John Lewis and other black leaders are re-thinking their early support of Hillary, which will certainly upset the superdelegate math at the Dem convention. This is obviously bad for Hilary, but is it unexpected? Let's have some calm perspective from Andrew Sullivan:
If Lewis's original endorsement of the Clintons was a huge blow to Obama, then his reversal is an even bigger blow to the Clintons. The Obama campaign has now not only built a rival machine to the Clintons', it is poaching loyalists. A figure like Lewis also brings, for good reason, a vast moral credibility with him. He gives permission - even encouragement - for other Clinton super-delegates to move to prevent a bruising and bitter fight through the spring. It's a tipping point.
Michael Crowley of TNR thinks it is bad for Hillary, but maybe not so bad as Halperin thinks:
Obviously this is a nasty development for Hillary. Among other things, it's one more reminder of Bill's reduced stature with his former African-American allies. It hurts. But an event that cuts her odds in half? That's how I would describe a big loss in Wisconsin. Not this.
Well. First of all, in terms of perception, these switches further promote the notion that the SS Hillary is going down and it is time for sensible folks to gather their belongings and disembark. Such a perception also makes it less likely that John Edwards, for example, would endorse Hillary - how often do people talk about rats boarding a sinking ship? Sometimes momentum is the perception of momentum.
However, are these switches by black leaders any kind of a surprise? In the glorious history of the US Congress, how often has a representative backed a notion that (a) looks like a loser, and (b) is overwhelmingly opposed by his constituents? With 80-90% of black voters backing Barack, who really thought that these black superdelegates would try to hold the line for Billary if Barack looked like a possible winner?
Thirdly, Barack grew up as a community organizer, which means he grew up with a belief in the power of bottom-up pressure. I am not privy to his campaign strategy but I doubt he lost sleep wondering whether these black leaders would come around once he won over their neighborhoods and demonstrated his viability.
Finally, I very much wonder whether a John Lewis endorsement of Barack would have been valuable to Obama last fall. Remember, Barack has been intent as presenting himself as something other than merely a black candidate (see the "Keep Hillary Alive" spin here); a string of early endorsements from prominent civil rights legends would have been counter-productive (although Oprah's cross-over appeal was welcomed).
Now I suspect that Obama's advisers would have been happy if John Lewis had stayed neutral earlier in the race. However, the way John Lewis' position has evolved really has broken perfectly for Barack: early on, Barack avoided the label of "the black candidate", since Lewis and other prominent blacks were backing Hillary; late in the game, the Lewis shift can be presented by the Obama camp as the latest sign that Hillary's apocalypse is upon us.
I don't for a moment suggest that Lewis' behavior was scripted in advance, but if I were an Obama strategist, this is pretty much how I would have scripted it.
Yes to all that..esp liked "Sometimes momentum is the perception of momentum"
Still Julian Bond and Sheila Jackson Lee have not abandoned Hill in her time of need,
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2008 at 08:59 AM
The Rasmussen poll is in.
Clinton 54%
Obama 38%
I can't link to Rasmussen. Typepad won't let me.
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 09:41 AM
Sorry. Typepad caused me to screw up. It. Was. Not. My. Fault.
The poll is from Texas.
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 09:42 AM
Thanks, Sue! Been waiting for a Texas poll.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 15, 2008 at 09:45 AM
Porch,
You're welcome. If the Hispanics don't abandon her, I think she will win Texas.
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Putin_vs_Clinton.html>Putin
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Did you see my link from Newsweek yesterday on the Obama rally with virtually no Hispanic support? He wont get much, and Charlie Gonzalez is not his Dad, Henry Gonzalez. If someone starts telling you Charlie Gonzalez has endorsed Obama, remind him that San Antonio where Charlie hangs out has a Hispanic Republican in Congress. Hispanics do not vote like blacks, and more and more they are streaming to the Republicans. Hill will get the Democrat ones, and McCain will get as high a % as Bush did, maybe even higher.
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Did you see my link from Newsweek yesterday on the Obama rally with virtually no Hispanic support?
In Dallas?
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Geraghty links to a Texas Credit Union League poll showing Hillary leading 49 to 41...
Posted by: hit and run | February 15, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Red Witch or Black Knight?
================
Posted by: kim | February 15, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Sue
HRC may win the popular vote in Texas – but lose ground in the delegate race. Unfortunately for HRC, Texas is a mixed caucus/primary state – allocating delegates as follows:
· 126 "primary-chosen" delegates, allocated based on the results of votes cast on March 4.
· 42 at-large, "caucus-chosen" delegates that come up through the primary and county convention.
· 25 pledged "party delegates" allocated by the presidential preference of delegates attending the State convention.
· 35 unpledged "super delegates"
HRC is at a disadvantage in the first group because the allocation is among 31 state senatorial districts and is made based upon turnout in the last two elections. In brief, the blacks turned out the last two elections and the latinos did not. Thus, the four most heavily black/youth districts have the largest number of delegates (Austin, South Dallas. Houston) – the latino districts? - not so much.
HRC is at a disadvantage in the second and third groups because of the caucus format – Obama has almost swept the prior caucus states, and unless HRC gets her folks to come back in the evening (as Obama has been able to do), it doesn’t look good for her.
Finally, the “super delegates? I have a feeling many will attempt to get to the front of the winning parade – so to speak.
In short, Texas isn’t much of a firewall for HRC – even I she does get the most votes.
Posted by: TexasToast | February 15, 2008 at 10:55 AM
As in Ohio many of former polls were before the blow-out in D.C. Maryland, and Virginia. I believe it is much closer. I got a robo-call for a rally in Lyndhurst today for Hil. Yesterday she was at OSU but The Cleveland Plain Dealer has endorsed Obama.
Posted by: maryrose | February 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I think I am going to gag if I have to endure Hill on the tube everyday till Martch 4th. She has an ad up where she tells us that everyday she tries to help someone. It all but brings a tear.
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 11:02 AM
That someone being herself. What a Girl Scout!
===================
Posted by: kim | February 15, 2008 at 11:05 AM
To follow on to TT's very accurate comments:
Texas delegates are apportioned by State Senate districts. There are 31 districts, 20 of which are held by Republicans. A brief analysis of those districts based upon ethnic composition and income yields these results:
BHO will take SSD (State Senate District) 1,2,3,4,5,10,13,15,17,22,23,24 - twelve in total.
RW will take SSD 6,19,20,21,25,26,27,28,29,31 - ten total
Contested SSD - 7,8,9,11,12,14,16,18,30 are in contention, all leaning RW based upon the preponderance of Hispanics but subject to crossover influence, especially 9,11,16 and 30.
I've never seen a race so susceptible to crossover. That BHO fella sure is exciting, isn't he?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 15, 2008 at 11:10 AM
"...calm perspective from Andrew Sullivan:" That, sir, is certainly the oxymaroon of the month and year, probably the oxymaroon of the '00's, and, long after we are all gone, a favored contender for oxymaroon of the 21st century.
I bet some of you are having the same hard time I am figuring whether the horrible harridan losing the nomination or the election would be the greater pleasure.
Posted by: Larry | February 15, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Another long time Democrat activist speaks. The article says he is unaffiliated with either candidate. But listen to the words and hum with the music.
"Are Democrats coming surprisingly close to nominating a phenomena rather than a fully vetted candidate?" asked Steve Jarding, a long-time Democratic activist. "The answer to that appears to be a frightening, 'Yes.'
"Once again, we seem to be falling in love in February only to be headed to a bitter breakup in November when our true love turns out to be much less than expected."
Jarding, who said he considers Obama "unique and gifted," has mostly stayed out of presidential politics since a brief dalliance with John Edwards in 2004. But the co-author of Foxes in the Henhouse: How the Republicans Stole the South and the Heartland and What the Democrats Must do To Run 'em Out, has long warned that Democrats should avoid the mistakes of past elections.
"Historically, while hope may well sell in the spring, it wears thin by fall when it is trumped by issues of security and experience," Jarding said.
One of his biggest complaints is over the "gushing of the media" toward Obama.
"In my 30 years of doing this," Jarding said, "I have never seen anything like the swooning the ... primarily television media has done over Obama."
Eventually, that will change. Jarding hopes it happens in time for Democrats to know everything they need to about the man who aspires to be their great hope in 2008.
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Real clear politics has an Insider Advantage poll showing 5illset up 48 to 41 in Texas.
Posted by: hit and run | February 15, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Rick
I have done no detailed analysis as you have. I will say that I live in and around the districts of Nelson and Harris and Carona and am very familiar with the area in district 30 Wichita falls to Sherman.
I dont see Obama winning any of those Republican districts. The Democrats in those districts are neither heavily black nor limosine ridin latte sippers. No large university presence either.
I do think the rules as written do not favor a massive delegate collection for her, but she will win more delegates and may well get every bit as disparate an outcome as Obamania did on the Potomac.
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 11:22 AM
5illset = Hillary of course.
Yes it's a BlackBerry day, why do you ask?
Posted by: hit and run | February 15, 2008 at 11:24 AM
There is always the exception to the rule, but for the most part, democrats in Texas are like republicans in the northeast. They will be less likely to vote for Obama because he is left of Hillary. And they still love Bill here, it would seem.
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 11:25 AM
My part of Austin is Obamaland (white, university, musician, slacker). But I think that's the exception - Hillary has the overall advantage.
Bill made an appearance here a couple of years ago - signing books or something, I can't remember - and at least four of my co-workers skipped work to go stand in line. All women with big crushes on Bubba.
However, it will be interesting to follow Rick's calculations and see how the delegates shake out.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 15, 2008 at 11:34 AM
democrats in Texas are like republicans in the northeast
scarce and hard to find? LOL
Actually when I first came to Texas, many moons ago I went to a fiesta in San Antonio that has a great many elected officials there working the crowd.
Young, a bit frightened and little naive I asked an older colleague how I could tell which party any given office holder belonged to. His reply, "Thats easy, the more conservative ones are all Democrats."
Things have changed some, as back then all statewide offices were held by Democrats. But outside of Austin and a few of the Black Caucus, there are not too many Democrats here who are proud to call themselves Liberal out in public.
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 11:37 AM
In politics, there is no reality, only perception.
Posted by: Neo | February 15, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Rick
The more I look superficially the less I see how you came to the conclusion you did. For example, districts 1 and 3 and East Texas. Democrats there tend to be older liftime Dems, and those are Hill's bread and butter. District 3 is Mesquite to Greenville. Middle class whites in Greenville and small town. Mesquite is blue collar white and Hispanic mix. Not a large black population that I can think of either.
Anyway, I might ask you to look again and see if you did not mistype on some of those.
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 11:45 AM
I'm extremely interested in the comments by that activist posted by GMax. I think that feeling is beginning to grow, and I expect we'll see a lot more of it from all quarters. There's going to be a hell of a lot of fresh scrutiny of Obama starting very soon, and there is likely to be a recognition by a great number of responsible Democrats that there's no there there. The fascinating question is whether the doubts will arise only after it's too late to stop the guy. I really don't think the country will elect him in November--a healthy dose of sobriety will doom him.
As for Larry's question, I think I come out in favor of her losing the nomination. How nice for that awful pair to be rejected by their own party.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 15, 2008 at 11:47 AM
I agree with John Lewis. I’ve decided to support Barrack Obama. I had an epiphany yesterday. I listened to an Obama speech, something trickled down my leg, and it all became so clear to me.
We can have world peace and universal health care. We can put an end to poverty. We can be proud of America again if we just believe in change and hope, and if we hope for a change we can believe in.
Some people say hoping for a better world is not enough, that it won’t get us anywhere, but just look at Barrack. All he has ever done is hope for a change and talk about hoping and changing. Now he’s damn near the President of the United States. So we know it works if only people will listen to Obama, he can give people confidence that it will work.
The old ways don’t work! We used to collaborate with our allies and bomb our enemies, but that was the old way. Barrack wants to bomb allies such as Pakistan and invite Amadinijad to the White House for a little collaboration. Obama believes in so many other wonderful things that it could fill most of the books in the world.
I know some people will say it sounds too good to be true, but that is just because they are racists.
Posted by: MikeS | February 15, 2008 at 11:50 AM
ARG now has Obama up in Texas, 48-42. Can this be real?
Posted by: Other Tom | February 15, 2008 at 11:52 AM
OT I have found ARG's work to be extremely suspect and off the mark.
MikeS, I suspect it's only a matter of time before the Minister of Hope asks his followers to touch the prayer shawl he's selling to the screen of their tvs and whatever they hope for will come to pass.
The men from Hope (huck and Bill) ; now the dopey hope. I wish they'd charge people everytime they used the words" hope" and "change" in this campaign/ What are they anyway? Mental emetics?
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2008 at 11:59 AM
ARG has hugely wrong a bunch this year. There model seems to be very broken. Stick with Rasmussen, he has been pretty close all along.
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 12:01 PM
I'm eager to prove that I'm not a racist by voting for a black man. But does voting for Obama, who is half white, really absolve me of guilt? Wouldn't it be better to wait to vote for a totally black candidate? Can't someone accuse me of voting for Obama only because he is half white?
Posted by: PaulL | February 15, 2008 at 12:07 PM
I did not realize that Obama has Zbig Brezinski as his foreign policy advisor. Perhaps the worst cabinet member out of the whole clown show that was Jimmy Carter's memorable four years of utter incompetence and fecklessness.
This guy flat out hates Israel, and apparently was just in Syria visiting with Assad. I wonder if he was able to pay his last respects to the dead Hezbollah terrorist while there?
Wonder if the Jewish voting block for Change, has noted that change may mean no more Israel?
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I suspect it's only a matter of time before the Minister of Hope asks his followers to touch the prayer shawl he's selling to the screen of their tvs and whatever they hope for will come to pass.
The prayer shawl is temporarily a web page Clarice. You don't have to touch it. You just click the Donate button, while believing in hope and change.
Posted by: MikeS | February 15, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I agree with OT that the "Obama has no substance/cult of personality" whispers are getting louder. I think we are hearing the sound of the stage being set for yet another RW comeback. If the numbers aren't overwhelmingly in his favor after the primaries are over, Obama will be patted on the head, told he has a bright future in the party, and asked to graciously withdraw.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 15, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Gmax, those Obama comments from Dems youv'e been been posting have been fascinating. Please keep 'em coming.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 15, 2008 at 12:16 PM
"In my 30 years of doing this," Jarding said, "I have never seen anything like the swooning the ... primarily television media has done over Obama."
Eventually, that will change. Jarding hopes it happens in time for Democrats to know everything they need to about the man who aspires to be their great hope in 2008."
Why will it change? The media will shamelessly promote him as the second coming right through the election, and will bury any and all criticisms. Every bit of dirt they can dig up on McCain will be front and center in the MSM's fisheye lens however. This is as close to a religious experience as these folks will ever get and they are going to ride this magic carpet until it dissolves underneath them when cold hard reality forces its hand. Unfortunately we'll all pay for this world historical folly.
The problem with experts and pundits is that they are experts on everything that has been, and are the most blind to what is truly new and different on the horizon as they try to fit it to the template of precedent.
Posted by: Paul | February 15, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Is Bubba still rallying the troops, or has he been completely muzzled?
Posted by: Other Tom | February 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Gmax,
All of our local officials are still democrats. They will die democrats. And they are more conservative than the republicans around here.
I just don't think conservative democrats will vote for Obama in huge numbers.
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM
" The fascinating question is whether the doubts will arise only after it's too late to stop the guy." Other Tom
They have no doubts about Global Warming, they have no doubts that "Bush lied, men died", nor do they doubt that Bush is listening in to all their phone conversations.
Nah, no doubters, all believers to the glorious end. :)
Posted by: Ann | February 15, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Rockwall, the smallest county in the big place called Texas. Ralph Hall lifelong Democrat switched parties. Its only a matter of time Sue, a tipping point will be reached and you one will wonder where have all the Democrats gone? Answer will be they are now Republicans.
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Off Topic:
The marines got way-laid in NH and unlike Berkeley the town came out to welcome them. (link under my name - via Don Surber).
See we aren't all nuts in the Northeast. And I'm such a wus it made me cry like Hillary.
Posted by: Jane | February 15, 2008 at 12:22 PM
I don't see Obama going out gently. If he has a pledged-delegate lead going into the convention, any result other than his being at the top of the ticket is going to be very deeply resented by a very large portion of black America. Bob Beckel says the two will be the ticket, one way or the other, but I'm not so sure.
But the Undead One is, well, still Undead.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 15, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Gmax,
The Dem primary turnout in '04 was 30% of the total Dem vote in the general. If voter enthusiasm were evenly spread in those Rep districts, BHO wouldn't have a prayer but if the black portion (10-17%) turns out and votes as it did along the Atlantic shore then it's quite possible that it will overcome what would normally be a 60/40 split in favor of RW. Toss in the weighting factor that TT mentioned and I don't believe that Rasmussen's 54/38 is going to represent the delegate outcome at all.
That's if BHO Fever continues, of course. It may already be peaking.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 15, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Obama also has Samantha Power as a foreign policy advisor. The soft-spoken, lovely lady is a big Israel hater too. Yes, we would have Jimmy Carter's second term here. Frightening prospect.
Posted by: bio mom | February 15, 2008 at 12:33 PM
OK
Then we have an indication of what to look for. If Black voting % of the Democrat vote climb into the middle 20% or more in Texas, he will still lose but may actually be able to capture something close to a equal share of the delegates.
I dont think Obamania has made it to Texas, and I think I know those three or four districts pretty well. I dont think its Obama country at all.
But I could be wrong, as Democrats are such a small portion of all those areas that they never get much chance to influence anything. Maybe I have just not noticed the heavy look aid drinkers before!
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Look is transposed it should be kool
Sheesh this grape koolaide is pretty tasty stuff!
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Ralph Hall lifelong Democrat switched parties.
He voted with republicans. But, they will have to die off, those democrats, because they were born a democrat and will die a democrat, or so I'm always told.
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM
I'm excited about March 4th. For the first time in my voting career my vote might matter. I can't decide thought whether to stick a fork in Hillary or keep her alive to beat up another day. I know what OT would say do. But, I've got a $100 bet riding on her being the nominee. What to do?
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I'm voting in the democratic primary. McCain will have to sink or swim on his own. We have a hotly contested sheriff's race in the dem primary.
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Only vote for someone you can live with if they win.
Posted by: MayBee | February 15, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I'm exactly where you are, Sue - excited about my vote mattering for the first time (I used to live in a solid blue state) and not sure which Dem to vote for, or even whether to vote Dem at all.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 15, 2008 at 01:06 PM
I live in and around the districts of Nelson and Harris and Carona
Hm, living in your car, or riding the rails?
I remember Zbig as the most anti-communist of Carter's people, which wasn't saying much.
Posted by: Ralph L | February 15, 2008 at 01:37 PM
I had an epiphany yesterday. I listened to an Obama speech, something trickled down my leg, and it all became so clear to me.
If you felt something running down you leg, maybe it is time for a change.
Posted by: Robert Brown | February 15, 2008 at 01:49 PM
Obama's also got Richard Danzig, Bubba's Secretary of the Navy and law school contemporary, on his team. I believe Danzig is the smartest man I have ever known, but that says nothing at all about his judgment on political matters.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 15, 2008 at 01:51 PM
I had an epiphany yesterday. I listened to an Obama speech, something trickled down my leg, and it all became so clear to me.
If you felt something running down you leg, maybe it is time for a change.
Posted by: Robert Brown | February 15, 2008 at 01:54 PM
OT OT OT
Trouble in the Motor City: Monica Conyers Made Threat
Here's a taste of the article, but you need to read the whole thing to get the full flavor:
Posted by: anduril | February 15, 2008 at 02:00 PM
Like this guys seems to say, the Clintons are a bunch of whiners.
Is this the kind of POTUS we want for our country ?
Posted by: Neo | February 15, 2008 at 02:11 PM
More OT More OT More OT
Trouble in the People's Paradise:
Is the party over in China? Massive unemployment looms
My, brother who sent me the link, asks: "This can't be good--What do crazy governments usually do with millions of idle young men?" In some countries chasing women might be an option, but since in China they selectively abort girls or send them overseas for adoption they just may have to expand the PLA.
Highly recommended by me. Stealing US technology won't change this situation.
Posted by: anduril | February 15, 2008 at 02:11 PM
Only vote for someone you can live with if they win.
Geeze...spoil sport.
::grin::
I'm voting in the democratic primary so I have to decide between Hildabeast and Messiah or leave it blank.
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 02:13 PM
In the glorious history of the US Congress, how often has a representative backed a notion that (a) looks like a loser, and (b) is overwhelmingly opposed by his constituents?
Besides Comprehensive Immigration Reform?
Posted by: bgates | February 15, 2008 at 02:14 PM
living in your car, or riding the rails?
Assume you were just jesting but if not, Nelson district is north and west of DFW Airport, Harris is due South of DFW airport and Carona is East of the Airport. Districts are fairly close in a large metropolitan area and thus its pretty easy to know multiple districts.
Plus I find it to be smart to not post exact details on the internet of yourself, as there are folks who try to use it to their advantage and your detriment. I am in one of those districts, but you will have to guess which.
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 02:15 PM
Porchlight,
Using the Distrection Election Analysis for SSD-25 and the '06 results I see a probable D primary vote totaling 25,445 (84816*.3). Add in 2,700 extra votes for blacks motivated as they were in SC and the total D turnout goes to 28,115 of whom 24,069 are non black. The 60/40 RW edge plus her 10% of the black vote gives her 14,847 votes to BHO's 13,268. A crossover of 1600 votes for BHO gives him the delegates for SSD-25. I currently count SSD-25 as a RW pickup but the margin is really that thin based upon 30% turnout and a 60/40 non black split.
Each SSD is going to be slightly different but SSD-25 only has a 5.6% black population and 13 R majority SSDs have more than 10% black population.
Loads of fun.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 15, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Wow, Rick. And with almost three weeks of Obamamania to go, plus the Austin debate next week, those SSD-25 numbers could shift even further toward Obama. Hmmm....
Posted by: Porchlight | February 15, 2008 at 02:30 PM
Rick
You are forgetting that in the even delegate districts, the winner must get a large supermajority to avoid an even split of the primary portion of the delegates. In the DFW area, for instance, 18 of the 26 delegates are in even numbered districts, 3 of which will probably split 2-2. If Obama gets 58% of SD-23 (South Dallas), the split there is 4-2 for Obama. In SD-10 (FW) and SD-9(Arlington), the simple majority gets the odd delegate. Thus, HRC needs a majority in both to cancel out SD-23. Its the odd numbered districts(and the big districts) that make a difference - and an Obama advantage. Burnt Orange Report has extensive analysis of this, if you are interested.
Posted by: TexasToast | February 15, 2008 at 02:50 PM
Thank you, TT. I admit total ignorance wrt the actual delegate split rules. I'm just intrigued by the fact that crossover could actually be a factor at all. I'v seen it written about numerours times but it rarely seems to have a possibility of actually working.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 15, 2008 at 03:01 PM
Good Lord. What were democrats thinking when they set this system up?
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 03:03 PM
Texas,
Which one are you supporting, if you don't mind my asking?
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 03:07 PM
"What were democrats thinking when they set this system up?"
Make every vote count. Two or three times whenever possible.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 15, 2008 at 03:09 PM
SSD 25 is Jeff Wentworth's District. Wentworth is a very conservative San Antonio based Republican. His district is the Northside of San Antonio where the bulk of the Anglo population in San Antonio lives. He also has some of the Hill Country, which is very white and strongly German ethnic background. He does have a little bit of Travis County in the district, not sure but I am guessing south side of Austin.
None of that area is thought of as a black area. Far more hispanics than blacks. I would guess Hill does even better than 60/40 in that district due to the 2nd and third generation American hispanics that live in that area and I dont know where all those extra "motivated blacks" are going to come from. Plus I think blacks in Texas were breaking about 7 to 1 for Barack not 9 to 1. That could be one of the reasons you analysis and my seat of the pants gut reactions are coming out very different.
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 03:21 PM
BTW
The Atlanta Journal - Constitution is now reporting that John Lewis is not in fact pledging his support for Obama. Think he was misquoted or did someone "splain" it to him, with a deal he could not refuse - horse head as a table knic knac is always a nice decorator touch.
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 03:27 PM
GMax,
SSD-25 is on my list for RW. Porchlight said she lives in that district and I was just pointing out one way of assessing how many crossovers would be necessary to swing the district to BHO. 25 has a 6/1 Hispanic black/ratio. It's not nearly as good a candidate as 1,2,4,10 and 17.
I'm arguing a possible outcome, not a probable outcome.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 15, 2008 at 03:35 PM
Sue
Both/Either.
Posted by: TexasToast | February 15, 2008 at 03:40 PM
I am not arguing you are wrong either, but I lived in the San Antonio side of that district once upon a time, and I know it pretty well.
I think she gets big numbers in the all non majority minority ( black in these cases) districts. There are black seats in Dallas and Harris county. So if she gets 60% overall and those black district typical turnout and vote ( and TT says they do ), then she is getting maybe 70 % elseswhere since the black districts are proprotionately significant and the lopsided voting there for Obamaniac. And if turnout is already high there in the past, there would seem to at least be an argument that there is limited room for further turnout in those districts.
We shall see in a couple weeks.
Posted by: GMax | February 15, 2008 at 03:42 PM
Sue
Both/Either.
Thanks.
Posted by: Sue | February 15, 2008 at 03:55 PM
Yes, I'm in the South Austin part of SSD-25. Seems to me the wild card is how the white vote will break out. At the moment I'm feeling like Pauline Kael - no one I know will admit to supporting RW, but she could easily win.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 15, 2008 at 04:08 PM
SD-25 has 6 delegates - 58.3% to break 4-2. This is a bright spot for HRC, most likely.
Posted by: TexasToast | February 15, 2008 at 04:19 PM
OT, but this is just too rich too pass up:
"The Nevada Biotechnology and Bioscience Consortium has given its
inaugural Harry Reid Award for Biotechnology in Nevada to Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.), for whom the award is named. The consortium’s president, John Laub, said the group was giving the award to Reid because he has “secured more than $100 million for Nevada universities” and because he has been a “leading supporter of higher education” in the state."
From: http://www.genomeweb.com/issues/news/145093-1.html
Posted by: DrJ | February 15, 2008 at 04:42 PM
Anyone seen Lewis since he (didn't )make that statement switching his support to Obama? Just asking........
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2008 at 05:06 PM
Anybody wonder if the religious surge toward the 'hope' of Obama has anything to do with the fear and trembling engendered by Hillary.
The Naif and the Borgia indeed. I'm beginning to hope for the miracle.
We'll have global cooling to make all the moderates wonder, too. It's no secret which Party is more skeptical.
No sunspots, yet. The sun is hibernating, and I'm not joking.
================================
Posted by: kim | February 15, 2008 at 05:16 PM
Maybe I don't understand the SD issue, but isnt it equivalent to the electoral college whereas primary delegates are equivalent to the popular vote? And judging from Rep Lewis the democratic party system comes complete with "faithless electors."
Posted by: rogera | February 15, 2008 at 05:25 PM
I blame Bill - will Hillary?
Posted by: PeterUK | February 15, 2008 at 05:51 PM
Waxman reportedly has said the baseball hearings were a mistake. I rather thinkhe's been swamped with emails suggesting FISA or the economy or something other than his continual, stupid dog and pony shows might better occupy his time.
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2008 at 05:55 PM
This might have been posted,but since Tripepad won't let me link.
This looks terribly like The skulduggery the EU uses.
" A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.
Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. ...
The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).
The U.N. says that “The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion—or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.”
In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child."
Via lgf.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 15, 2008 at 06:14 PM
Clarice
and Waxman tried to blame Clemon's and his lawyers for it -classy.
Of course Specter is no different, he was pissed he didn't get his free tickets.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | February 15, 2008 at 06:15 PM
Does what we're spending on Iraq count as foreign development aid?
Posted by: MayBee | February 15, 2008 at 06:23 PM
Ot the amount we spend on NATO? On the UN? On the World Bank? The IMF? The WHO?
Or is that all out of the international layabout, chowder and marching band fund?
Posted by: clarice | February 15, 2008 at 06:38 PM
Isn't Powers Harvard like Obamasiah, Chayes, Shays, Fitzpatrick, etc.?
Iraq is foreign development, military assistance. Foreign military assistance is the favored way to pay foreign governments with the'changes(wars)' that the world is going through. The traditional forms of aid like PC, USAID, etc. are competing for those military assistance dollars and already know they have no business in those countries due to safety and security, but stay in country for the staff jobs and use higher funding levels and pressure to hire more employees as an excuse. Foreign military assistance is better aid for most countries as it pays salaries of the military, direct aid. The competitors take allot of the funds they are given and little, if any, really gets to the paid employee.
Putin talking about spies having to leave? Maybe we can skip the drugs and the bridge accidents?
Posted by: Chetkin | February 15, 2008 at 06:44 PM
I think if it doesn't have a celebrity spokesperson, it doesn't count as a legitimate foreign expenditure.
Posted by: MayBee | February 15, 2008 at 06:52 PM
Looks like the Democrats are offering two diversity candidates with one flavour - Tranzi.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 15, 2008 at 07:07 PM
Bubba is, indeed, still out there flapping his jaw--in Wisconsin this time. My guess is that the ashtrays have been flying in the past couple of weeks, and if she goes down to defeat she and history will lay a large share of the blame on that graceless lout. Good.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 15, 2008 at 07:59 PM
Madame Speaker has spoken. She suggests Michigan and Florida delegates should not be allowed to alter the outcome while simultaneously prostrating herself before
Of course if one candidate is behind by a mere 50 pledged delegates, he or she will claim that there are a number of reasons why the pledged delegate count does not adequately reflect what "the public has decided" in an attempt to win super delegate support. Especially if that candidate has won Florida and Michigan and received the most votes in Texas while losing the delegate count there. And let us not forget the Puerto Rican winner take all scenario that Michael Barone mentioned.
Posted by: Elliott | February 15, 2008 at 08:02 PM
Whoops. Sorry.
****She suggests Michigan and Florida delegates should not be allowed to alter the outcome while simultaneously prostrating herself before the Altar of the Popular Will:****
Posted by: Elliott | February 15, 2008 at 08:07 PM
"We're from the Government and we're here to fix your soul. Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!"
Michelle Obama's Vision of America
Posted by: anduril | February 15, 2008 at 08:27 PM
Soul less government employees. Luciferian spies!!!!
I think the Hilly and KGB figured out that the humans created by God never had a soul. In fact, the soul is a creation of lucifer to fool us and all those people in church. They need to go to hell for thinking they have souls when it's really lucifer or even Satan hisself fool'n ya. They get reborn thinking they can fool us smart lucifers who know they're asking lucifer for a new life when we done made them sinners. Satan hisself will tell ya he figured that too.
Visions?
Posted by: Vaine | February 15, 2008 at 08:37 PM
The Russian(private property thing) and Cuban(Spain can have friends) things are getting scary. I'm moving under ground.
Posted by: Missl | February 15, 2008 at 08:51 PM
At smalldeadanimalsdotcom:
Regrettably, there is someone out to get Obama. As a matter of the gravest concern, I invite Canadians to peruse this letter I recently received from a confidential source.
To: John Hinckley
From: Bill Clinton
Dear John,
Hillary and I wanted to drop you a short note to tell you how pleased we are with the great strides you are making in your recovery. In our country's new spirit of understanding and forgiveness, we
want you to know there is a bilateral consensus of compassion and forgiveness abroad throughout the land. Hillary and I want you to know that no grudge is born against you for shooting President Reagan. We, above all, are aware of how the mental stress and pain could have driven you to such an act of desperation. Hillary and I are confident that you will soon make a complete recovery and return to your family to join the world again as a healthy and productive young man.
Best wishes,
Bill Clinton
P.S. Barack Obama is fucking Jodie Foster
Posted by: Greg in Dallas at February 13, 2008 10:57 PM
Posted by: Larry | February 15, 2008 at 08:54 PM
The UN, the World Bank and the IMF are everyone's friends.
Posted by: Mis | February 15, 2008 at 09:19 PM
In the spirit of the post title of "Chop The Body And The Head Will Fall" - another jihadi leader has abandoned his quest for martyrdom rather abruptly. If these occurences run in threes, can we vote on who's next? I'm for Nasrallah slipping on a banana.
And landing on a mine.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 15, 2008 at 09:23 PM
Nice to see that the alarmingly repellent Eleanor Clift is now hallucinating about Al Gore rescuing the Dems from their self-imposed nightmare. She sees him riding up on a white horse to capture the nomination on the second ballot.
Sure. The Clintons would see that it was all for the good of the party, and would get right behind their old friend.
It's reassuring to know that the other side has at least as many dopes as we do.
Posted by: Other Tom | February 15, 2008 at 09:23 PM
The Tanzi are fainting right on cue for their guy OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA.
Obama Campaign Theatrics
Poor Hillary, how do you top that? Maybe Bill will have a few planted fainters at his next rally. :)
Posted by: Ann | February 15, 2008 at 09:34 PM