by publius
Well, that was anticlimactic. It felt a bit like an overhyped movie – probably ok, but disappointing because of unrealistic expectations. Anyway, here are my various thoughts on tonight’s elections, in no particular order.
The Draw
Any way you slice it, tonight was a draw on the Dem side. I just saw Chuck Todd crunching delegate numbers on MSNBC. The gist was that, even under assumptions most generous to Clinton, they would still be virtually tied. Todd, however, thought Obama would ultimately win tonight by a few dozen delegates. But still, that’s essentially a tie.
To me, though, a draw is actually a big victory for Obama in the grand scheme of things. Expectations were getting unrealistic near the end, but when the dust settles, he has to be happy with tonight’s stalemate. After all, the goal on Super Tuesday has always been to avoid the knockout punch. Obama just had to survive tonight, and he did so in spades. The upcoming calendar – both the states and the pace – now set him up nicely. And the $20 million fundraising edge doesn’t hurt either.
Another significant aspect of tonight’s "draw" is that it undermines the “inexperience” argument against Obama, or part of it anyway. When people say Obama is inexperienced, they are referring either to (1) the pre-election; or (2) the post-election. With respect to the former, the fear is that he can’t hold up against the GOP machine (or that the risk is too high).
Fighting Clinton – with her universal name recognition – to a draw in a national primary directly refutes Critique #1. (Admittedly, it doesn’t really address #2, the post-election governing). In particular, people need to understand how he pulled tonight's stalemate off. The outcome wasn't the result of a single week of fawning media coverage. That helped, to be sure, but Obama has been meticulously building organizations in all of these states simultaneously for many months. He’s also brought in a ton of money to fund them – more than anyone (ever) at this point.
The bottom line is that if you can build this sort of organization with this much money this far in advance with such efficiency and foresight, then you can do the same thing in a national election. Super Tuesday is about as close to a trial November run as you can get, and Obama’s campaign has been extremely impressive on all fronts.
The Superdelegates
One mounting fear that I have is that we’re going to roll into the convention with the superdelegate bloc being the “marginal voters.” To be perfectly honest, I don’t like the concept of superdelegates – I don’t really agree with giving these people such disproportionate voting power. The Publiuses are “one man, one vote” people.
That said, I understand that the point was to keep the rabble from sending up a ridiculous, non-viable candidate. But that’s clearly not a concern for 2008. Both candidates are solid. What I would love to see then is a pledge on the part of the superdelegates to back whatever candidate wins more “real” delegates. That way, actual elections would decide the nominee rather than non-transparent backroom shenanigans.
I understand, though, that this pledge could never happen. For one, the superdelegates (sensing that their vote could be horsetraded) would rather give up their firstborn child than their vote. Second, there’s an element of changing the rules midstream that bothers me. But still, I don’t think it’s obvious that Clinton will dominate the superdelegate vote (maybe that’s naïve). Obama has his share too. But regardless of who it helps, my bigger concern is the manner in which things could be decided (e.g., who promises who what, etc.). At the very least, it’s time to rethink the superdelegates after this race.
Florida
My other looming fear is the growing importance of the phantom Florida and Michigan delegates. I think Obama (and everyone) needs to signal early and often that this would be the nuclear option.
Republicans
Not much to say here. I suppose there’s some interesting information in the exit poll numbers, but it seems fairly straightforward to me. McCain didn’t perform quite as well as expected, but he did what he had to do to win. Romney is signaling that he’s out, and Huckabee isn’t a viable competitor. That’s pretty much all that matters.
Of course, maybe McCain’s poor showing in the South is a sign of depressed bases to come. But that’s not exactly news. In any event, that problem is a luxury at this point. McCain won the nomination tonight. It’s hard to see the negatives in that this far in advance.
So, is there any explanation for why Obama did spectacularly well in caucus states? He not only didn't lose a single caucus tonight, he won them by huge margins. I think there's several possible reasons for this, but nonetheless, I think it's interesting and potentially important at least from an explicative viewpoint.
Thoughts, Pubby?
Posted by: Mark Kawakamo | February 06, 2008 at 03:10 AM
I think caucuses tend to reward organization -- and he just seems really good on that front. You may object to the caucus system (and I don't like them). But the skills necessary to pull them off are highly probative of an ability to run a good campaign
Posted by: publius | February 06, 2008 at 03:13 AM
"I just saw Chuck Todd crunching delegate numbers on MSNBC. "
Was talking about it here a while ago, for what little it's worth.
"So, is there any explanation for why Obama did spectacularly well in caucus states?"
Only more passionate people are willing to bother to figure out how to caucus, and to go do it, obviously. Not remotely a mystery.
This is why Hart also won big in caucus states, and the same goes for other candidates in the past few cycles who worked somewhat similar "outsider" candidacies.
When that doesn't happen, the more establishment candidate dominates caucuses, for obvious reasons. When it doesn't, the reason is as obvious as ten times more voters than last time. As we've spent the past several hours discussing.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 06, 2008 at 03:28 AM
I just got another of those "personal emails" from Barack Obama.
That's Barack's third e-mail to me in two days, and then there was Michelle, too.Am I the only person who finds that overly spammish?
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 06, 2008 at 03:43 AM
Meant to put that in the other thread, actually, not as a non-sequitur in this one. Apologies.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 06, 2008 at 03:44 AM
Ed Kilgore makes some excellent points about the convention.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 06, 2008 at 04:01 AM
Caucus states are mostly western too. They are more favorable to reform/process/change message than the big machine states.
Offering to hold FL/MI caucases should probably be the compromise position if it comes to that.
Posted by: yoyo | February 06, 2008 at 04:18 AM
Fighting Clinton – with her universal name recognition
Not to mention her attack machine.
But still, I don’t think it’s obvious that Clinton will dominate the superdelegate vote (maybe that’s naïve)
We'll see. If the superdelegates decide Obama really is viable, there's no incentive for them to back the Clintons, since losing the nomination would pretty much consign them to the past, whereas Obama's going to be a major force in Democratic politics for years to come. In that case there might be a move to him. Things seem to be trending in his direction, but obviously we're not at the tipping point yet.
My other looming fear is the growing importance of the phantom Florida and Michigan delegates. I think Obama (and everyone) needs to signal early and often that this would be the nuclear option.
The "nuclear option" is exactly the right metaphor, since trying to get those delegates seated in order to tip the balance in Clinton's favor would be the equivalent of mutual assured destruction - the one way to tear the party apart ahead of November.
Of course, maybe McCain’s poor showing in the South is a sign of depressed bases to come.
Against Obama? Yeah. But against Hillary? I'm not so sure. The right-wing venom-spewing virago Malkin/Coulter and table pounding blowhard Limbaugh/Hewitt contingents aside, I think the thought of her as President would pretty quickly get the Republican base in line.
McCain won the nomination tonight. It’s hard to see the negatives in that this far in advance.
He probably did - one thing it gives him is the opportunity to ease up and rest a bit while sharpening his weapons in preparation for the general election. That could be a negative from the Democratic perspective.
Posted by: Xeynon | February 06, 2008 at 04:23 AM
Yeah, this looks bad for Hillary. The rest of the states don't have as much of the ethnic/catholic/urban/establishment machine to turn out vote for her, and he has more time to organize his own gotv. And he has more time to campaign. TX and OH will be close, and the other states obama wins big. Kentucky is the only state left i think she could win significantly.
Posted by: yoyo | February 06, 2008 at 04:29 AM
"Caucus states are mostly western too. They are more favorable to reform/process/change message than the big machine states."
Fair point.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 06, 2008 at 04:56 AM
Obama campaign estimate:
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 06, 2008 at 05:18 AM
This cheers me up a little this morning. Went I went to bed it was trending heavily Clinton.
Concerning superdelegates, Florida, and Michigan - some Republicans are getting excited about the possibility of a long fight on the D side, ending in a bloody knife fight at the convention. If McCain gets to focus on campaigning for president while HRC and Obama have to focus on campaigning against each other that gives him an advantage. Republicans last best hope is if Democrats tear themselves apart:
Hillary Clinton has had an edge in the superdelegates, both in number and in influence. These superdelegates represent the party establishment, which owes a lot to the Clintons over the last 16 years. The two have won elections for the party establishment and raised a lot of money, something Barack Obama has hardly had a chance to do until just recently.
What happens if Obama comes to the convention -- and Hillary beats him with the superdelegates?
It could create a huge firestorm in Denver that could consume the party's oxygen for the next several years. The African-American vote would see this as a stolen nomination and could walk away from the Democrats. Rank-and-file voters, especially those who supported Obama's call for change in politics, would likely see this as smoke-filled-room maneuvering -- which is exactly what it would be. The bitterness would extend to the House and Senate members of the superdelegate assembly who backed Clinton over Obama, and it could threaten the Democrats' down-ticket races as well as their presidential election chances.
I was getting really bored with this years long election cycle. Not any more I guess….
Obama just had to survive tonight, and he did so in spades.
Got to watch that word choice. The PC police will be out in full force. ;)
Posted by: OCSteve | February 06, 2008 at 06:55 AM
"Got to watch that word choice. The PC police will be out in full force. ;)"
Darn it OCSteve, you beat me to it. Of course, we might be telling our age.
Posted by: john miller | February 06, 2008 at 07:22 AM
John: Of course, we might be telling our age.
Heh. I think you might be right.
Posted by: OCSteve | February 06, 2008 at 07:58 AM
I was getting really bored with this years long election cycle. Not any more I guess…
Yeah. If the Democrats go all the way to the convention without it having been decided, and it comes down to superdelegates and/or the Florida/Michigan contingents, it will mean BIG trouble - maybe not 1968 in Chicago trouble, but close. And we know how that turned out.
I wonder how they'll get out of it? For some reason I don't see either Obama or the Clintons backing down...
Darn it OCSteve, you beat me to it. Of course, we might be telling our age.
I think you are - I had no idea "spade" had any sort of un-PC connotation whatsoever.
Posted by: Xeynon | February 06, 2008 at 08:20 AM
Xeynon: It’s an (older?) derogatory slang term for an African-American. I believe the origin might be “black as the Ace of Spades”.
Posted by: OCSteve | February 06, 2008 at 08:41 AM
BTW – I never thought for a moment that publius was using that way intentionally. I assumed he was completely unaware of how that sentence could be interpreted.
Posted by: OCSteve | February 06, 2008 at 08:42 AM
It’s an (older?) derogatory slang term for an African-American. I believe the origin might be “black as the Ace of Spades”.
So I gathered from the context and your comment. In my young life I've never (or at least never that I can remember) heard it, though.
Posted by: Xeynon | February 06, 2008 at 09:12 AM
I think that Obama should take the initiative regarding Florida and Michigan.
Assuming that he continues to build momentum he should publicly state that he supports giving Florida and Michigan a voice. But since the voters really didn't have a chance to have a voice in their elections they should hold emergency elections or some other mechanism to both give them a voice and to circumvent the possibility that the DNC will buckle and award the delegates to Hillary.
Posted by: flyerhawk | February 06, 2008 at 09:21 AM
Talking to the people in my office this morning, about the only thing that could get them riled up enough to vote in any direction would be a Clinton candidacy. Then they'll vote republican. Since any of them would be happy with either McCain or Obama, I'm trying to talk them into voting in the primary for Obama.
Posted by: femdem | February 06, 2008 at 09:23 AM
In my young life I've never (or at least never that I can remember) heard it, though.
i'm in my late 30s, so i don't know if i'm young or not. but i've never heard it spoken in real life either. i've read it in older books, though.
Posted by: cleek | February 06, 2008 at 09:34 AM
My personal thought looking at the states Obama won and the margins there relative to Clinton's margins in her winning states is that the map shows precisely why Democrats must nominate Obama to have a stong chance of winning the general election. It looks like Clinton's biggest margin of victory was 20% in California, while Obama beat Clinton by 30% to 50%+ (!) in much of the mid-west and Rocky Mountain region. These are the states that Democrats need to try to pick up at least a few of in the general election to win.
Posted by: Denver Lawyer | February 06, 2008 at 09:59 AM
I found this a good site to keep track of the delegates/superdelegates and endorsements
Posted by: dutchmarbel | February 06, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Your site has won a Blog of the Day Award (BOTDA)
Award Code
Thank you,
famous quotes
Posted by: Bonnie | February 06, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Well, since I see that Obama has closed the gap in California considerably, that will teach me to post before reading the morning news. (I still stand by my analysis, however.)
Posted by: Denver Lawyer | February 06, 2008 at 10:38 AM
i'm in my late 30s, so i don't know if i'm young or not. but i've never heard it spoken in real life either. i've read it in older books, though.
I'm in my late 30s, as well. I remember my bigoted a-hole of a stepfather using that word in that way when I was a kid. Right in front of me, of course. No problem with potentially instilling racism into the next generation. Jerk. (Not that I'm bitter or anything.)
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | February 06, 2008 at 11:08 AM
"No problem with potentially instilling racism into the next generation."
Generally how it is done.
FWIW, at my advanced age, and growing up in the most conservative part of the Midwest (I was able to watch the funeral procession for Joe McCarthy two blocks from my house) I could probably list off several terms that were used that the younger generation has never heard.
One thing I have noticed, and perhaps it is a sign of lessening racism, is that the variety of epithets used to connotate various groups have been reduced.
Posted by: john miller | February 06, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Apparently, NBC News is predicting that, once the dust has settled, Obama will have won from 2-20 more delegates yesterday than Clinton.
Posted by: john miller | February 06, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Y'all have no idea how excited I am that Washington - a caucus state with 97 delegates - actually matters this time. I'm soooo psyched.
Posted by: CaseyL | February 06, 2008 at 12:06 PM
You young guys can't be telling me you've never seen Blazing Saddles?
Posted by: Tim | February 06, 2008 at 12:27 PM
"In my young life I've never (or at least never that I can remember) heard it, though."
Gotta say you're now completely disqualified from commenting on matters of race.
Part kidding. Not entirely.
You should see a video of this, sometime, just for fun.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 06, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Polls I'd like to see right now:
dems and repubs; 'Who could you never vote for, for president?'
plus
clinton vs mccain
barack vs mccain
also; what if there were a terrorist attack on our shores between now and the dem convention or general election?
In other politio blogs many say based on fund raising and primary turnout the dems are kicking butt almost 2 to one to repubs.
So goes the general election.. Yes? No?
Posted by: judson | February 06, 2008 at 12:55 PM
femdem:
Talking to the people in my office this morning, about the only thing that could get them riled up enough to vote in any direction would be a Clinton candidacy. Then they'll vote republican.
In your opinion, is there any reason for this attitude besides sexism? Given that Obama is probably slightly to Clinton's left and McCain has a much nastier personality, I don't see how their opposition could be honestly based on either her being "too radical" or "too unpleasant", considered as a human being (instead of that weird, quasi-human category, "woman").
Posted by: Doctor Science | February 06, 2008 at 01:33 PM
"In your opinion, is there any reason for this attitude besides sexism?"
Not to deny that sexism plays a role, but is it your suggestion/speculation that those same voters would be more okay if it were instead Bill Clinton again?
Because I'm touch skeptical about that.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 06, 2008 at 01:42 PM
"Given that Obama is probably slightly to Clinton's left and McCain has a much nastier personality, I don't see how their opposition could be honestly based on either her being 'too radical' or 'too unpleasant', considered as a human being (instead of that weird, quasi-human category, "woman")."
The other part of this I question is that it seems to have an underlying theory that there are two reasons people vote: rationally, or affected by sexism.
Which seems to be completely undescriptive of reality to me. In my view, a huge proportion of people vote irrationally, with little regard to policies or fact, but on largely impressions and misinformation, as well as a wide variety of irrational criteria, of which sexism is just one of many many many factors.
So in my view, if you filter out sexism, or racism, or any one or two or three or five or ten of the specific forms of irrationalism, you're still left with a huge proportion of the populace voting based on irrational prejudice, rather than rational analysis of positions, facts, and policies, anyway.
So the idea that if not for sexism, people would be voting on that basis, doesn't seem based in the reality I'm familiar with.
But what do you think?
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 06, 2008 at 01:49 PM
I can't speak for Doctor Science, but I tend to agree with you. It always bothers me when someone gives one prejudice as reason for a behavior of a person.
I can think of lots of reasons why people would not want to vote for Clinton which have nothing to do with sexism. I can think of plenty of reasons to not vote for Obama that have nothing to do with racism. And so on and so on. And most of those reasons do not necessarily have anything to do with a rational look at policies, etc.
OTOH, Clinton is very subtlely (or not so subtlely) asking people to vote for her specifically because she is a woman. Is that not a form of sexism?
Posted by: john miller | February 06, 2008 at 02:02 PM
This is a bit off subject, but you may find it illuminating.
Had a 20 minute chat yesterday with a former Democratic State Chair. He says:
--In a small group, Michelle Obama comes across as one of the most gifted politicians he has ever met.
--He believes that if Obama gets the nomination, the general election will be a cakewalk for Barack.
--A few weeks ago, he had lunch with a person who had been an R congresswoman for about 20 years. Just the two of them were having lunch, and he asked her if there was anyone she simply could not get along with in Congress. Without hesitation, she replied, “John McCain - he is one of the nastiest men I have ever met, condescending, and his word cannot be trusted.”
Posted by: allmaya | February 06, 2008 at 02:06 PM
I should emphasize that I think sexism is a very real and very important factor in play against Clinton in a large and significant way.
I don't want anyone to think I'm discounting that in the slightest, because I don't; I'm quite sure it affects a significant number of votes in a variety of ways that hurt Clinton.
I'm just saying that I don't see it as breaking down into a binary division of sexist voters on the one hand, and generally rational voters on the other hand, and I'm skeptical of reasoning that says, well, if they're not being rational, sexism is the only explanation.
I don't observe that there is any lack of Bill Clinton Derangement Syndrome, without much sexism involved. Hell, look at how many Republicans are crazed at how they'll never vote for John McCain, ever, and will vote for Clinton, instead; I find it hard to believe that Ann Coulter is motivated by sexism in saying that, or anyone else.
But the same exact reasoning applies regarding McCain and a rational analysis of his positions. So that reasoning seems possibly less than titanium-clad.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 06, 2008 at 02:08 PM
"OTOH, Clinton is very subtlely (or not so subtlely) asking people to vote for her specifically because she is a woman. Is that not a form of sexism?"
It is, but as always, the prejudices of those with less power aren't mirror images of the prejudices of those with more power. (Typically this can be phrased as minority/majority, but gender is the perhaps unique exception.)
Prejudices of the less powerful against the more powerful, and for the less, or the minority, are a lot less harmful than those of the more powerful against the weaker.
In general, if members of a minority seek to support each other, it doesn't have at all the deleterious effects of when a majority seek to support each other to the exclusion of the minority.
So, straightforwardly, it has less harmful effect, and should be judged accordingly, in my view. The NAACP is not the Klan, the Anti-Defamation League is not the Christian Front, and so on.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 06, 2008 at 02:16 PM
With Minnesota, take the idea that it was a caucus with a grain of salt. In my precinct, in northeast Minneapolis, it was basically a primary where the polls were only open for 90 minutes. They had a room ready for about 50 caucus goers, which would have been a lot more than showed up four years ago. By 6:30, when registration was supposed to begin, there was no way to fit all the people into the room.
They decided that they would hand out the presidential preference ballot as soon as someone registered, and let them drop it in the box and go home. I arrived at 6:00, so I was near the front of the line, and put my ballot in at 6:45. At that point, the line to register was out the room, down a hallway, up a flight of stairs, down another hallway, and out the door of the building. I'd be kind of surprised if they had everyone registered by 8:00, when the balloting for president was supposed to shut down.
A couple of friends said that it was like this where they voted, too. No real caucus at all.
Posted by: J. Michael Neal | February 06, 2008 at 03:05 PM
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all objections to Clinton are sexist. But having just come from reading Stanley Fish's blog post about the GQ article on Hillary-hate, it seemed to me likely that when a sizeable group (femdem's co-workers) is rejecting her so strongly, there's probably a large element of Hillary Derangement Syndrome involved.
Posted by: Doctor Science | February 06, 2008 at 07:03 PM
I'm not sure how much jokiness or irony is intended by "Hillary Derangement Syndrome," or even "Bill Clinton Derangement Syndrome" as used in these comments. But reading the back-and-forth about sexism and the "Derangement" theme makes me realize that for a lot of people, precisely what Hillary Clinton is calling her "experience" and treating as a selling point is what lots of other people see as her baggage, and a major reason not to vote for her. It may be sloppy thinking, but as we've been saying on more than one thread, sloppy thinking isn't a disqualification for voting.
Posted by: JanieM | February 06, 2008 at 07:31 PM
Even if people won't vote for her because of Clinton Derangement, that doesn't imply sexism. Bill and Hillary Clinton both are very polarizing and polarized figures. It doesn't take sexism to dislike either of them. And to the extent that Hillary is disliked by people who like Bill, there is also the explanatory factor of charisma or its lack. Bill had such charisma that when he spoke, even if you strongly disagreed with him, you would find yourself nodding along. Hillary isn't like that at all.
Posted by: Sebastian | February 06, 2008 at 07:39 PM
"Bill had such charisma that when he spoke, even if you strongly disagreed with him, you would find yourself nodding along."
I agree with the rest of your comment, but I hadn't heard that Bill had died. When did that happen?
;-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 06, 2008 at 07:47 PM
The thing is, Sebastian, that the GQ reporter found that when he tried to get people to articulate why they hate Hillary (in particular) so very much, they can't give a rational answer.
You say both Clintons are very polarizing figures. This is objectively true, but I at least have never seen any rational basis for that polarization. It's not as though either Clinton has espoused radical policies or used fiery rhetoric. Extreme reactions to them seem to be based not on what they, personally, have done or said, but on who they remind people of.
My use of "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" should have appeared in the sarcasm font (gotta work on that). Republicans have been talking about "Bush Derangement Syndrome" for years, as though people hate Bush for irrational or arbitrary reasons though in fact it's almost entirely based on his actual actions & policies. And if you want to talk about "hate", say the words "Dick Cheney".
But as the GQ article says of Hillary, She is, to them, an empty vessel into which they can pour everything they detest about politicians, ambitious women, and an American culture they fear is being wrested from their control.
Posted by: Doctor Science | February 06, 2008 at 08:11 PM
"She is, to them, an empty vessel into which they can pour everything they detest about politicians, ambitious women, and an American culture they fear is being wrested from their control." And again. That isn't about her being a woman. That doesn't imply sexism. Many people feel much the same about Bill.
Posted by: Sebastian | February 06, 2008 at 08:15 PM
"I agree with the rest of your comment, but I hadn't heard that Bill had died. When did that happen?"
I know that is a joke, but I actually was torn about whether or not to use the past tense in that sentence. I used the past tense because Bill Clinton seems to have lost it a little bit in some of his current speeches. Not completely. He can still light someone up almost against their will. But not the same as before either. Maybe he can only turn it on to that extent on his own behalf, not fully for Hillary.
Posted by: Sebastian | February 06, 2008 at 08:19 PM
But when I read the article, I don't actually see people talking about their feelings about politicians or American culture in general. The writer put bookends around "ambitious women", but that's the core issue IMHO.
I admit I have even less sense of where Bill Clinton Derangement comes from, though some people think it's class-based -- Bill never forgot that he came from true poverty, and that *really* gets under some people's skin.
Posted by: Doctor Science | February 06, 2008 at 08:24 PM
If you add up the electoral vote count (the important votes that elect the prez) in the states contested on Super Tuesday, Hillary's total was 156; Obama's total was 116.
Which means she's running stronger in states with more electorial clout then he is (and that doesn't even include the disenfranchised voters in Florida (with 27 electorial votes) who, hopefully, will be seated at the convention to vote for her, so that we have a genuine election, and not one decided by 'back-room' party democrats who think it's more important to control the primary calender then the right of registered democrats to vote for their party's candidates.
Posted by: Jay Jerome | February 06, 2008 at 08:28 PM
Except when it comes to Florida and Michigan, apparently.
And they're not 'phantom' delegates, publius: they're an example of the most authentic voters so far in the election - expressing their political preferences untainted by the influence of million-dollar spin commercials (except for the back-door national commercial Obama's campaign managed to slip through the back door).
And as to the 'nuclear option' - that's a two edged sword, because if Obama wins by a margin which doesn't exceed the number of excluded delegates, many of those backing Hillary will go radioactive too - what will you call them: the invisible disgruntled?
Posted by: Jay Jerome | February 06, 2008 at 08:48 PM
Don't insult our intelligence.
Posted by: gwangung | February 06, 2008 at 08:50 PM
Jay, so you are saying that Obama could not win any of the states that Clinton won in the primary, correct?
Because that is the only way what you are saying makes any sense at all.
And in regards to the FL delegates, I will have no problem with them being seated if they hold another primary or have caucuses once all the other primaries are over. Same thing holds for MI.
Posted by: john miller | February 06, 2008 at 09:12 PM
they're an example of the most authentic voters so far in the election - expressing their political preferences untainted by the influence of million-dollar spin commercials
And luckily they don't have newspapers, cable television or the Internet, either. They all live in caves on Mars, with their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears.
Posted by: Phil | February 06, 2008 at 09:48 PM