Every Wednesday from 6 to 7, I will host “The People’s Vanguard of Davis” radio show on KDRT 101.5
Unfortunately at this point there is no webcast, but we will eventually hook up a podcast to hear later.
Tonight we will be discussing our investigation into Tahir Ahad and Total School Solutions.
Listeners are encouraged to call in at: 530-792-1648
good luck, as I said in regard to your appearance on KDVS last Friday, KDRT really serves Davis, while KDVS is really regional in scope, and can’t really program sufficiently to cover many issues of importance to the city
–Richard Estes
good luck, as I said in regard to your appearance on KDVS last Friday, KDRT really serves Davis, while KDVS is really regional in scope, and can’t really program sufficiently to cover many issues of importance to the city
–Richard Estes
good luck, as I said in regard to your appearance on KDVS last Friday, KDRT really serves Davis, while KDVS is really regional in scope, and can’t really program sufficiently to cover many issues of importance to the city
–Richard Estes
good luck, as I said in regard to your appearance on KDVS last Friday, KDRT really serves Davis, while KDVS is really regional in scope, and can’t really program sufficiently to cover many issues of importance to the city
–Richard Estes
Richard,
In case you are interested, the exit polls from Texas last night suggested that Texas Latinos voted in the same proportions for Clinton and Obama as they did in California.
“The Hispanic vote, which helped Clinton win California over Obama, proved to be a big demographic in Texas. 32% of Texas voters were Hispanic, in contrast to 24% in the 2004 Presidential election. As in California, Clinton has substantial support from Hispanics, as 64% of Latino voters voted for Clinton over Obama. The African American vote remained the same in Texas, as two out of 10 voters were black, which is consistent with their share of the electorate. Obama took most of the support from Texas African Americans, as 84% of them voted for him.”
One thing which interests me as an observer is the fact that Clinton does her best in primaries, while Obama has obliterated her in all of the caucuses except Nevada (which came before he had distinguished himself among liberals). After last night, I was interested to know whether Hillary had actually received more votes in primaries (not counting Michigan, but including Florida) than Obama had. She hasn’t, but it’s really close:
Obama: 13,408,606; 50.45%
Clinton: 13,170,905; 49.55%
Even though Clinton will probably win Pennsylvania, I don’t think she is going to be the Democratic nominee. Nevertheless, this contest (first in my conscious lifetime) is going to the national convention, where I suspect the agreement will be made to award the nomination to Obama. I don’t think Hillary has any interest in being V.P. (That’s a step down, at her age, from being a Senator from New York.) Obama might be interested in being V.P., given his youth and inexperience in public office. However, because he has won more votes, he won’t willingly take the second position on the ballot. Perhaps they will decide something novel: like allowing Hillary to be the nominee with Obama as her running mate, but Hillary agrees in advance not to run for re-election in 2012, if she wins. I don’t expect that, but it would be a novel compromise. (Since she is so much older, the reverse compromise doesn’t work.)
Richard,
In case you are interested, the exit polls from Texas last night suggested that Texas Latinos voted in the same proportions for Clinton and Obama as they did in California.
“The Hispanic vote, which helped Clinton win California over Obama, proved to be a big demographic in Texas. 32% of Texas voters were Hispanic, in contrast to 24% in the 2004 Presidential election. As in California, Clinton has substantial support from Hispanics, as 64% of Latino voters voted for Clinton over Obama. The African American vote remained the same in Texas, as two out of 10 voters were black, which is consistent with their share of the electorate. Obama took most of the support from Texas African Americans, as 84% of them voted for him.”
One thing which interests me as an observer is the fact that Clinton does her best in primaries, while Obama has obliterated her in all of the caucuses except Nevada (which came before he had distinguished himself among liberals). After last night, I was interested to know whether Hillary had actually received more votes in primaries (not counting Michigan, but including Florida) than Obama had. She hasn’t, but it’s really close:
Obama: 13,408,606; 50.45%
Clinton: 13,170,905; 49.55%
Even though Clinton will probably win Pennsylvania, I don’t think she is going to be the Democratic nominee. Nevertheless, this contest (first in my conscious lifetime) is going to the national convention, where I suspect the agreement will be made to award the nomination to Obama. I don’t think Hillary has any interest in being V.P. (That’s a step down, at her age, from being a Senator from New York.) Obama might be interested in being V.P., given his youth and inexperience in public office. However, because he has won more votes, he won’t willingly take the second position on the ballot. Perhaps they will decide something novel: like allowing Hillary to be the nominee with Obama as her running mate, but Hillary agrees in advance not to run for re-election in 2012, if she wins. I don’t expect that, but it would be a novel compromise. (Since she is so much older, the reverse compromise doesn’t work.)
Richard,
In case you are interested, the exit polls from Texas last night suggested that Texas Latinos voted in the same proportions for Clinton and Obama as they did in California.
“The Hispanic vote, which helped Clinton win California over Obama, proved to be a big demographic in Texas. 32% of Texas voters were Hispanic, in contrast to 24% in the 2004 Presidential election. As in California, Clinton has substantial support from Hispanics, as 64% of Latino voters voted for Clinton over Obama. The African American vote remained the same in Texas, as two out of 10 voters were black, which is consistent with their share of the electorate. Obama took most of the support from Texas African Americans, as 84% of them voted for him.”
One thing which interests me as an observer is the fact that Clinton does her best in primaries, while Obama has obliterated her in all of the caucuses except Nevada (which came before he had distinguished himself among liberals). After last night, I was interested to know whether Hillary had actually received more votes in primaries (not counting Michigan, but including Florida) than Obama had. She hasn’t, but it’s really close:
Obama: 13,408,606; 50.45%
Clinton: 13,170,905; 49.55%
Even though Clinton will probably win Pennsylvania, I don’t think she is going to be the Democratic nominee. Nevertheless, this contest (first in my conscious lifetime) is going to the national convention, where I suspect the agreement will be made to award the nomination to Obama. I don’t think Hillary has any interest in being V.P. (That’s a step down, at her age, from being a Senator from New York.) Obama might be interested in being V.P., given his youth and inexperience in public office. However, because he has won more votes, he won’t willingly take the second position on the ballot. Perhaps they will decide something novel: like allowing Hillary to be the nominee with Obama as her running mate, but Hillary agrees in advance not to run for re-election in 2012, if she wins. I don’t expect that, but it would be a novel compromise. (Since she is so much older, the reverse compromise doesn’t work.)
Richard,
In case you are interested, the exit polls from Texas last night suggested that Texas Latinos voted in the same proportions for Clinton and Obama as they did in California.
“The Hispanic vote, which helped Clinton win California over Obama, proved to be a big demographic in Texas. 32% of Texas voters were Hispanic, in contrast to 24% in the 2004 Presidential election. As in California, Clinton has substantial support from Hispanics, as 64% of Latino voters voted for Clinton over Obama. The African American vote remained the same in Texas, as two out of 10 voters were black, which is consistent with their share of the electorate. Obama took most of the support from Texas African Americans, as 84% of them voted for him.”
One thing which interests me as an observer is the fact that Clinton does her best in primaries, while Obama has obliterated her in all of the caucuses except Nevada (which came before he had distinguished himself among liberals). After last night, I was interested to know whether Hillary had actually received more votes in primaries (not counting Michigan, but including Florida) than Obama had. She hasn’t, but it’s really close:
Obama: 13,408,606; 50.45%
Clinton: 13,170,905; 49.55%
Even though Clinton will probably win Pennsylvania, I don’t think she is going to be the Democratic nominee. Nevertheless, this contest (first in my conscious lifetime) is going to the national convention, where I suspect the agreement will be made to award the nomination to Obama. I don’t think Hillary has any interest in being V.P. (That’s a step down, at her age, from being a Senator from New York.) Obama might be interested in being V.P., given his youth and inexperience in public office. However, because he has won more votes, he won’t willingly take the second position on the ballot. Perhaps they will decide something novel: like allowing Hillary to be the nominee with Obama as her running mate, but Hillary agrees in advance not to run for re-election in 2012, if she wins. I don’t expect that, but it would be a novel compromise. (Since she is so much older, the reverse compromise doesn’t work.)
Wait until Hillary is forced to release her tax information. Their joint funds and Bill Clinton’s financial dealings over the past decade that have amassed multimillions for them both including his Foundation “contributions” from unsavory international power players should pretty much put the lid on our candicacy.
Wait until Hillary is forced to release her tax information. Their joint funds and Bill Clinton’s financial dealings over the past decade that have amassed multimillions for them both including his Foundation “contributions” from unsavory international power players should pretty much put the lid on our candicacy.
Wait until Hillary is forced to release her tax information. Their joint funds and Bill Clinton’s financial dealings over the past decade that have amassed multimillions for them both including his Foundation “contributions” from unsavory international power players should pretty much put the lid on our candicacy.
Wait until Hillary is forced to release her tax information. Their joint funds and Bill Clinton’s financial dealings over the past decade that have amassed multimillions for them both including his Foundation “contributions” from unsavory international power players should pretty much put the lid on our candicacy.
Rich,
unfortunately, I’m under time constraints, so here are some links to comments I made about some of these subjects over at The Field, a great website, by the way
here’s the first one
here’s the second one
hope you find them responsive, interesting and provocative
Rich,
unfortunately, I’m under time constraints, so here are some links to comments I made about some of these subjects over at The Field, a great website, by the way
here’s the first one
here’s the second one
hope you find them responsive, interesting and provocative
Rich,
unfortunately, I’m under time constraints, so here are some links to comments I made about some of these subjects over at The Field, a great website, by the way
here’s the first one
here’s the second one
hope you find them responsive, interesting and provocative
Rich,
unfortunately, I’m under time constraints, so here are some links to comments I made about some of these subjects over at The Field, a great website, by the way
here’s the first one
here’s the second one
hope you find them responsive, interesting and provocative
Did anyone listen to the show?
Did anyone listen to the show?
Did anyone listen to the show?
Did anyone listen to the show?
DPD, I caught the last 10 minutes or so. I even called in, but just as my phone rang you it cut out. I would have asked you and Elaine to address the fact that Jim Provenza has been the School Board President during the percolation of our current financial crisis. What questions should the voters in the Supervisors election be asking themselves and the candidates to give that reality its just due?
DPD, I caught the last 10 minutes or so. I even called in, but just as my phone rang you it cut out. I would have asked you and Elaine to address the fact that Jim Provenza has been the School Board President during the percolation of our current financial crisis. What questions should the voters in the Supervisors election be asking themselves and the candidates to give that reality its just due?
DPD, I caught the last 10 minutes or so. I even called in, but just as my phone rang you it cut out. I would have asked you and Elaine to address the fact that Jim Provenza has been the School Board President during the percolation of our current financial crisis. What questions should the voters in the Supervisors election be asking themselves and the candidates to give that reality its just due?
DPD, I caught the last 10 minutes or so. I even called in, but just as my phone rang you it cut out. I would have asked you and Elaine to address the fact that Jim Provenza has been the School Board President during the percolation of our current financial crisis. What questions should the voters in the Supervisors election be asking themselves and the candidates to give that reality its just due?
Yes, DPD. I listened to the entire broadcast. You did an excellent job and sounded like you’ve been doing radio for much longer.
Richard,
Thanks for the links:
“there has been an obvious shift in public sentiment from Obama to Hillary in the last week to 10 days, it shows up everywhere, in the results in Texas and Ohio, in the national polls, and even, most alarmingly, in an upcoming state where he is supposed to do well, North Carolina, which may become his firewall.
…
I can’t help but think that, at the last minute, voters just can’t bring themselves to nominate a black person as the Democratic nominee for President. It has happened too many times now.”
I may be blind to it, but I don’t think that there is “a Bradley Factor” in the Democratic Party primary vote. If someone is racially prejudiced, I don’t think he is going to:
1) register for a liberal political party; and
2) tell pollsters he is going to vote for Obama; but then
3) actually vote for the female candidate because of her hue.
Keep in mind that the actual Bradley Factor, assuming it really happened, was in a General Election, not in a primary. Tom Bradley won multiple elections (primary and general) in Los Angeles, despite the fact that blacks were a very small percentage of his constituents; and Bradley, when running for governor, won the Democratic Primary in California by the same percentage the Field Poll had predicted.
Also, it is notable that Obama has faired worse in states where only registered Democrats were allowed to vote. He has done better in states which permit non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic Primary.
I’m not sure what explains all of the change in momentum in the Obama-Clinton race. However, I think the change in outcomes is mostly just the make-up of the states.
Those with higher percentages of younger voters, blacks, liberals and independents are Obama states. Those with caucuses are Obama states. Those with higher percentages of Hispanics, older voters, moderates* and don’t permit independents to vote in the Democratic Primary are Clinton states.
Knowing that, here is what should happen in the states to follow, with the key factor in bold:
WY: caucus — Obama
MS: blacks — Obama
PA: moderates — Clinton
GUAM: caucus — Obama
IN: moderates — Clinton
NC: blacks — Obama
WV: moderates — Clinton
KY: moderates — Clinton
OR: liberals — Obama
MT: liberals — Obama
SD: moderates — Clinton
PR: caucus — Obama
* By “Moderates,” I mean Democrats who are less ideological and less educated. These are working class voters, who may be conservative on some social issues, like abortion or gays.
Yes, DPD. I listened to the entire broadcast. You did an excellent job and sounded like you’ve been doing radio for much longer.
Richard,
Thanks for the links:
“there has been an obvious shift in public sentiment from Obama to Hillary in the last week to 10 days, it shows up everywhere, in the results in Texas and Ohio, in the national polls, and even, most alarmingly, in an upcoming state where he is supposed to do well, North Carolina, which may become his firewall.
…
I can’t help but think that, at the last minute, voters just can’t bring themselves to nominate a black person as the Democratic nominee for President. It has happened too many times now.”
I may be blind to it, but I don’t think that there is “a Bradley Factor” in the Democratic Party primary vote. If someone is racially prejudiced, I don’t think he is going to:
1) register for a liberal political party; and
2) tell pollsters he is going to vote for Obama; but then
3) actually vote for the female candidate because of her hue.
Keep in mind that the actual Bradley Factor, assuming it really happened, was in a General Election, not in a primary. Tom Bradley won multiple elections (primary and general) in Los Angeles, despite the fact that blacks were a very small percentage of his constituents; and Bradley, when running for governor, won the Democratic Primary in California by the same percentage the Field Poll had predicted.
Also, it is notable that Obama has faired worse in states where only registered Democrats were allowed to vote. He has done better in states which permit non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic Primary.
I’m not sure what explains all of the change in momentum in the Obama-Clinton race. However, I think the change in outcomes is mostly just the make-up of the states.
Those with higher percentages of younger voters, blacks, liberals and independents are Obama states. Those with caucuses are Obama states. Those with higher percentages of Hispanics, older voters, moderates* and don’t permit independents to vote in the Democratic Primary are Clinton states.
Knowing that, here is what should happen in the states to follow, with the key factor in bold:
WY: caucus — Obama
MS: blacks — Obama
PA: moderates — Clinton
GUAM: caucus — Obama
IN: moderates — Clinton
NC: blacks — Obama
WV: moderates — Clinton
KY: moderates — Clinton
OR: liberals — Obama
MT: liberals — Obama
SD: moderates — Clinton
PR: caucus — Obama
* By “Moderates,” I mean Democrats who are less ideological and less educated. These are working class voters, who may be conservative on some social issues, like abortion or gays.
Yes, DPD. I listened to the entire broadcast. You did an excellent job and sounded like you’ve been doing radio for much longer.
Richard,
Thanks for the links:
“there has been an obvious shift in public sentiment from Obama to Hillary in the last week to 10 days, it shows up everywhere, in the results in Texas and Ohio, in the national polls, and even, most alarmingly, in an upcoming state where he is supposed to do well, North Carolina, which may become his firewall.
…
I can’t help but think that, at the last minute, voters just can’t bring themselves to nominate a black person as the Democratic nominee for President. It has happened too many times now.”
I may be blind to it, but I don’t think that there is “a Bradley Factor” in the Democratic Party primary vote. If someone is racially prejudiced, I don’t think he is going to:
1) register for a liberal political party; and
2) tell pollsters he is going to vote for Obama; but then
3) actually vote for the female candidate because of her hue.
Keep in mind that the actual Bradley Factor, assuming it really happened, was in a General Election, not in a primary. Tom Bradley won multiple elections (primary and general) in Los Angeles, despite the fact that blacks were a very small percentage of his constituents; and Bradley, when running for governor, won the Democratic Primary in California by the same percentage the Field Poll had predicted.
Also, it is notable that Obama has faired worse in states where only registered Democrats were allowed to vote. He has done better in states which permit non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic Primary.
I’m not sure what explains all of the change in momentum in the Obama-Clinton race. However, I think the change in outcomes is mostly just the make-up of the states.
Those with higher percentages of younger voters, blacks, liberals and independents are Obama states. Those with caucuses are Obama states. Those with higher percentages of Hispanics, older voters, moderates* and don’t permit independents to vote in the Democratic Primary are Clinton states.
Knowing that, here is what should happen in the states to follow, with the key factor in bold:
WY: caucus — Obama
MS: blacks — Obama
PA: moderates — Clinton
GUAM: caucus — Obama
IN: moderates — Clinton
NC: blacks — Obama
WV: moderates — Clinton
KY: moderates — Clinton
OR: liberals — Obama
MT: liberals — Obama
SD: moderates — Clinton
PR: caucus — Obama
* By “Moderates,” I mean Democrats who are less ideological and less educated. These are working class voters, who may be conservative on some social issues, like abortion or gays.
Yes, DPD. I listened to the entire broadcast. You did an excellent job and sounded like you’ve been doing radio for much longer.
Richard,
Thanks for the links:
“there has been an obvious shift in public sentiment from Obama to Hillary in the last week to 10 days, it shows up everywhere, in the results in Texas and Ohio, in the national polls, and even, most alarmingly, in an upcoming state where he is supposed to do well, North Carolina, which may become his firewall.
…
I can’t help but think that, at the last minute, voters just can’t bring themselves to nominate a black person as the Democratic nominee for President. It has happened too many times now.”
I may be blind to it, but I don’t think that there is “a Bradley Factor” in the Democratic Party primary vote. If someone is racially prejudiced, I don’t think he is going to:
1) register for a liberal political party; and
2) tell pollsters he is going to vote for Obama; but then
3) actually vote for the female candidate because of her hue.
Keep in mind that the actual Bradley Factor, assuming it really happened, was in a General Election, not in a primary. Tom Bradley won multiple elections (primary and general) in Los Angeles, despite the fact that blacks were a very small percentage of his constituents; and Bradley, when running for governor, won the Democratic Primary in California by the same percentage the Field Poll had predicted.
Also, it is notable that Obama has faired worse in states where only registered Democrats were allowed to vote. He has done better in states which permit non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic Primary.
I’m not sure what explains all of the change in momentum in the Obama-Clinton race. However, I think the change in outcomes is mostly just the make-up of the states.
Those with higher percentages of younger voters, blacks, liberals and independents are Obama states. Those with caucuses are Obama states. Those with higher percentages of Hispanics, older voters, moderates* and don’t permit independents to vote in the Democratic Primary are Clinton states.
Knowing that, here is what should happen in the states to follow, with the key factor in bold:
WY: caucus — Obama
MS: blacks — Obama
PA: moderates — Clinton
GUAM: caucus — Obama
IN: moderates — Clinton
NC: blacks — Obama
WV: moderates — Clinton
KY: moderates — Clinton
OR: liberals — Obama
MT: liberals — Obama
SD: moderates — Clinton
PR: caucus — Obama
* By “Moderates,” I mean Democrats who are less ideological and less educated. These are working class voters, who may be conservative on some social issues, like abortion or gays.
Thanks Matt and Anon.
Matt: that’s a tough question. No hard questions on the air 😉
Thanks Matt and Anon.
Matt: that’s a tough question. No hard questions on the air 😉
Thanks Matt and Anon.
Matt: that’s a tough question. No hard questions on the air 😉
Thanks Matt and Anon.
Matt: that’s a tough question. No hard questions on the air 😉
good luck, as I said in regard to your appearance on KDVS last Friday, KDRT really serves Davis, while KDVS is really regional in scope, and can’t really program sufficiently to cover many issues of importance to the city
Richard Estes:
Perhaps DPD may return the favor and invite you and Ron Glick on his KDRT show at some point, and then you can help dig into some of the fascinating Davis stories DPD has unearthed more in depth than apparently you feel you’ve been able to on your KDVS show.
good luck, as I said in regard to your appearance on KDVS last Friday, KDRT really serves Davis, while KDVS is really regional in scope, and can’t really program sufficiently to cover many issues of importance to the city
Richard Estes:
Perhaps DPD may return the favor and invite you and Ron Glick on his KDRT show at some point, and then you can help dig into some of the fascinating Davis stories DPD has unearthed more in depth than apparently you feel you’ve been able to on your KDVS show.
good luck, as I said in regard to your appearance on KDVS last Friday, KDRT really serves Davis, while KDVS is really regional in scope, and can’t really program sufficiently to cover many issues of importance to the city
Richard Estes:
Perhaps DPD may return the favor and invite you and Ron Glick on his KDRT show at some point, and then you can help dig into some of the fascinating Davis stories DPD has unearthed more in depth than apparently you feel you’ve been able to on your KDVS show.
good luck, as I said in regard to your appearance on KDVS last Friday, KDRT really serves Davis, while KDVS is really regional in scope, and can’t really program sufficiently to cover many issues of importance to the city
Richard Estes:
Perhaps DPD may return the favor and invite you and Ron Glick on his KDRT show at some point, and then you can help dig into some of the fascinating Davis stories DPD has unearthed more in depth than apparently you feel you’ve been able to on your KDVS show.
I have to admit I’m not a daily follower of this blog, but I was impressed with David’s first show. I listened to the whole thing (I was engineering it actually) and as I told David it was quite refreshing to hear such candor in regards to local politics. Combine that with respect and willingness to listen to others and I think it will be a great show. There is definitely something different about the nature of radio vs. the blog- both have great value.
I think you all should support the Vanguard on the radio and tune in and call in! If I’m not there in person I know I will.
I have to admit I’m not a daily follower of this blog, but I was impressed with David’s first show. I listened to the whole thing (I was engineering it actually) and as I told David it was quite refreshing to hear such candor in regards to local politics. Combine that with respect and willingness to listen to others and I think it will be a great show. There is definitely something different about the nature of radio vs. the blog- both have great value.
I think you all should support the Vanguard on the radio and tune in and call in! If I’m not there in person I know I will.
I have to admit I’m not a daily follower of this blog, but I was impressed with David’s first show. I listened to the whole thing (I was engineering it actually) and as I told David it was quite refreshing to hear such candor in regards to local politics. Combine that with respect and willingness to listen to others and I think it will be a great show. There is definitely something different about the nature of radio vs. the blog- both have great value.
I think you all should support the Vanguard on the radio and tune in and call in! If I’m not there in person I know I will.
I have to admit I’m not a daily follower of this blog, but I was impressed with David’s first show. I listened to the whole thing (I was engineering it actually) and as I told David it was quite refreshing to hear such candor in regards to local politics. Combine that with respect and willingness to listen to others and I think it will be a great show. There is definitely something different about the nature of radio vs. the blog- both have great value.
I think you all should support the Vanguard on the radio and tune in and call in! If I’m not there in person I know I will.
“…here is what should happen in the states to follow….”
None of which adds up to a Clinton nomination.
The only way she can get the nomination is by getting the current (not re-selected) Michigan and Florida delegates seated, and by getting a substantial majority of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates. Even if she wins all the coming primaries, she can’t make up her deficit in delegates.
Obama will go into the convention with more pledged delegates, though possibly not with enough to win on the first ballot.
I listened to Leon Panetta and Geraldine Ferraro, Clinton supporters, on the Lehrer News Hour tonight. They seemed to indicate this is the Clinton strategy. Ferraro laid out the rationale for seating the Florida delegation. If so, it is quite cynical and would be a travesty. She has already lost the nomination.
I can’t imagine any benefit from them running together in either combination. It wouldn’t be to the advantage of either, nor would it enhance the ticket for the general election.
“…here is what should happen in the states to follow….”
None of which adds up to a Clinton nomination.
The only way she can get the nomination is by getting the current (not re-selected) Michigan and Florida delegates seated, and by getting a substantial majority of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates. Even if she wins all the coming primaries, she can’t make up her deficit in delegates.
Obama will go into the convention with more pledged delegates, though possibly not with enough to win on the first ballot.
I listened to Leon Panetta and Geraldine Ferraro, Clinton supporters, on the Lehrer News Hour tonight. They seemed to indicate this is the Clinton strategy. Ferraro laid out the rationale for seating the Florida delegation. If so, it is quite cynical and would be a travesty. She has already lost the nomination.
I can’t imagine any benefit from them running together in either combination. It wouldn’t be to the advantage of either, nor would it enhance the ticket for the general election.
“…here is what should happen in the states to follow….”
None of which adds up to a Clinton nomination.
The only way she can get the nomination is by getting the current (not re-selected) Michigan and Florida delegates seated, and by getting a substantial majority of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates. Even if she wins all the coming primaries, she can’t make up her deficit in delegates.
Obama will go into the convention with more pledged delegates, though possibly not with enough to win on the first ballot.
I listened to Leon Panetta and Geraldine Ferraro, Clinton supporters, on the Lehrer News Hour tonight. They seemed to indicate this is the Clinton strategy. Ferraro laid out the rationale for seating the Florida delegation. If so, it is quite cynical and would be a travesty. She has already lost the nomination.
I can’t imagine any benefit from them running together in either combination. It wouldn’t be to the advantage of either, nor would it enhance the ticket for the general election.
“…here is what should happen in the states to follow….”
None of which adds up to a Clinton nomination.
The only way she can get the nomination is by getting the current (not re-selected) Michigan and Florida delegates seated, and by getting a substantial majority of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates. Even if she wins all the coming primaries, she can’t make up her deficit in delegates.
Obama will go into the convention with more pledged delegates, though possibly not with enough to win on the first ballot.
I listened to Leon Panetta and Geraldine Ferraro, Clinton supporters, on the Lehrer News Hour tonight. They seemed to indicate this is the Clinton strategy. Ferraro laid out the rationale for seating the Florida delegation. If so, it is quite cynical and would be a travesty. She has already lost the nomination.
I can’t imagine any benefit from them running together in either combination. It wouldn’t be to the advantage of either, nor would it enhance the ticket for the general election.
Doug Paul Davis said…
Thanks Matt and Anon.
Matt: that’s a tough question. No hard questions on the air 😉
DPD, it may be a tough question, but it is one that needs to be addressed. Perhaps you should invite the three candidates to be on-air guests to discuss that specific question.
Doug Paul Davis said…
Thanks Matt and Anon.
Matt: that’s a tough question. No hard questions on the air 😉
DPD, it may be a tough question, but it is one that needs to be addressed. Perhaps you should invite the three candidates to be on-air guests to discuss that specific question.
Doug Paul Davis said…
Thanks Matt and Anon.
Matt: that’s a tough question. No hard questions on the air 😉
DPD, it may be a tough question, but it is one that needs to be addressed. Perhaps you should invite the three candidates to be on-air guests to discuss that specific question.
Doug Paul Davis said…
Thanks Matt and Anon.
Matt: that’s a tough question. No hard questions on the air 😉
DPD, it may be a tough question, but it is one that needs to be addressed. Perhaps you should invite the three candidates to be on-air guests to discuss that specific question.
As I was listening to NPR this morning, they were discussing the possibility that Michigan and Florida may hold “do over” primaries in June.
How does everyone feel about that idea?
Personally, I think that is a good way to defuse a very awkward situation in those two states, and in the Convention itself. At the end of those do over primaries, the super delegates would have a much clearer picture in which they cast their votes. It still may end up as a virtual tie, but at least we won’t have two statesw that are in effect “hanging chads.”
As I was listening to NPR this morning, they were discussing the possibility that Michigan and Florida may hold “do over” primaries in June.
How does everyone feel about that idea?
Personally, I think that is a good way to defuse a very awkward situation in those two states, and in the Convention itself. At the end of those do over primaries, the super delegates would have a much clearer picture in which they cast their votes. It still may end up as a virtual tie, but at least we won’t have two statesw that are in effect “hanging chads.”
As I was listening to NPR this morning, they were discussing the possibility that Michigan and Florida may hold “do over” primaries in June.
How does everyone feel about that idea?
Personally, I think that is a good way to defuse a very awkward situation in those two states, and in the Convention itself. At the end of those do over primaries, the super delegates would have a much clearer picture in which they cast their votes. It still may end up as a virtual tie, but at least we won’t have two statesw that are in effect “hanging chads.”
As I was listening to NPR this morning, they were discussing the possibility that Michigan and Florida may hold “do over” primaries in June.
How does everyone feel about that idea?
Personally, I think that is a good way to defuse a very awkward situation in those two states, and in the Convention itself. At the end of those do over primaries, the super delegates would have a much clearer picture in which they cast their votes. It still may end up as a virtual tie, but at least we won’t have two statesw that are in effect “hanging chads.”
Rich,
I think that Hillary clearly swung blue collar male voters in Ohio with an appeal that had racial overtones. As I said in my linked comments, the national security ad put it all together, basically, the subtext was, in light of the other smear efforts, are you really going to trust a black man to defend the US? Standing alone, the ad would not have had this impact, but, combined with the other stuff coming out of the campaign, it did.
Supposedly, there was an exit poll survey that said that race was the most important consideration for 20% of the voters in the Ohio primary, and that they went for Hillary by a margin of 3 to 1. Should have saved the link, I guess.
Also, there was a troubling interview of a worker in northeast Ohio, where he regurgitated some of the Clinton dogwhistles about Obama (“Muslim”, “unpatriotic”) to a 60 Minutes reporter, and the reporter said, you know that’s not true, right? And the guy had this look of confusion.
Had he really been mislead, or had he been just looking for excuses to justify why he just wasn’t going to pull the lever for Obama. And, once called on it, didn’t know what to say? I believe that there was some of both in Ohio.
An interesting phenomenon is that white males outside of the old, unionized Northeast and Mideast seem to be able to vote for Obama much more readily. One could rationalize this as machine politics, except that these same union voters never had a problem crossing over and voting for Reagan and Bush despite what their leaders said.
It took three months, but the Clinton effort to define Obama as the “black candidate” has finally succeeded with their core constituency in the Rust Belt. In retrospect, the Farrakhan thing looks like it was damaging, because, while someone like McCain can be endorsed by a religious bigot like Hagee with no consequences (or even worse, it is considered an acceptable form of politics by the mainstream media), even the slightest hint of approval from Farrakhan is damaging to a black candidate.
Also note that Hillary turned the race totally around, and gained momentum during a week in which she had two mediocre debate performances (while Obama, conversely, did well). I’d like to attribute the turnaround to something else (and her Latino an rural support was a factor as well, although, with both there is an underlying racial dimension as well), but the only thing that I can see that would justify such a dramatic turnaround is the potent combination of racial dogwhistles and the emphasis upon national security.
As I said over at The Field, I believe that it has won the nomination for her, and the tragedy of the Obama campaign is that it didn’t realize the significance of what was happening, as it remains, even now, wedded to a delegate spreadsheet projection that will soon reveal itself as irrelevant.
–Richard Estes
Rich,
I think that Hillary clearly swung blue collar male voters in Ohio with an appeal that had racial overtones. As I said in my linked comments, the national security ad put it all together, basically, the subtext was, in light of the other smear efforts, are you really going to trust a black man to defend the US? Standing alone, the ad would not have had this impact, but, combined with the other stuff coming out of the campaign, it did.
Supposedly, there was an exit poll survey that said that race was the most important consideration for 20% of the voters in the Ohio primary, and that they went for Hillary by a margin of 3 to 1. Should have saved the link, I guess.
Also, there was a troubling interview of a worker in northeast Ohio, where he regurgitated some of the Clinton dogwhistles about Obama (“Muslim”, “unpatriotic”) to a 60 Minutes reporter, and the reporter said, you know that’s not true, right? And the guy had this look of confusion.
Had he really been mislead, or had he been just looking for excuses to justify why he just wasn’t going to pull the lever for Obama. And, once called on it, didn’t know what to say? I believe that there was some of both in Ohio.
An interesting phenomenon is that white males outside of the old, unionized Northeast and Mideast seem to be able to vote for Obama much more readily. One could rationalize this as machine politics, except that these same union voters never had a problem crossing over and voting for Reagan and Bush despite what their leaders said.
It took three months, but the Clinton effort to define Obama as the “black candidate” has finally succeeded with their core constituency in the Rust Belt. In retrospect, the Farrakhan thing looks like it was damaging, because, while someone like McCain can be endorsed by a religious bigot like Hagee with no consequences (or even worse, it is considered an acceptable form of politics by the mainstream media), even the slightest hint of approval from Farrakhan is damaging to a black candidate.
Also note that Hillary turned the race totally around, and gained momentum during a week in which she had two mediocre debate performances (while Obama, conversely, did well). I’d like to attribute the turnaround to something else (and her Latino an rural support was a factor as well, although, with both there is an underlying racial dimension as well), but the only thing that I can see that would justify such a dramatic turnaround is the potent combination of racial dogwhistles and the emphasis upon national security.
As I said over at The Field, I believe that it has won the nomination for her, and the tragedy of the Obama campaign is that it didn’t realize the significance of what was happening, as it remains, even now, wedded to a delegate spreadsheet projection that will soon reveal itself as irrelevant.
–Richard Estes
Rich,
I think that Hillary clearly swung blue collar male voters in Ohio with an appeal that had racial overtones. As I said in my linked comments, the national security ad put it all together, basically, the subtext was, in light of the other smear efforts, are you really going to trust a black man to defend the US? Standing alone, the ad would not have had this impact, but, combined with the other stuff coming out of the campaign, it did.
Supposedly, there was an exit poll survey that said that race was the most important consideration for 20% of the voters in the Ohio primary, and that they went for Hillary by a margin of 3 to 1. Should have saved the link, I guess.
Also, there was a troubling interview of a worker in northeast Ohio, where he regurgitated some of the Clinton dogwhistles about Obama (“Muslim”, “unpatriotic”) to a 60 Minutes reporter, and the reporter said, you know that’s not true, right? And the guy had this look of confusion.
Had he really been mislead, or had he been just looking for excuses to justify why he just wasn’t going to pull the lever for Obama. And, once called on it, didn’t know what to say? I believe that there was some of both in Ohio.
An interesting phenomenon is that white males outside of the old, unionized Northeast and Mideast seem to be able to vote for Obama much more readily. One could rationalize this as machine politics, except that these same union voters never had a problem crossing over and voting for Reagan and Bush despite what their leaders said.
It took three months, but the Clinton effort to define Obama as the “black candidate” has finally succeeded with their core constituency in the Rust Belt. In retrospect, the Farrakhan thing looks like it was damaging, because, while someone like McCain can be endorsed by a religious bigot like Hagee with no consequences (or even worse, it is considered an acceptable form of politics by the mainstream media), even the slightest hint of approval from Farrakhan is damaging to a black candidate.
Also note that Hillary turned the race totally around, and gained momentum during a week in which she had two mediocre debate performances (while Obama, conversely, did well). I’d like to attribute the turnaround to something else (and her Latino an rural support was a factor as well, although, with both there is an underlying racial dimension as well), but the only thing that I can see that would justify such a dramatic turnaround is the potent combination of racial dogwhistles and the emphasis upon national security.
As I said over at The Field, I believe that it has won the nomination for her, and the tragedy of the Obama campaign is that it didn’t realize the significance of what was happening, as it remains, even now, wedded to a delegate spreadsheet projection that will soon reveal itself as irrelevant.
–Richard Estes
Rich,
I think that Hillary clearly swung blue collar male voters in Ohio with an appeal that had racial overtones. As I said in my linked comments, the national security ad put it all together, basically, the subtext was, in light of the other smear efforts, are you really going to trust a black man to defend the US? Standing alone, the ad would not have had this impact, but, combined with the other stuff coming out of the campaign, it did.
Supposedly, there was an exit poll survey that said that race was the most important consideration for 20% of the voters in the Ohio primary, and that they went for Hillary by a margin of 3 to 1. Should have saved the link, I guess.
Also, there was a troubling interview of a worker in northeast Ohio, where he regurgitated some of the Clinton dogwhistles about Obama (“Muslim”, “unpatriotic”) to a 60 Minutes reporter, and the reporter said, you know that’s not true, right? And the guy had this look of confusion.
Had he really been mislead, or had he been just looking for excuses to justify why he just wasn’t going to pull the lever for Obama. And, once called on it, didn’t know what to say? I believe that there was some of both in Ohio.
An interesting phenomenon is that white males outside of the old, unionized Northeast and Mideast seem to be able to vote for Obama much more readily. One could rationalize this as machine politics, except that these same union voters never had a problem crossing over and voting for Reagan and Bush despite what their leaders said.
It took three months, but the Clinton effort to define Obama as the “black candidate” has finally succeeded with their core constituency in the Rust Belt. In retrospect, the Farrakhan thing looks like it was damaging, because, while someone like McCain can be endorsed by a religious bigot like Hagee with no consequences (or even worse, it is considered an acceptable form of politics by the mainstream media), even the slightest hint of approval from Farrakhan is damaging to a black candidate.
Also note that Hillary turned the race totally around, and gained momentum during a week in which she had two mediocre debate performances (while Obama, conversely, did well). I’d like to attribute the turnaround to something else (and her Latino an rural support was a factor as well, although, with both there is an underlying racial dimension as well), but the only thing that I can see that would justify such a dramatic turnaround is the potent combination of racial dogwhistles and the emphasis upon national security.
As I said over at The Field, I believe that it has won the nomination for her, and the tragedy of the Obama campaign is that it didn’t realize the significance of what was happening, as it remains, even now, wedded to a delegate spreadsheet projection that will soon reveal itself as irrelevant.
–Richard Estes
“Also note that Hillary turned the race totally around, and gained momentum …..
As I said over at The Field, I believe that it has won the nomination for her….”
Or it could just be another blip in a primary season filled with such blips. And as has been noted elsewhere, the math just doesn’t add up for her.
“Also note that Hillary turned the race totally around, and gained momentum …..
As I said over at The Field, I believe that it has won the nomination for her….”
Or it could just be another blip in a primary season filled with such blips. And as has been noted elsewhere, the math just doesn’t add up for her.
“Also note that Hillary turned the race totally around, and gained momentum …..
As I said over at The Field, I believe that it has won the nomination for her….”
Or it could just be another blip in a primary season filled with such blips. And as has been noted elsewhere, the math just doesn’t add up for her.
“Also note that Hillary turned the race totally around, and gained momentum …..
As I said over at The Field, I believe that it has won the nomination for her….”
Or it could just be another blip in a primary season filled with such blips. And as has been noted elsewhere, the math just doesn’t add up for her.
well, I’m not trying to start an acrimonious argument
I hope you are right, I’m not a closet Clintonista, but, then, that’s probably not much of a surprise
–Richard Estes
well, I’m not trying to start an acrimonious argument
I hope you are right, I’m not a closet Clintonista, but, then, that’s probably not much of a surprise
–Richard Estes
well, I’m not trying to start an acrimonious argument
I hope you are right, I’m not a closet Clintonista, but, then, that’s probably not much of a surprise
–Richard Estes
well, I’m not trying to start an acrimonious argument
I hope you are right, I’m not a closet Clintonista, but, then, that’s probably not much of a surprise
–Richard Estes
David, is it online? And can I still listen to it?
David, is it online? And can I still listen to it?
David, is it online? And can I still listen to it?
David, is it online? And can I still listen to it?
“…Also note that Hillary turned the race totally around…”
Richard,
Well, “totally” is still open to question, and the will of the millions of voters yet to vote…
“…Also note that Hillary turned the race totally around…”
Richard,
Well, “totally” is still open to question, and the will of the millions of voters yet to vote…
“…Also note that Hillary turned the race totally around…”
Richard,
Well, “totally” is still open to question, and the will of the millions of voters yet to vote…
“…Also note that Hillary turned the race totally around…”
Richard,
Well, “totally” is still open to question, and the will of the millions of voters yet to vote…
Speaking of “totally” here’s a portion of Mark Halperin’s interesting take on the current and future numbers (on Time.com):
“…Neither Obama nor Clinton can win the 2,025 delegates required for nomination without some combination of elected delegates (those chosen in primaries and caucuses) and superdelegates (party and elected officials who are automatic delegates to the Democrats’ Denver convention this summer). About 800 of the approximately 4,000 delegates are superdelegates and several hundred of them are still uncommitted to either candidate.
Given the remaining contests — many with electorates favorable to Obama — Obama’s existing hundred-plus delegate lead, and the rules by which Democrats apportion delegates, it is almost a political and mathematical certainty that Obama will have an elected delegate lead at the end of the process, barring dramatic, unforeseen circumstances.
Some of the upcoming states to vote — including Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi on March 11 — are likely to swing strongly for Obama, and certainly show no signs of being Clinton blowouts. The same goes for North Carolina on May 6 and Oregon on May 20.
Other contests might be more favorable for Clinton (Pennsylvania, Indiana, Guam, West Virginia, Montana, and South Dakota), but even decisive wins in those states — say, in the 60-40 range — would still leave her behind in both elected delegates and the overall count. That remains true even if Clinton somehow succeeds in getting the disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan seated at the convention.
Clinton’s only hope of winning a majority of the delegates is to overtake Obama’s elected delegate lead by winning the bulk of the remaining superdelegates.
This is the heart of Clinton’s multi-dimensional challenge. Obama has of late signed up more superdelegates than Clinton in part because they are swayed by his lead in elected delegates. Yet unless there is a significant change in the overall dynamic — a major Obama blunder or scandal, for example — he is likely to continue accruing superdelegates regardless of Clinton’s big March 4 wins. Also, the act of securing the nomination with unelected convention votes could be considered by many Obama supporters as highly undemocratic, embittering and dividing the party on the eve of the general election.
So Clinton lives to run for another seven weeks. But if you believe in the power of numbers, the candidate of inevitability is Barack Obama
Speaking of “totally” here’s a portion of Mark Halperin’s interesting take on the current and future numbers (on Time.com):
“…Neither Obama nor Clinton can win the 2,025 delegates required for nomination without some combination of elected delegates (those chosen in primaries and caucuses) and superdelegates (party and elected officials who are automatic delegates to the Democrats’ Denver convention this summer). About 800 of the approximately 4,000 delegates are superdelegates and several hundred of them are still uncommitted to either candidate.
Given the remaining contests — many with electorates favorable to Obama — Obama’s existing hundred-plus delegate lead, and the rules by which Democrats apportion delegates, it is almost a political and mathematical certainty that Obama will have an elected delegate lead at the end of the process, barring dramatic, unforeseen circumstances.
Some of the upcoming states to vote — including Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi on March 11 — are likely to swing strongly for Obama, and certainly show no signs of being Clinton blowouts. The same goes for North Carolina on May 6 and Oregon on May 20.
Other contests might be more favorable for Clinton (Pennsylvania, Indiana, Guam, West Virginia, Montana, and South Dakota), but even decisive wins in those states — say, in the 60-40 range — would still leave her behind in both elected delegates and the overall count. That remains true even if Clinton somehow succeeds in getting the disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan seated at the convention.
Clinton’s only hope of winning a majority of the delegates is to overtake Obama’s elected delegate lead by winning the bulk of the remaining superdelegates.
This is the heart of Clinton’s multi-dimensional challenge. Obama has of late signed up more superdelegates than Clinton in part because they are swayed by his lead in elected delegates. Yet unless there is a significant change in the overall dynamic — a major Obama blunder or scandal, for example — he is likely to continue accruing superdelegates regardless of Clinton’s big March 4 wins. Also, the act of securing the nomination with unelected convention votes could be considered by many Obama supporters as highly undemocratic, embittering and dividing the party on the eve of the general election.
So Clinton lives to run for another seven weeks. But if you believe in the power of numbers, the candidate of inevitability is Barack Obama
Speaking of “totally” here’s a portion of Mark Halperin’s interesting take on the current and future numbers (on Time.com):
“…Neither Obama nor Clinton can win the 2,025 delegates required for nomination without some combination of elected delegates (those chosen in primaries and caucuses) and superdelegates (party and elected officials who are automatic delegates to the Democrats’ Denver convention this summer). About 800 of the approximately 4,000 delegates are superdelegates and several hundred of them are still uncommitted to either candidate.
Given the remaining contests — many with electorates favorable to Obama — Obama’s existing hundred-plus delegate lead, and the rules by which Democrats apportion delegates, it is almost a political and mathematical certainty that Obama will have an elected delegate lead at the end of the process, barring dramatic, unforeseen circumstances.
Some of the upcoming states to vote — including Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi on March 11 — are likely to swing strongly for Obama, and certainly show no signs of being Clinton blowouts. The same goes for North Carolina on May 6 and Oregon on May 20.
Other contests might be more favorable for Clinton (Pennsylvania, Indiana, Guam, West Virginia, Montana, and South Dakota), but even decisive wins in those states — say, in the 60-40 range — would still leave her behind in both elected delegates and the overall count. That remains true even if Clinton somehow succeeds in getting the disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan seated at the convention.
Clinton’s only hope of winning a majority of the delegates is to overtake Obama’s elected delegate lead by winning the bulk of the remaining superdelegates.
This is the heart of Clinton’s multi-dimensional challenge. Obama has of late signed up more superdelegates than Clinton in part because they are swayed by his lead in elected delegates. Yet unless there is a significant change in the overall dynamic — a major Obama blunder or scandal, for example — he is likely to continue accruing superdelegates regardless of Clinton’s big March 4 wins. Also, the act of securing the nomination with unelected convention votes could be considered by many Obama supporters as highly undemocratic, embittering and dividing the party on the eve of the general election.
So Clinton lives to run for another seven weeks. But if you believe in the power of numbers, the candidate of inevitability is Barack Obama
Speaking of “totally” here’s a portion of Mark Halperin’s interesting take on the current and future numbers (on Time.com):
“…Neither Obama nor Clinton can win the 2,025 delegates required for nomination without some combination of elected delegates (those chosen in primaries and caucuses) and superdelegates (party and elected officials who are automatic delegates to the Democrats’ Denver convention this summer). About 800 of the approximately 4,000 delegates are superdelegates and several hundred of them are still uncommitted to either candidate.
Given the remaining contests — many with electorates favorable to Obama — Obama’s existing hundred-plus delegate lead, and the rules by which Democrats apportion delegates, it is almost a political and mathematical certainty that Obama will have an elected delegate lead at the end of the process, barring dramatic, unforeseen circumstances.
Some of the upcoming states to vote — including Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi on March 11 — are likely to swing strongly for Obama, and certainly show no signs of being Clinton blowouts. The same goes for North Carolina on May 6 and Oregon on May 20.
Other contests might be more favorable for Clinton (Pennsylvania, Indiana, Guam, West Virginia, Montana, and South Dakota), but even decisive wins in those states — say, in the 60-40 range — would still leave her behind in both elected delegates and the overall count. That remains true even if Clinton somehow succeeds in getting the disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan seated at the convention.
Clinton’s only hope of winning a majority of the delegates is to overtake Obama’s elected delegate lead by winning the bulk of the remaining superdelegates.
This is the heart of Clinton’s multi-dimensional challenge. Obama has of late signed up more superdelegates than Clinton in part because they are swayed by his lead in elected delegates. Yet unless there is a significant change in the overall dynamic — a major Obama blunder or scandal, for example — he is likely to continue accruing superdelegates regardless of Clinton’s big March 4 wins. Also, the act of securing the nomination with unelected convention votes could be considered by many Obama supporters as highly undemocratic, embittering and dividing the party on the eve of the general election.
So Clinton lives to run for another seven weeks. But if you believe in the power of numbers, the candidate of inevitability is Barack Obama
How many children in the world went hungry today? How many millions of dollars did the parties collect this month? How much food was thrown away after the “parties”? How many people died today because of the politics of the world we live in?
How many children in the world went hungry today? How many millions of dollars did the parties collect this month? How much food was thrown away after the “parties”? How many people died today because of the politics of the world we live in?
How many children in the world went hungry today? How many millions of dollars did the parties collect this month? How much food was thrown away after the “parties”? How many people died today because of the politics of the world we live in?
How many children in the world went hungry today? How many millions of dollars did the parties collect this month? How much food was thrown away after the “parties”? How many people died today because of the politics of the world we live in?