 |
| ||
|
||||||||
|
May 20, 2008 Democratic Primary MattersBy Jonathan CohenPrimary Math It takes a simple majority of the convention delegates to nominate a candidate for president. If delegates from Florida and Michigan are included it takes 2210 delegates and if they are excluded it takes 2026. Going into the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, the total of pledged delegates (those that have been allocated by elections in state primaries or caucuses) stand at 1612 for Barack Obama to 1443 for Hillary Clinton. With about 200 delegates left to be determined from the remaining primaries in Oregon, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana and Puerto Rico, neither candidate will be within 250 votes of reaching either 2026 (excluding Florida and Michigan) or 2210 (including Florida and Michigan). This means that the super delegates, those appointed by the party in each state, will decide the nominee. Since early February, the mantra of the Obama campaign has been "Do the math". It has been their consistent claim since Super Tuesday that the only way Hillary could win the nomination was by getting the super delegates to overturn the will of the voters. Their point has been that because of proportional allocation of delegates, it would be impossible for Hillary to overcome Obama's lead in elected delegates in the remaining primaries and therefore Obama deserved to be the nominee. Hillary has won most of the major primary contests since Super Tuesday, including the key states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, by substantial margins, but her margin of victory has not been great enough to substantially reduce Obama's delegate lead. Her victories suggest that Hillary would be a stronger candidate in the general election, a possibility that the super delegates cannot really ignore. The Obama campaign's claim that the race was over was always an election strategy aimed at getting the support of the super delegates. The talk about doing the math was always more about "spinning the math". It was their side's way of framing the debate on how the Democratic Party was to look at several key issues that would decide the election: what to do with the votes from Michigan and Florida; how to count the overall popular vote; how to relate the primary system which reflects the popular vote to the general election that puts a premium on winning key states; which candidate had the best chance to win in the general election. The national media has largely bought into "Obama math", his campaign's narrative on how the Democratic Party is to interpret the results of the Democratic primaries. Hillary hater-in-chief Dick Morris has been a frequent visitor on Fox News, promoting the view that Hillary has lost and it would be unimaginable for the Democratic Party turn its back on Obama's coalition of African Americans and enthusiastic young voters by having Hillary-supporting super delegates swing the election in her favor. The clear implication of this point was that there would be something sleazy and possibly racist about doing so. For the most part, CNN along with the major networks and their cable affiliates, have echoed this position. Because the primaries have been reasonably close and delegates are allocated proportionally, Obama has maintained a small lead. While the Obama campaign may have been right about the outcome of the primaries, it is not hard to see how the Clinton campaign and its supporters have been short changed by the mathematics of the process. Even a cursory look at the voting totals from primary contests reveals that the contest has been essentially a dead heat in the states where delegates are apportioned from a primary and a complete rout in those states with delegates allocated from a caucus procedure. Primaries and Caucuses Obama's delegate lead in pledged delegates currently stands at 159 and is only twelve more than the 149 delegate lead from states that held caucuses rather than primaries. Hillary won only one caucus state, Nevada, and that by a single delegate. She lost the rest by substantial margins. It is highly unlikely that in a race with such a close popular vote that delegate majorities of landslide proportions in the caucus states would have occurred had those states held primaries instead. Caucuses bring out the most motivated voters and their political views are often at odds with the far more numerous rank and file members of their parties. The results from the two states which held both primaries and caucuses, Texas and Washington, strongly support this view. There were 2,800,000 ballots cast in the Texas primary and Hillary won by over 100,000 votes, a margin of victory of almost 4 percentage points. As a result she was allocated 65 delegates to Obama's 61. On the same day as the primary, 42,538 individuals cast a second vote in the Texas caucuses, which Obama won by a margin of 23,918-18,620 and as a result was apportioned 38 delegates to Hillary's 29. The combined delegate count from Texas was 99-94, a net gain of 5 delegates for Obama, Do the math! Fully one third of the delegates were awarded to the 1.4% of the voters who participated in the caucuses, while two thirds were apportioned to the 2,800,000 voters in the regular primary. This distortion of the popular will meant that Obama, who lost the primary by 100,000 votes, came away with 5 more delegates. The state of Washington is equally revealing. There was a non-binding primary held 10 days after the caucus. No delegates were apportioned based on this contest that was won by Obama by a margin of 51-46. But in the caucuses, in which a much smaller number participated, Obama's margin of victory was much greater and he was awarded 53 delegates to Hillary's 25. Had the 97 delegates from the state of Washington been awarded proportionally according to the non-binding primary, Obama's delegate margin would be 51-46. In Alaska, with a grand total of 405 reported caucus voters, Obama was allocated 9 delegates to Hillary's 4. This compares with West Virginia where a 67-26 percentage point win and a margin of over 147,000 votes produced a delegate allocation of 20-8, a net gain of 12 delegates for Hillary. The Caucus States of America Most of the caucus states have routinely voted overwhelmingly Republican in past presidential elections and the small percentage of Democrats who actually attend the caucuses tend to hold more liberal views than the average Democratic voter. The election returns in the caucus states suggest the impact of "blue communities" in red states. While the states may be generally conservative, the college towns and communities of transplanted urbanites form their own subculture and their views tend towards the left wing of the Democratic Party. While their percentage in the general population is small, they make up a healthy share of the caucus participants. There is no reason to believe that the views of the caucus goers in states like Idaho and Wyoming reflect the opinions of rank and file Democrats. But if you go on the election results website of the New York Times, you will see the results of caucus states reported in percentage terms rather than votes, leaving the impression that the voters of such states are overwhelmingly pro-Obama. While this is plausible, the small numbers of caucus voters do not provide anything resembling a random sample of typical Democratic Party voters. But this misleading representation of such votes is important to the Obama campaign because it supports the contention that the number of elected delegates accurately reflects the opinion of the Democratic voters in such states, and so the overall delegate total reflects the overall opinion of the Democratic Party. Florida and Michigan Finally, the decision to allocate no delegates to Florida and Michigan voters did significant damage to Hillary's campaign. This was particularly true of Florida, where the demographics were very favorable to her candidacy. Its large population offered a mother lode of potential delegates from the vote that occurred. If allocated according to the popular vote, it would have yielded a 43 delegate advantage for Hillary. The initial decision to prevent all states but Florida and Nevada from holding primaries before February 5 was designed to give less well known candidates such as Obama the opportunity to compete against better financed and more well known candidates such as Clinton and Edwards. The states of South Carolina and Nevada were added to the pre-Super Tuesday mix because, unlike New Hampshire and Iowa that are primarily white, South Carolina and Nevada have substantial minority populations. Indeed this helped Obama, as he didn't have to expend time and resources in the large states of Florida and Michigan, and could concentrate on South Carolina and a group of small Republican-leaning western states with caucuses rather than primaries. What's more, he was able to avoid facing Jewish voters in Florida and Arab-American voters in Michigan, who would have had the opportunity to force Obama to parse out what exactly are his "nuanced" views of the Arab/Israeli conflict. Instead of attending campaign rallies in college towns, recruiting students with promises of "change" and shouts of "yes we can", he might have been forced to let the public know what he actually thinks the US policy should be about the future of Jerusalem, West Bank check points, the separation fence, Israeli military responses to rocket attacks from Gaza, what concessions he expects from the two sides in the dispute and what measures he would be prepared to take to pressure the two sides into making such concessions. Voters on both sides of this dispute deserve to have some idea what an Obama presidency would bring to this dispute. Right now all we really know is that Obama is enthusiastically supported by Martin Peretz and Louis Farrakhan. It is telling that as a consequence of the Democratic Party decision to exclude the delegates from Michigan and Florida, the voter turnouts were low in both states. In Florida, the turnout was 48% of the number of votes for Kerry in the 2004 election. In other states the primary turnouts were mostly at 75% and above, and in Texas it was at 102%. This suggests that had Florida voters known that their votes would count in the national primary, Hillary's margin of victory might have been closer to 600,000 rather than the actual 288,617. The Democratic Party mishandled the Florida and Michigan primaries. If they needed to punish the recalcitrant states, they might have been better advised to follow the lead of the Republican Party, which reduced the size of the delegations by 50%. This still allowed for a meaningful primary that compelled the leading candidates to run a meaningful campaign in two of the most important states in the general election. When the Democratic Party made the decision to disallow the delegates, they anticipated one of the candidates securing the nomination long before the end of the primaries. But as neither candidate has been able to close the deal, the Democrats have a dilemma without a satisfactory solution. There is simply no way to resolve this fairly. The Democratic primary system awards delegates to the candidates according to the percentage of votes they receive in each state. When put together in aggregate, it amounts to a system in which the allocated delegate totals closely reflect the overall popular vote. This process contrasts with the Republicans' mostly winner take all primaries and more importantly, it differs from the electoral college system which determines the outcome of the general election. The impact of proportional allocation of delegates to Democratic candidates limits the importance of winning states and increases the importance of demographic factors such as race, age, gender and income. There are no exact figures on how the various demographic groups distributed their votes. Exit polls are at best good approximations. But at least in theory, there is no reason why state-by-state analysis of voting is any more enlightening than demographic analysis. The impact of demographic factors on the total number of delegates produced in the primary states does not depend on their distribution within particular states. All that really matters is their percentages within the total voting population. In the general election, however, this is not true. A candidate's vote total in the Electoral College, as measured by percentage, is not necessarily close to the percentages in the popular vote. While the Democratic Party primary system is probably more representative of their voters than the Electoral College system, it is sufficiently different that it is not a clear predictor of general election performance. For example, African American voters contributed greatly to Obama's margin of victory in many southern states, but because of the political conservatism of the same states, he is unlikely to carry any of them in November. Because of the policy of proportional allocation, the contribution of these voters to the delegate count in the Democratic primary would be unchanged if they were distributed to other states. However, disbursing them judiciously to say Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida could easily change the outcome of the general election. Compounding the Democrats' problem is that with almost 800 super delegates appointed by the party and bound only to vote their conscience, in a close election such as the current one, neither candidate is even close to obtaining an absolute majority from the elected delegates. This means that the super delegates are free to vote based on which candidate they believe is most likely to win in the general election. And in spite of what Howard Dean may hope, the super delegates don't have to make a final decision until they get to the convention in August. Spinning the math Both sides are looking at the math and coming to different conclusions. Hillary Math 1. The race isn't over until one candidate has secured an absolute majority of delegates. Delegates from Florida and Michigan should be seated at the convention and the number of delegates that constitute an absolute majority should be calculated with these delegates included. 2. Hillary defeated Obama in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Ohio, and California, eight states totaling 215 electoral votes. Add in Michigan where she defeated uncommitted -- a proxy for Obama votes -- by a margin of 55-40, and you have a total of 232 potential electoral votes from states where she is considerably more popular than Obama. It likely that California, New Jersey and New York will vote Democratic in November, and it is equally likely that Texas will go Republican. But the remaining four, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan, could go either way and Clinton seems like a much better choice to prevail in those pivotal contests. 3. Obama's margin of victory over Hillary is concentrated in states that almost never vote Democratic in presidential elections. These states lean politically conservative and Hillary is considerably closer to the political center than Obama, particularly on the crucial matters of national security and foreign affairs. Though he beat her handily in these states, neither candidate has much chance of winning in any of these and her chances of attracting independents and stray Republicans is better than his. 5. If the contest between Hillary and Obama were measured in electoral votes, the states she has won so far total more than 300 electoral votes and she would win easily. Obama Math 1. From the beginning, the Obama campaign has argued that the will of the voters is measured by the number of delegates that are proportionally allocated from the primary elections and state caucuses. 2. Obama should be the nominee if he ends up with more of these delegates than Hillary. 3. Further validation of his rightful place as the nominee is that he has won more states in outright competition with Hillary. 4. Since the DNC decided to disallow the delegates from Florida and Michigan, it would a rewriting of the rules to seat those that were chosen in the January primaries, and as he hadn't campaigned there, it would be unfair to his candidacy. 5. If a compromise is not reached to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, the number of delegates needed for nomination is a majority of the delegates from the other 48 states and various territories and the District of Columbia. 6. Once the number of Obama's elected delegates plus super delegates reaches the majority (2026 or 2210 depending how you factor in Michigan and Florida) the primary is over and he has won. There is no way of resolving this dispute that will be satisfactory to both sides. There are genuine ambiguities here that must be resolved and the answer is not in the rules but in the political judgment of the officials of the Democratic Party. Any resolution on whether to seat delegates from Florida or Michigan, and how the super delegates decide to vote, is a political decision with a winner and a loser. Following a long and hard fought struggle, there will certainly be considerable hard feelings on the losing side. The Obama campaign, from the beginning, has attempted to frame the narrative around its own version of the math. For the most part the mainstream media has echoed their version. But there are serious problems with their narrative. One sixth of the delegates are super delegates who are bound to no candidate until they vote at the convention. In other words, unless one of the candidates has an absolute majority of pledged delegates, the primary season is not really over until the convention. The super delegates are chosen to play an independent role in the process. They can interpret the primary results however they wish and vote accordingly. There are some issues that they are going to have to confront. The popular vote There is no one best way to tabulate the popular vote. At the Horserace blog on Real Clear Politics, Jay Cost has 15 different ways of tabulating the popular vote. The issue is which votes to include and how to count them. The count hinges on several issues: whether to include the Florida or Michigan votes, how to count the Michigan vote if they do, and how to count the votes from the four states with caucuses where no overall vote was tabulated. Then there is the question of how to count the votes from Washington. Should they use the numbers from the caucuses or the numbers from the non-binding primary? Cost looked at previous results and using demographic data from earlier primaries and making estimates of expected turnouts, he came up with likely election totals in the remaining six contests including West Virginia. Using this hypothesized date, he offered 15 ways to count the popular votes, 9 of which favored Hillary and 6 of which favored Obama. In the one primary that has now been held, West Virginia, Cost's numbers underestimated Hillary's margin of victory by 25,000 votes. The Democrats' dilemma There is no compelling reason for the super delegates to ignore the popular vote in making their decision. And there is also no compelling reason to pick one way of counting the popular vote over another. The reality of the situation is that they are under no compulsion to make a decision before the convention, and even if they declare for a candidate before August, they are not bound by such a decision until the first ballot at the convention. Though ahead in the delegate count, Obama's total of elected delegates is nowhere close to an overall majority. Looking at the pledged delegate count alone, Obama is the winner. But viewed from the perspective of optimizing the number of potential electoral votes, Hillary appears to be stronger. And from the point of view of the overall popular vote, there looks like there is no clear cut winner. There are serious problems with deciding against either candidate. With Obama there is the long term potential damage of taking the nomination away from the first African-American candidate to reach the end of the primary season with the greatest number of elected delegates. This would have unfortunate consequences for both the Democratic Party and for the country. There has been a strong "I never thought I would live to see the day" vote from African Americans, and even many who strongly oppose his candidacy on political grounds, share the view that on racial grounds alone, an Obama victory would be good for the country. Obama's supporters have been stressing this on talk shows and news programs since they started declaring the inevitability of his nomination back in February. So there are compelling reasons not to deny Obama the nomination, particularly if he has a slight lead in elected delegates. On the other hand, the Obama lead in elected delegates is entirely due to the allocation from the caucus states and the decision to exclude the delegates from Florida and Michigan. The great irony of this campaign is that Obama, if he wins, will have fashioned his victory primarily from a complete dominance of the caucus process in states that are predominantly white. Underlying the conflict between the candidates is the ongoing rift between the Party's most liberal members, who are heavily in favor of Obama, and its centrists, who are supporting Hillary much as they supported her husband in 1992. Though the candidates' official positions on issues are similar, their supporters represent two very different poles within the party. Obama is the candidate of those who think the war in Iraq is immoral, Israel should be pressured to make more concessions for peace, guns should be outlawed, abortion should be available on demand, free and without restrictions, US foreign policy was responsible for 9/11, the United States should not have a military until it abandons the policy of "don't ask, don't tell", religion can be ridiculed unless it is done in a mosque or Trinity United, the gravest threat to individual liberty is the government eavesdropping on phone calls from Al Qaeda, captured terrorists should be Mirandized, lawyered up and released to blow themselves up in Baghdad or Tel Aviv, and you can fill in the blanks from reading a visit to any number of left wing blog sites. In short, Obama is the candidate of the academic left. Though I don't believe that Obama is an elitist or even shares all of these views, he is the preferred candidate of the faculty lounges and the activist students, an insular group whose attitude toward most Americans is somewhere between condescension and contempt. What is at stake in the Democratic primaries is political primacy in the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton may be a big government liberal but she is a pragmatic one. She is in favor of things that conservatives don't like, but she will work with them and she is not going to do anything drastic. What she is not, is the Michael Moore/DailyKos wing of the party. And right now she is putting up a determined fight to keep them from taking control. This fight is important. Even if she loses, as it now looks like she will, the strength of her fight will pressure an Obama presidential campaign and possible presidency toward the political center. For that I am grateful.
Jonathan Cohen is Professor of Mathematics, DePaul University |
Recent ArticlesBlog Posts
|
|
||
Comments
Thanks for this analysis.
I think if Dems choose Obama it will be the ultimate proof they've gone mad
Posted by: JustMe | May 20, 2008 02:56 AM
I think Jim Clayborn of SC heavily canvassed for SC voting before super Tuesday. Given how Clayborn gave "Clinton's race card" issue legetamacy, Given Obama campaign's smart ways, I would think their campaign might have influenced Clayborn, Donna brazille and others in pushing for this.
Posted by: sri | May 20, 2008 07:41 AM
Since determining the true will of the Democratic voters is evidently so hard and frustrating and maybe impossible, both of their candidates should gracefully drop out.
Posted by: Bob Miller | May 20, 2008 08:26 AM
It appears to me that the author of this article is also a racist. What does Obama's campaign have to do with the Black vote? His campaign is clearly about change and pulling the country together. Why would this writer want to keep America divided? It seems that a lot of Whites middle-aged to elderly are completely biased in their views and will not be swayed. It's like walking around with blinders on. When will they take them off? Whether you are black, white, young or old, you have to be aware of the fact that America is under attack from the outside in and the inside out. Only CHANGE will turn things around for this Country. The oil prices are so high next winter we won't be able to buy home heating oil not to mention gasoline. The economy is in the toilet and our military and police tactics are completely corrupt. Isn't everyone looking forward to a brighter day? Please stop walking around with your eyes wide shut!
Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 09:03 AM
We know what will happen: voters who vote their political judgment supporting our Iraq policy and the U.S. Military, Israel, 2nd Amendment Rights, free exercise of religion, etc., etc., will be labeled RACIST. How wrong and divisive!
Posted by: Dan Jantzen | May 20, 2008 10:32 AM
Anonymous | May 20, 2008 09:03 AM... You watch too much MSM sensationalist news the sky is not in fact falling. The economy has slowed down and stock market is not the magic money fairy but unemployment is very low and there is still economic growth,,,Oil prices are very high including probably a bit too much speculation the same way there was with inflated home values the last couple years , that said gas prices really have not grown at the rate you might have expected over the past 25 years so they seem sorta of horribly high but sorta in the right place.,,,the military isn't particularly corrupt but it is a huge bureaucracy things definitely fall through the cracks in something that big,,,racist this author showed no racism and beyond that there isn't much else to respond to on that one,,, looking for a brighter day is great and I continue to in the long American tradition, that said Obama seems to see no brighter days ahead and everything in ruin. If things were as bad as he portrays and if he were the only hope well yeah that would be a reason to be worried
Posted by: Austin | May 20, 2008 10:32 AM
Yes - it seems anyone who says something true about Obama, or something he does not like, or something the radical left does not like - THEY ARE CALLED RACIST! A poor attempt to try and keep thinkers from thinking outloud.. an attempt made by someone too ashamed of his statement to admit who he is making the statement. Anonymous race baitor is what you are, sir (or mam). Keep your racism to yourself and have a look at some honest facts. An keep an OPEN FORUM for freedom of speech during this election season!
Posted by: David Jodon | May 20, 2008 11:04 AM
DEMOCRATS UNITE IN DENVER - INPEACH HOWARD DEAN!
Posted by: SPIEGEL IM SPIEGEL | May 20, 2008 11:52 AM
I am sick and tired that the accusation of racists. This overgeneralize other characteristics like economic class, cultural ties, etc.
Anytime you say something against BO, you are labelled as racists.
Indeed it is racism, the reverse is working right now from the black community against other ethnic groups.
I am confident there is a backlash against the black community after the election and it will be shown in future elections.
Posted by: John_Lai | May 20, 2008 06:16 PM
The 4th to last paragraph (beginning with: "Obama is the candidate of those who think the war in Iraq is immoral, Israel should be pressured to make more concessions for peace, " ... etc) is an outrageous and slanderous oversimplification. I support Obama, and I don't believe any of those things, nor do I denigrate Obama's opponents as racists. I know loads of other such Obama supporters.
It's great for folks to support Hillary if she is their choice, but can you please refrain from making insulting blanket generalizations that smear Obama and those who support him?
Posted by: peter | May 20, 2008 11:18 PM
I do not think that obama should be president not because he is a black man it is nothing to do with racism. He doesn't salute our flag and he is muslium and our country was found on christanity and we shold not have a muslium president...he will bring this country down NO OBAMA...we need a real american christian president we have had enough of george bush and need a great president to lead this country
Posted by: NO_OBAMA08 | May 21, 2008 02:19 AM
I agree that the 4th to last paragraph was unnecessary, but I wholeheartedly agree with the rest. Obama supporters have become so self-righteous and defensive that it is almost impossible to have a discussion and point out real issues as you have done so intelligently in this article.
While I believe that Obama will make a good president, it is my opinion that Hillary would make an even better one and is more electable. As Democrats we have to select someone who will win on the national level, and Obama is too far left for the swing-voters. My main fear is that the left-wing Democrats will wind up getting us four more years of Republican rule.
BTW, you didn't mention one issue that enfuriates me. Every time Obama's race is mentioned, it is assumed that we are being racist- as if we haven't realized that Obama is half black. But why is it then perfectly fair to treat Hillary unfairly for being a woman? When I say I'm voting for Hillary, people immediately say, "Because she's a woman." Over 90% of black americans are voting for Obama and no one questions this. But Obama gets 2 out 3 male votes and no one mentions sexism. Bumper stickers such as "Life's a b****. Don't vote for one" are fair game. I believe some of the unfairness Hillary has had to put up with would not have occurred had she been a man.
Posted by: Young College-educated Hillary supporter | May 21, 2008 12:26 PM
The author is dead on in all his plausible scenarios except one - between now and the Democrat Convention, more "snippets" will emerge relating to the Rezko trial, Raila Odinga, Franklin Marshall Davis, TUCC, et al. and the "superdelegates" will be forced to eat crow and 86 this Chicago Machine Commie.
Posted by: Dave | May 22, 2008 07:18 PM
"He (Obama) doesn't salute our flag and he is muslium and our country was found on christanity and we shold not have a muslium president..."
Now, this is the sort of ignorance that would normally be comical if it weren't so perilous. Given the proliferation of information in this society, you would have to be living under a rock to believe that Obama is muslim. Not even FOX News is saying this anymore. I find this appalling level of ignorance so common among those in the anti-Obama camp.
And, Oh, he isn't patriotic enough. Really? And patriotism is to be measured/defined as wearing flag lapels, public displays of piety such as saluting the flag, displaying flags on your lawn (flags made in China)? Are you serious. What about those who have done great damage to our constitution, since 9-11, have eroded our civil liberties, have essentially declared war on the constitution, while wrapping themselves in the flag and declaring their 'patriotism?' Lord Acton was right; he said: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
Obviously, you anti-Obama folks who love to harp on the flag lapel issue, have a rather superficial understanding of patriotism. For me, patriotism is this: it means standing up for the ideals of the US constitution, the greatest, wisest legal document ever produced. It means I have such a love for my country that I do not want to see it deviate from its constitutional principles, and when it does, I will call my elected officials to account. In that sense, legitimate criticism of my country is in the highest and noblest tradition of patriotism. How refreshing it would be that after all the assaults on the constitution over the last seven and a half years, we have a president who is a constitional law scholar, one whose life has been devoted to its principles, and who has the deepest respect for it. Now that's TRUE patriotism, not the jingoistic and juvenile conceptions of patriotism I see from far too many on the right.
And, as to whether this great nation was founded on Christianity. This is an un-historical view of the founding of the republic. Many of the people present in 1776 may have been individuals who expressed a christian faith, yes. But no where in the constitution is christianity given preference over any other religion, or one religion given preference over another. The constitution is religion-neutral, even (prepare for this) god-less. Now, sure, you can cite a lot of extra-constitutional material - articles, papers, personal correspondences, etc - but point me to the constitution, the supreme law of the land; there is nothing there to say that this nation is founded on christianity. This republic was founded on secular and (dare I say it) humanistic principles.
Interestingly, the preferred form of government in the Bible is theocracy. Ours is democracy. Theocracy runs contrary to a democratic order.
Finally, so what if he were a muslim? Under our constitution, that is not a disqualifier.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 22, 2008 08:11 PM
Right now Hillary is being attacked for remembering that Bobby Kennedy was shot right after the 1968 primary in California in June, making the point that until this year, when the CA primary was moved up to Feb., no one rushed to push candidates out of the race (beginning in March!) as is being done to her. The press is dying to find any reason to hound her out of the race - why? BECAUSE SHE'S WINNING - as this article shows. If Hillary is pushed out by the sexist media, and the sexist Democratic party, a lot of women are going to boycott the party and the election. We've been sold down the river often enough - remember Anita Hill? Racism trumped sexism that time, and women were outraged. Why have we had no intelligent national discussion on sexism, by experts on the subject, not pro-Obama male "pundits" who haven't got a clue? Obama will not get my vote - he's arrogant, dishonest, and unprepared to be Pres. He says his voters will not vote for Hillary, but hers will vote for him? Think again "sweetie." And for all of you male pundits who say we'll calm down and come back to the Democratic party - not so fast! Roe v. Wade, thanks to sell-out male democrats, is dead already. Your scare tactics will not change our minds.
Posted by: California Jane | May 23, 2008 05:14 PM
Perhaps you can help me with the logic: If Michigan and Florida primary results should be counted why did Senator Clinton sign the pledge not to campaign and NOT TO PARTICIPATE in the primaries of those two states? The principle that the DNC was excluding voters from those two states was just as valid then than now. (Obama and the other candidates signed as well, but Senator Clinton is the one who has not lived up to her commitment) I understand all the other arguments that are being made, but this issue is a real problem for me
Posted by: andy123 | May 24, 2008 11:15 PM
I disagree that the media is trying to push Clinton out of the race. The media is covering this election like it's a prize fight, punch for punch, round by round, with little substantive talk on the issues (or discussion of enough issues), and would adore covering fistfights on the floor of the convention in August. Or Clintonian legal challenges of the DNC's committees' decisions.
The media has been Hillary Clinton's best friend, in fact, by creating straw men around comments by her which have helped to disguise her actual intent. To wit, these latest RFK assassination comments by Clinton are, in actuality, her broadcasting that she won't be conceding in June after the last primary is held: She's going for a brokered convention in August. You'd have to know the history of the 1968 election to realize the point of her comments.
Posted by: Joen | May 27, 2008 05:04 PM
I disagree that the media is trying to push Clinton out of the race. The media is covering this election like it's a prize fight, punch for punch, round by round, with little substantive talk on the issues (or discussion of enough issues), and would adore covering fistfights on the floor of the convention in August. Or Clintonian legal challenges of the DNC's committees' decisions.
The media has been Hillary Clinton's best friend, in fact, by creating straw men around comments by her which have helped to disguise her actual intent. To wit, these latest RFK assassination comments by Clinton are, in actuality, her broadcasting that she won't be conceding in June after the last primary is held: She's going for a brokered convention in August. You'd have to know the history of the 1968 election to realize the point of her comments.
Posted by: Joen | May 27, 2008 05:23 PM
Excellent article. It is irony that the Democratic Party has set traps all through this Primary process - sequestering of delegates and the use of Party Elite Superdelegates - to ensure that the Candidate is the "right" choice -and now they are trapped in their own minefield. This is the one election year that the Dems could have won with a moderate candidate by just having a fair primary where everyone's vote counted. But smoke and mirror caucases and penalities for early primaries have very likely ruined that opportunity. You can't make this up.
Posted by: Heinrich K | May 28, 2008 12:25 PM
Excellent article. It is irony that the Democratic Party has set traps all through this Primary process - sequestering of delegates and the use of Party Elite Superdelegates - to ensure that the Candidate is the "right" choice -and now they are trapped in their own minefield. This is the one election year that the Dems could have won with a moderate candidate by just having a fair primary where everyone's vote counted. But smoke and mirror caucases and penalities for early primaries have very likely ruined that opportunity. You can't make this up.
Posted by: Heinrich K | May 28, 2008 12:29 PM
Great article. Interesting that it falls short of taking on the real elephant in the American room - gender bias. The media can't fathom a female President and Americans are being led away from that by quaint arguments and shoddy math. America has a real decision to make and it effects them as well as the rest of the world. Unfortunatley, Obama can't likely win in November - and that scares the crap out of me.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 29, 2008 11:42 PM