you are talking about.

SecretMethod70

To expand on what I said, I think Clinton has always been ahead, and she used to be ahead by much more. She has the overwhelming support of the "old guard." As much as Feb 5's numbers can be spun, I think the day was genuinely a big day for Obama, but I also think it was disappointing to both camps. Clinton obviously would have liked it if she had done far better, and if the primary were held a month ago she would have. Obama obviously would have preferred to do much better as well, but I think a big reason for that is the emotion generated from his momentum. That kind of momentum makes you feel like anything is possible.

Objectively, though, I think Obama did very well. A few weeks ago, Clinton would have won overwhelmingly. Instead, Obama only lost by about 10% in CA, and he won more states overall than Clinton did. He also may, according to some estimates, gain more total delegates from the day than Clinton does.

Clinton is still ahead: she's still the frontrunner, and she still has some serious support out there. And she'll likely win Texas, thanks to the Latino vote. Obama, on the other hand, has some great momentum to keep building upon, and he now has the opportunity to return to campaigning with a more personal touch, which is a great strength of his. These next few weeks will be very interesting.

I wouldn't be surprised if this goes all the way to the convention, in which case that'll be a whole new mess, with Clinton insisting on seating Florida and Michigan and Obama insisting that they play by the agreed upon rules.

I didn't realize Bill Clinton was on any ballots I find that argument to be really flimsy. Just look at my post: who in their right mind would think I'm ever referring to Bill Clinton?

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

flstf

It's like Obama said in the last debate "Sometimes I can't figure out which one I'm running against".

ratbastid

While I agree entirely with Secret Method's analysis, there's also the matter of momentum. There's no question that Obama has the momentum right now, and probably has the wherewithal to sustain it at least through the next couple weeks' contests.

SecretMethod70

Absolutely. Hence, Clinton leads only by a hair I think Obama has a very good shot at it, but he needs to keep working his ass off.Heh, if only he were referring to their names.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Rekna

Well Obama is ahead in pledged delegates Clinton is winning in super delegates. The next primaries all heavily favor Obama meaning he could rack up 4 wins this Saturday while Clinton sits on the sidelines. By most estimates Obama gained on Clinton on super Tuesday. Also Obama is clearly running the funding race which could turn out to be vital over the next few months. Obama does best when he can focus on small states due to his charisma. Clinton does well in large primaries due to name recognition.

Taking this into account I think Obama is leading and will grow the lead over the next few weeks.

So we are not allowed to talk about Bill? Why was it G.W. Bush for many years? Only after G.W. was president for a few years did people in large start calling him Bush. It is a matter of name recognition, people recognize Clinton as talking about Bill.

SecretMethod70

YEah, I think we all basically agree, just have a slightly different take on who is slightly ahead at this point.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

mixedmedia

I think it's too close to call, but I voted Obama 'cause that's who I want to be in the lead.

The power of positive thinking and shit...

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

kurty[B]

Ditto

__________________
In the Absence of Information People Make Things Up.

flstf

And that is Obama's greatest strength, the enthusiasm of his supporters. Watching his campaign speaches with the crowd chanting "Yes we can" some even in tears is quite dramatic. I still think he is the underdog trying to stop the Clinton machine. If he wins the nomination I think it will be very bad news for the Republicans.

FailedEagle

My question is . . . I've been to a dozen different websites and NONE of them have the same number of delegates appropriated to the candidates. They all vary. Why is that and whose numbers do we trust? Also . . . what about Florida and Michigan?

__________________
Head over to Nonsense to sign up for the newest round Of the Trivial Racing Image Game. Hurry.

dc_dux

I think the difference in the delegate numbers reported is probably due to the 796 "superdelegates" (members of Congress, governors, party leaders, etc) who, unlike the elected delegates in the primaries, are not formally committed or bound to either candidate but are currently "leaning" one way or the other.

The Florida and Michigan issue of having their primaries invalidated (at least in terms of bound delegates) because they were held prior to Super Tuesday has yet to be resolved.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ratbastid

It's resolved. It's WAY resolved. The Clinton campaign tried briefly to bring it up again, but it's WAY WAY resolved.

I mean, how could the party, after the fact, when only one candidate did ANYTHING in those two states, come back and say, "You know? Gee. Let's have those utterly bogus contests count for something." They're tainted results from the get-go because only one young go-getter broke her promise not to campaign there. There'd be blood in the scuppers if they tried it.

Willravel

I made the mistake of following CNN last night. Jesus was that dumb. MSNBC seemed to have it right.

pan6467

I think come convention time and Nov., the Dem Party will find this issue very, very far from being resolved. I think the only people wanting it resolved are those who will continue to refuse to listen to 2 very important states with very important EC votes.

See those are 2 very powerful states that the Dem nominee is going to need to win the White House, I seriously doubt anyone can realistically win this Nov. without having at least one if not both of those states.

The GOP can AND will remind the voters in those states how the Dem party didn't give them a say in the delegation committees and how the Dems penalized them for having exercised their right to vote at a time the Dem. Party told them not to.

Of course I'm a hot head but it seems to me the Dems told the citizenry of 2 states, "If you don't do as we say fuck you, you're votes won't count." there will be repercussions I fear for this.

However, Ms. Clinton went ahead and did at least a few nods and winks to those states. That's more than anyone else.... and that maybe the deciding factor in the convention and naming the nominee.

Sorry, if it happened here in OHIO I'd be pissed more than I am at the party and I probably would not vote for the ones who chose to ignore my primary vote in Nov. I would feel the same if I lived in Fla. or Michigan (*which sucks and I would never live there* (see note below)) and if Obama was the nominee, I'd tell him my vote wasn't important to you in Jan. so go fuck yourself in Nov... perhaps my vote will be important to McCain or the GOP nominee (McCain).

Short answer: I'd choose Hilary.... as much as she scares me, she at least acknowledged the voters in Mich and Fla. Obama didn't and I will never respect the man nor follow the man for that. HE CHOSE TO REFUSE LISTENING AND CAMPAIGNING TO PEOPLE BECAUSE OF 1 REASON.... THOSE PEOPLE CHOSE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE WHEN THEY WANTED TO VOTE NOT WHEN THE PARTY TOLD THEM TO VOTE.


*Please note, while I am sure Michigan is a very beautiful state for legally blind people, due to the rivalry and just blahness towards the state as an Ohioan, I felt the need to make the customary swipe at Michigan .... it was meant in fun and in all honesty Michigan is a very beautiful state... well outside of Detroit and Ann Arbor andddddd.... well.... thinking about it.... Michigan just sucks.*

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

Its not resolved at all. Both the DNC and the FL/MI state parties are exploring options while at the same time sticking to their earlier decisions. No one on either side wants those two states to be disenfranchised at the convention.

The latest possibility thats been floated by the DNC would be for FL and MI to hold caucuses sometime next month.
In any case, if they cant come up with something that is agreeable to both the DNC and FL/MI, then the final decision wont be made until the convention, where the full body will need to ratify the decision to exclude the FL/MI delegations, or not.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Rekna

Well all 3 of them pledged not to compete in those states, Hillary showed she doesn't have integrity and did it anyway. The only way you could count the votes in those 2 states is by having a new primary where both candidates are on the ballot.

ratbastid

Agreed. The results as they stand are hopelessly tainted. And the later those contests happen, the better it is for Obama. So Clinton has to hope she can whine her way into getting those delegates, even though it would be blatantly unfair to seat them with the current result standing.

pan6467

So you are asking taxpayers in 2 states to absorb the cost of another election because the DNC chose to not honor those states right to choose when they vote?

Doesn't seem fair to the taxpayer and I would most probably truly not vote for a Dem then.


Hilary showed me one thing that Obama didn't, that's the forth sight to know that by telling 2 large states their votes don't matter you may lose those states in Nov. Hilary at least acknowledged those voters, Obama and the rest of the DNC chose to ignore and try to dictate to the people.

Sorry, I never thought I'd say this, I swore I would never vote for Hilary... but she earned my respect because of this and she is someone I can now vote for, I will never vote for Obama or Edwards because of this.

I just wonder why the GOP didn't make such an issue out of all this.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dc_dux

Political parties have rules and procedures like any comparable institution. If you dont play by the rules, you pay the price.

If FL and MI choose to have a caucus to replace the unsanctioned primaries, there is no cost to taxpayers. Caucuses are administered by the party; they tally the votes, and in some states, even pay rent for the caucus meeting space.

The Republicans are facing a similar issue in MI (not that it matters anymore), but they forfeited half of their delegates for their unsanctioned primary.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

filtherton

pan, I'm not quite sure how you can blame obama or edwards for not saying anything to florida or michigan. It could be reasoned that the fact that neither of them paid lip service to fl or mi was due to them vowing not to campaign there, a vow which clinton broke.

If anyone is to blame for fl and mi's votes not counting it is whomever made the decision to move the caucuses up. It's not like the consequences were some secret. That sucks for them, but they pretty much brought it on themselves, and they have no one else to blame.

Redlemon

Is it really a big deal whether or not a candidate comes to your state? In this world of instant communications, you don't have to see the candidate in person to get all the information you need.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

ratbastid

Pan, I don't see Clinton's actions in MI and FL as a principled stand. I see it as a cheap attempt to build momentum, and if possible, pick up a bunch of cheap delegates.

If she'd come out and said, "You know what? I said I wouldn't campaign here. And I was wrong--you deserve a voice. So I'm taking back my promise not to campaign, and I'm going to stand up for the rights of Florida Democrats to hold their state primaries whenever the hell they want!"... well, then I could see your argument. She'd at least be doing some honor to the pledge she made not to campaign there. But she didn't--she snuck in there without AT ALL honoring the promise she gave.

Are you proposing that the two states should have their delegates seated for Clinton, since she "won" their "primaries"?

Shauk

I want so badly to see obama over hillary, Hillary is the most conservative candidate in this election. She's milking the teat of Bill's legacy and the uninformed are either voting for her because she's a woman or because they think she's like bill. She's horrible and.. ugh, I don't even wanna talk about it.

SecretMethod70

I'm not sure where you get the idea Clinton is the most conservative candidate in this election, but that's another topic.

Pan: aside for the things everyone else has said, keep in mind that political parties are private organizations. They have every right to set rules regarding their primaries, and those rules were clear-cut. FL and MI chose to break those rules, knowing full well what the consequences would be.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

highthief

Hillary has the advantage in terms of the overall race.

At the end of the day, people are cautious - in a tight race, I think the safer candidate - in this case Hillary - will win the voters on the fence.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Shauk

http://www.google.com/search?q=hilla...ton+censorship

lots there.

along the fact that she's anti video games and her whole "big brother" thought process is a little over motherly.

SecretMethod70

yes, there are a lot of questionable aspects of Clinton, but I wouldn't call her the most conservative. Most of her policy positions are quite liberal. It's just that when they aren't...they aren't.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

mixedmedia

eh, I'd just as soon give up these Hillary-loving Florida delegates...I don't trust that delegate-appointing business anyway...especially not here in Florida, I have to say...Florida party politics is a little off-putting, for me at least.

Nice new avatar, SMeth.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Charlatan

I think the biggest thing I read over the last few days is that Clinton's war chest is a lot smaller than Obama's. He has managed to raise a lot more money.

This combined with his momentum could make all the difference in the race.

What about an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

SecretMethod70

I don't think it's particularly likely, unless this thing drags on and Dean needs to step in to prevent a brokered convention. Even so, I'd greatly prefer Obama/Clinton over Clinton/Obama. I think a Clinton presidency would hurt Obama's chances at winning in the future. The next president has a huge mess to clean up, and I don't think Clinton would be able to do it while keeping Americans feeling good about her and the job she's doing, which would hurt the next Democratic nominee. As VP, Obama would also be unable to do most of the things I really like about him: things which are in direct contrast with Clinton, such as opening up government and reducing the influence of lobbyists.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

ratbastid

I don't see how you can be pro-war and liberal at the same time.

I made the first political contribution of my life today, $100 to Obama.

SecretMethod70

I don't like determining that someone is liberal or conservative based only on a few issues, any more than I like the idea of voting for a candidate based only on a few issues. Also, let's not forget that it wasn't long ago that policing the world and helping spread democracy were considered Democratic positions. I'm glad to see certain Democrats moving away from that, but Clinton's positions aren't exactly "conservative," any more than McCain is "liberal" simply due to his immigration and global climate change opinions.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling