President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 01, 2008 02:19 AM UTC
70 Comments
As an Obama supporter I feel that this is an acceptable solution in both states. I would have been ok with seating some of the uncommitted Michigan delegates as uncomitted, but I feel that this probably represents the wishes of the Michigan people. This is also the solution that the Working Group of Four recomended, although I think they wanted full votes.
The stacked rules committee bailed out BO from his poor judgment, which he showed when he took his name off the MI ballot and refused to campaign in FL.
The committee won’t be able to save him from his bad judgment during the campaign or if he should make the White House.
Results from other large states with similar demographics show he clearly would have lost FL and MI by huge margins.
How is Obama counting the “popular” vote from caucus states like Iowa and CO where there were no popular votes, just activist votes?
Isn’t it true that if you take away the caucus states, Obama is far behind in the popular vote?
And how many read Lanny Daviis’ memo to super delegates in yesterdaiy’s WSJ. He laid out the case that Clinton has the electoral votes to win and November and Obama certainly does not?
Do you buy the argument?
Also, note that in his last graph, Davis said the solution is a Clinton-Obama ticket or an Obama-Clinton ticket. Isn’t that the clearest signal yet that Clinton wants to be on the ticket with Obama?
It makes me think that we got it right.
Why was that bad judgment? I’m a Clinton and I don’t find that to be bad judgment on his part. He was told what the rules were and he played by them.
He ran the committee, or his people did, and they rigged the rules against Clinton and the interests of their party, which is ok by me. I don’t care who the Dems nominate.
13 on the committee were declared Hillary supporters, including Ickes, who is one of here chief strategists.
8 on the committee are Declared Obama supporters
7 others are undeclared. Some of those didn’t want to seat the delegations at all.
he doesn’t know what he’s talking about half the time, and the half he’s just an ASs
I had no problem with them allocating the 40% uncommitted to him since that share obviously represents the anti-Clinton vote in Michigan, and Obama is the only alternative to Clinton in the race today.
Awarding Obama the extra four delegates was unnecessary and petty. He’s still going to clinch the nomination in the next few days, with or without those four delegates.
All it does is give HRC something to gripe about a little longer. And her griping will only provoke some of the more fanatical Obama supporters to continue to trash her, which in turn will only serve to irritate more of her supporters.
She does want to be V.P. but it aint gonna happen. Obama can’t stand her, but even if he could overcome his disdain for both of the Clintons, some of his more fanatical supporters have worked themselves up into such a frenzy of Clinton-hatred that he doesn’t dare consider selecting H.R.C.
We’ll have to see if he can win over that 25% of H.R.C.’s supporters who have declared that they’ll skip voting in Nov. (or vote for McCain) than vote for B.O. without putting her in V.P. slot.
Conversely the Sen. Clinton supporters have whipped themselves up into such a frenzy of hatred for Sen. Obama that I wonder if it would bring them on board even if she actually deigned to accept second place on the ticket. I think they might actually take it as an insult rather than a gracious gesture to Sen. Clinton.
That she wants the VP slot is far from certain as well, Lanny Davis saying that a Obama-Clinton ticket is the way to win is far from a clear proxy statement that she wants it. There is no history of him making public statements as a method of back channel signaling to other Democrats on behalf of the Clintons.
Matthew
Where have you been over the last 15 years?
But sometimes I think some of my ancestors must have spent more than a little time in Missouri. Where is the evidence?
Lanny Davis is certainly a very strong supporter of the Clintons, but has he ever made statements that afterward seemed to be proxy statements by the Clintons? I’ve searched using google and I have found just as much commentary from outside observers that speculate he is speaking for himself as speculate that he is speaking for Sen. Clinton’s campaign or the Senator herself.
To believe that he is anything more than just a fire eating supporter that is throwing out his own ideas I’d like to see something from this campaign or the immediate past that at least a correlation between his statements and subsequent actions of the campaign.
Otherwise this is just wild ass guessing.
Matthew
poor judgement. All of the candidates were ordered not to campaign in those two states. Several others took their names off in Michigan. As far as Hillary’s Electoral College argument goes, it is barely logical. She did beat Obama in many of the large, blue states, but that does not in any way mean that Obama wont beat McCain. I invite you to look at the the RealClear averages for the general election.
Caucus states are being counted because all but four states released the vote totals from the caucus. This is standard and happens every year. The totals from the four states that did not release a total are being estimated, but all of the estimates are very similar. Those four states are Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine. Colorado released its popular vote total. (around 120,000 democratic votes)
Lastly, and Obama/Clinton ticket may be the best way to win the White House, but the white house chaos that would ensue and the constant infighting for four years would be catastrophic for the party and nothing would get done. I invite you to read the following article. http://www.theonion.com/conten…
That’s patently false. Obama probably would have lost Florida, but not by a huge margin, and immediate pre-election polls in Michigan showed Obama and Clinton tied at 41 percent.
One aspect to the Florida vote — as many as a million Democrats didn’t vote in the Democratic primary, because they believed reports that the vote wouldn’t count toward the nomination. There are ways to guess, but there’s no way to know how the vote might have turned out if it had been a legal, legitimate primary.
But thanks for your concern.
Not having a horse in this race, it’s my opinion that Clinton’s the stronger candidate despite her lack of integrity and marriage to Slick Willy.
Obama is so shallow, naive and hard left that he will have a hard time winning, I think. Could be wrong.
Let’s see, you make a statement that’s simply not true to support your argument. I point this out and you come back with, well, he’s too liberal. Is this what we can expect from Republicans this year? it seems to be Dick Wadhams’ playbook on Mark Udall. Good luck with that.
For what it’s worth, I happen to agree with your first paragraph. I think, especially after this primary fight, Clinton would probably have an easier time beating McCain. But, again after this primary fight, I think it’s a vote many would cast while holding their nose, and a Clinton Administration would do nothing to move us beyond the poisonous politics of Karl Rove, permanent campaigns and relentless character assassination masked as governing. With Obama, at least I believe there’s a chance.
that Clinton would be the stronger candidate. Some of us are more interested in choosing a president than a candidate, and there I disagree with your assessment.
candidate in some ways, but Obama would almost certainly be a stronger president. Where do you disagree? Are you a McCain fan? I don’t think he’s a very good candidate nor would he make a great president.
My post wasn’t clear; I disagree with AS’s assessment of Obama, but not his conclusion that Clinton would be the stronger candidate.
Clinton enjoyed a 290 vote EC victory back when Obama was still below the required 270 vote majority.
But Obama has been gaining, and will get another bump if/when Clinton concedes the race. Everything will be “just fine,” if we keep working through November.
Bush was a strong candidate. Lot of effing good that did us.
Maybe it’s not over yet. As The New York Times Caucus blog reports:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs…
very scary
1. Whiners
2. cult of personality devotees
3. Irrational
Maybe, but not today
about Ron Paul supporters.
these are not a bunch of rogue supporters, these were people who were intentionally placed at the meeting by Clinton to jeer, boo and protest as irrational as they seemed. It was staged, just like Ickes speech, filled with emotion yet no facts.
And while Harold Ickes is getting a lot of attention for his “dramatic” speech before the Michigan vote, it was Donna Brazille who made the best argument. “My momma taught me to play by the rules.”
What irritates me out of all this, is the Clinton campaigns rhetoric. They claim the DNC is disenfranchising voters, while they don’t want to recognize the votes cast for Obama in Michigan. They claim to hold the popular vote lead, by not counting the popular vote in 4 states. It’s nothing more than an argument by convenience.
And so what if HC supporters were shipped in? The last time I checked we could move around in this country at will.
And your proof is??????
And please point me to the Obama Michigan votes! Sure, we may make assumptions of “Uncommitted” being Obama, but to speak for all quarter million uncommitted is quite the feat of mind reading.
While I think that the DNC did a reasonable job with very difficult parameters, actually. No one is happy, the classic definition of a good compromise.
But, hey, even the slaves were 3/5 of a person……….
they made fools of themselves in front of the entire nation. They can go where they like, do what they want and say what they want, but they’re not going to win over anyone with acts and outbursts as we witnessed yesterday.
Ickes is on Meet the Press this morning, after pointing out yesterday the exit polls indicating the uncommitted voters were FOR Obama, claiming once again it’s the Clinton’s campaigns strategic intentions to claim no delegates (or popular votes) should go to Obama from Michigan. As I said it’s nothing more than an argument by convenience.
May have been counted as 3/5 of a person, but they did not get their own representatives. Which the Clinton supporters in both states most certainly are. I do not have time now to go into how many other ways your argument is wrong though.
Matthew
Maybe get a chuckle of irony from a few.
Didn’t think it would be taken as a serious observation.
I have seen so many serious statements with that level of hyperbole and so I leaped to a conclusion that was unwarranted.
Matthew
No problem, Matthew. We all jump to conclusions here, from time to time.
While it was the Republican-controlled FL legislature that initiated the move to a January primary, the Dems in the FL legislature with only a few exceptions were on-board, in favor of, and voted for the move. I’d be much more sympathetic to HRC’s cries of “foul” if the Dems in FL had fought against the move. Instead, they participated in a knowing violation of the rules.
As for Michigan, the Dems completely brought this on themselves.
And when speaking of the “results” in FL and MI, shouldn’t we keep in mind that these weren’t exactly hard-fought contests with all candidates actively campaigning?
that their votes won’t count for anything… oh but wait now they mean everything! How convenient.
and that’s exactly what is wrong with her ever-shifting views. I’d say it’s time to bow out gracefully, but that adverb set sail awhile back.
…to move the primary date was an addendum to a much larger bill which outlawed voting machines w/o paper trails. Probably no legislator thought this it would ever come to this. I guess a sort of poison pill and hope for the best.
BTW, anyone in the market for a few thousand touch screen voting machines?
but apparently one not to lie in. I agree that they didn’t think it through, but decisions have consequences, and the consequences were spelled out before their votes on the bill. That FL is not completely shut out is arguably too lenient.
BTW, I just checked out some conservative blogs, and they are drooling (salivating is too sedate a term) over the prospect of this going to the Credentials Committee.
OTOH, I think it was Daniel Webster who observed that a great compromise is one that no one is happy.
It does the Obama campaign no good to refuse to seat any delegation from MI and FL. This is, essentially, the “standard” penalty prescribed by the rules.
As a stickler for rules and all, I normally would have been unhappy with the 69-59 split (the actual vote would have made it 73-55), but as the Michigan State Party Chair and the Michigan Working Group of Four were the ones who suggested such a split in the first place, I have to accept their decision as the desire of the state party.
According to insiders, Obama apparently had the votes to force a 50-50 split of the Michigan delegation (the results of the polls just prior to the election showed Hillary and Obama both with 41% of the vote), but his supporters were told not to press the issue and to instead go with the 69-59 suggestion. It gained them 5 votes on the committee, including that of some of Clinton’s more ardent supporters.
So yes, a good compromise.
details here
Unless a flood of superdelegates comes in. The contests today and Tuesday are expected to net Obama 38-41 votes. There will undoubtedly be a trickle of superdelegate decisions announced before the primaries, too.
By Tuesday night, he should need somewhere around 20 more delegates.
There are some delegates who are obviously decided for Obama but not yet committed. Carter isn’t officially committed; a couple of the RBC members haven’t officially committed yet but were not subtle about their intentions today (yes, Donna – we’re talking about you…). Once the primary is over, these and others (the “Pelosi Club”) will move swiftly to solidify Obama’s position. I think.
The totals will change by one vote on June 17th when Maryland holds its special election to replace the as-of-today resigned Rep. Al Wynn. Donna Edwards beat Wynn in the Democratic primary, and is expected to easily win the special election. Edwards is an Obama supporter.
Obama gets 38 more delegates Tuesday night and he then needs just 26 more. I think he will easily have 26 supers announcing Tuesday evening and/or Wednesday morning.
From the NY Times
What’s more interesting from this article is Clinton’s own admission.
He should keep to his pledge and let the voters decide.
It’s not the superdelegates’ job to provide “momentum.” They’re supposed to be the arbiters should a candidate not seal the nomination with pledged delegates.
That seems almost impossibly unlikely, but that doesn’t matter. A pledge is a pledge.
And Richardson is smoking crack when he says “after June 3 it means nothing.” Of course it means something. It means the same thing on June 4th as it did on January 4th. One delegate.
There is a symbolic effect if the voters of Montana and South Dakota put Obama over the top — if enough super delegates have declared for Obama before the polls close, then Obama can claim it’s the voters who clinched the majority, not party bosses. That’s one rumor making the rounds, that 20 or 30 super delegates will move Obama’s way before polls close, to make this the likely outcome. By that reasoning, Ritter’s declaration means more now than it does later this week.
and thinks the CIA and FBI tried to stop her from going to the Rules Committee meeting?
Great video demonstrating what I’ve stated above of a few of Clinton’s irrational supporters. And let me make that clear; it’s only a FEW of Clinton’s supporters who act like this, who just can’t handle the truth.
Along with Geraldine Ferraro, a few of these die-hards are making race and gender THE issue of deciding between the candidates, not the economy, health care or Iraq, which is where the differences really matter.
That YouTube video should be replayed on every newscast in PR today, and SD and MT Monday and Tuesday.
These Clinton supporters who stay home on election day or will vote for McCain show their true nature. They’ve been told by various people that Obama’s a Muslim (hint: he’s not); He’s a Manchurian Candidate (Google McCain Manchurian Candidate for interesting “theories”);that Obama is a Socialist (I heard the same thing about Clinton). They buy it all. It’s willful ignorance to follow anyone blindly. I came to my decisions based on information I researched on my own. That way, if there’s fault with the candidate, I can blame my own ignorance, not lay blame on some media conspiracy.
When you refuse to vote, you subvert all the things we hold dear as a country. Especially women. The women’s suffrage movement was a courageous exercise in adressing wrongs done to a minority. Like the civil rights movement, people have fought for the rights of others to vote. We dishonor their sacrifices by refusing to vote because we don’t want to see a black man or a white woman in that most venerable of elected offices, a represenative of ALL Americans.
I vote on merit, not on party. I respect all three of the candidates, they do America a service I myself wouldn’t have the fortitude to perform.
If you refuse to vote, if you are so appalled by the choices given to you, I have three suggestions. Take one or take all.
First, support good people of conscience to take the offices of those who don’t serve with integrity and honor.
Second, run for office yourself. You think you can do better? Prove it. Put your money where your mouth is.
Third, LEAVE. I hear Toronto is nice this time of year. Or maybe Baja. Too many people have sacrificed too much for such ignorant sayings as the one I quoted to be tolerated.
It is Sunday, so thus endeth the sermon, peace be unto you all.
I can give it to someone or not. That’s the power I have as a citizen. To give or not to give…that is the question. Either way, respect my right to choose.
If my candidate is on the November ballot, I will cast my vote. If not, I refuse to hold my nose and cheapen my vote by casting it for an inferior candidate.
But if you complain about the results without having any say in them, then politics is garbage in, garbage out.
It’s the people who refuse to vote out of spite who end up poisoning the well for both sides.
Don’t like McCain? Okay, don’t vote for him. Prefer Clinton? Fine by me. Then do something about it besides gripe for 4-8 years. That was one of the points I was trying to make.
Choose or don’t choose. That’s everyone’s right. I hope you come to your decision rationally, as opposed to picking one thing (race, gender, age) that preclude you from supporting your party’s candidate.
But for people to explode like that, over things that Americans should have evolved beyond, sullies the integrity of our system. This continued insanity within both parties will only hurt them in the end. With any luck, we may see the rise of other parties as people become disenchanted with their party’s changing platforms.
Until and unless one of two things occurs:
(1) one of the current parties becomes so moribund and/or corrupt that a significant number of people within the party move to a third party. This almost happened with the Reform party taking members from both major parties, but it self-destructed before it could gain a foothold.
(2) Major voting reforms are implemented that allow third parties to thrive without the side consequence of allowing the election of the greater of perceived evils. Under plurality elections, third parties are just bad for the voter; they must, in essence, either spring full-grown and triumphant or suffer in extreme minority for many decades. Multiple-choice majority election systems (IRV, Condorcet) enable this.
Without either fundamental collapse or fundamental reform, we will be stuck choosing the lesser of evils, moving our country incrementally away from corruption and toward better ideas.
That’s what I was pretty much saying. I’m old enough to have voted in the last 3 presidential elections, and with the exception of Al Gore, chose the lesser of two evils, Clinton and Kerry. There were things I didn’t agree with, but my disagreements with them paled in comparison to Dole and Bush.
This election, I don’t see a lesser of two evils, but someone I can actually believe in. While I respect everyone’s opinions on how we choose our candidate, I don’t drink anyone’s Kool Aid, I make my own, thanks.
I agree with those who say our system is broken, but we can fix it. I’m all for letting other parties into our reindeer games. I also believe that voting is a civic duty, a privilege that not everyone has, even in “Democratic” societies.
OK, so Obama got his way. The establishment rallied behind the establishment candidate so this was no surprise.
What they didn’t have to do was rub Hillary’s nose in it, which they did by fighting over four delegates–a measly two votes!
I thought the Obama campaign was supposed to be smart. This is amateur hour.
What David said. By any measure, Clinton was the establishment candidate, until she started losing elections and decided to portray herself as the downtrodden comeback kid.
The real amateur hour is agreeing you’ll abide by the rules until it doesn’t suit you so then you decry the rules. The real amateur hour is turning the meeting into a circus by encouraging — rather than discouraging, as the Obama campaign did — your nuttiest supporters to show up and go crazy. The real amateur hour is this coy “I’m taking the ball and going home” narrative Clinton strategists keep threatening. The real amateur hour is being a sore loser.
Here’s how the professionals do it:
http://link.brightcove.com/ser…
That’s because many of the Obama people are sore winners and they needed to teach her a “lesson”!
They should have given her those four more delegates (2 more votes), but then Obama would have needed 40 instead of 38 more delegates (our of 200 PLEO delegates) to clinch the nomination…too much of a challenge.
No one offered that as a proposal.
I agree that is what they should have done, exactly for the reasons you state, but some one would have had to propose it to the committee. I wish that is what the MI delegation had asked for.
You are right though, Hillary’s unwillingness to compromise at all, on any point and her use of intimidation and circus tactics, pissed off the RBC.
I was disappointed with the way Michigan was handled. Florida was by the book.
Obama made the choice to remove his name from the Michigan primary ballot. Therefore he should not have been awarded any delegates. The delegate split according to the vote outcome was 73 Clinton and 55 Uncommitted. That is how they should have been seated, albeit with half-votes for each one.
Even if one accepts that the “uncommitted” vote would have otherwise gone to Obama, there was still no logical reason to give 4 more delegates won by Clinton to Obama.
I would support (not that I actually have any say in the matter) contesting the Michigan decision to the Credentials Committ which I believe meets late this month.
…the candidates were asked to withdraw from the election there – and they did, except for Clinton.
The one I think was wrong there was Hillary who tried to have it both ways in both states.
Your argument is illogical. Penalize the one who played by the rules and reward the other one who’s tried to change them every step of campaign.
Michigan and Florida broke the rules. Clinton acknowledged that and said their votes don’t count for anything… until she needs them to make a hollow argument about electability. It’s a facade Dan. If you can’t see that, there is a bias blinding you.
If the state is going to be seated at all (my preference would have been to leave them all out), then it should follow the outcome of the election.
I believe the RBC only concerned themselves with proposals that someone actually submitted – plus the 50% ruling that the DNC lawyers gave out.
The Michigan proposals that were on the table were 69-55 (proposed by several from Michigan) and 50-50 (proposed and dropped by the Obama camp). I don’t know why there wasn’t a formal proposal for “as-is” seating, but I’ve seen many reports saying there were only 4 proposals up for consideration: 2 from FL and 2 from MI.
As the Michigan Democratic Party was behind the 69-55 seating, I don’t know that there’s much of a challenge to be had to the Credentials Committee, either. With an essentially invalid contest and no way to re-run it or figure out correct totals, polling was essentially the only way to figure out the numbers. 69-55 represents, I believe, the exit polling data when asked what candidate someone would have supported had they been on the ballot.
The RBC had a lousy decision to make; if it had been on the table, I would have gone for 73-55 C/O instead of 73-55 C/U, and I think the Obama camp would have as well.
After watching and reading about the BS coming from Ickes, McAullife and rest of Camp Clinton today, I thought I would share a little truth with you all on the popular vote numbers. Clinton is losing in that catergory as well.
Here’s a break down of the numbers.
She comes to her fuzzy math conclusions of “winning” by disenfranchising my vote! She doesn’t take into consideration a total of 14 states including as Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Kansas, Texas, Washington.
Why does Clinton want to disenfranchise voters from 14 states, but include the votes from Puerto Rice her in “electability” argument when PR will not have any votes in the General Election?
After claiming she wants to count every vote, why do Clinton’s popular vote tallies exclude mine (and many others on this forum) in Colorado…
the establishment media–even his own network, NBC. He has the establishment bloggers, such as TPM, Kos, and Huffpost. He has the establishment in the Democratic Party, such as Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, various other poobahs, and 19 votes on the Rules Committee. Ergo, he’s the establishment candidate.
If the Clintons really ran everything, and were as maniacally driven as Obama supporters think, then this thing would have been over a long time ago.
Sorry to expose your worldview for the “myth” it is, but that’s reality folks.
“It’s Obama’s party now.” But it wasn’t his party going in to this.
As noted (and ignored) above, Clinton has 13 (12 regularly voting, plus the chair I think) members of the RBC who are committed to her or have stated their support of her; Obama had only 8 committed to him, with 7 committee members having no discernible commitment to a candidate. She certainly had the edge. If 19 votes on the Rules Committee went against her, and only 15 should have gone against her, then at least 4 of her own supporters agreed with all 7 uncommitted and 8 Obama supporters on the committee. Some people would read that as a sign…
Pelosi and Reid have both indicated that they would support the pledged delegate winner. Obama has won the majority of pledged delegates, and neither has yet pledged as a delegate.
Charles Schumer, head of the DSCC, is a pledged Clinton delegate. Rahm Emanuel, head of the DCCC, should be an Obama supporter but is unpledged.
I suspect Howard Dean is secretly an Obama supporter, as Team Clinton is pretty avowedly not a fan of the 50-state strategy.