Hillary is out front in Texas and Ohio

[gatorback]

by having the decision taken out of their hands? Ok... As a voter, I wouldn't be happy with that at all.

Hasn't it been like that since we the early 1800s given we elect Presidential Electors in the United States Electoral College.  I guess you're for Hillary since she wants to do away with the Electoral College and go with the popular vote.  I'm not for the popular vote, but I think that will change in the next 4 years given we've got bigger fish to fry.

[downtownparks]

The electoral collage is necessary because of how the county is set up. It is important to keep the candidates from focusing on just California, New York, Texas, and Florida. I read somewhere that if a candidate were to pull a 65% of the vote in each of those states, and have a respectable showing everywhere else, without a single win (40-50%), they could pull off a popular win. Would you want a president who was elected by four states) I know, its a highly unlikely scenario, but if it were to happen, it would be devastating for our electoral system.

As far as Texas and its primary, holding an open primary, only to follow it immediately with a caucus that undoes what the primary decided doesn't seem right to me. Further more, if Obama pulls more voters nationwide, and then is defeated by party leaders, that to me smacks of the old back room back patting, and doesnt do anyone any favors, except the person who is given the nomination.

Also, let us not confuse the primary and the general election. The primarys rules were established by the political parties. The election is federally regulated.

[gatorback]

Who has time to caucus?  Apparently Texas.  They call it the Texas two step.

[RiversideGator]

Hillary is behind by just 300,000 votes if you count Florida (and why shouldnt you since everyone was on the ballot?).  She is basically tied with Obama is you count Michigan (this makes less sense as she was the only one on the ballot).  So, Obama's popular vote lead is not that large, if it even exists. 

Second, as to the delegates, neither candidate will be able to win outright so both will have to appeal to the superdelegates to win the nomination.  The conventional wisdom had been that Hillary held an edge here given her long history with the party but this is not so clear now.  I think also that many of them want to see how things play out before they announce their decisions.  Add to this the fact that the delegates from FL and MI (which will end up being seated IMO) will bring Hillary much closer in the elected delegate total.

Remember also that Hillary has won all of the major battleground states which have voted thus far except for Illinois (where Obama is "from" - sort of).  Obama is winning the small states which Dems have no shot at in November.  Looking at it this way, Hillary appears to be much more electable than Obama.  This is a key point which should not be lost on the superdelegates.

[thelakelander]

Hillary is behind by just 300,000 votes if you count Florida (and why shouldnt you since everyone was on the ballot?).

Because Florida's government knew they were violating the rule and the punishment for doing such beforehand.  Once again, rules are rules.

Remember also that Hillary has won all of the major battleground states which have voted thus far except for Illinois (where Obama is "from" - sort of).  Obama is winning the small states which Dems have no shot at in November.  Looking at it this way, Hillary appears to be much more electable than Obama.  This is a key point which should not be lost on the superdelegates.

Btw, will we ever get to the point where these things are uniform across the board?  For example, Republicans and Independents were allowed to vote for their Democratic preferences in the Texas primary, but not in a State like Florida.

[RiversideGator]

I dont believe the state legislature and the governor knew that the DNC would strip the state of ALL delegates to the national convention.  This happened after the primary was officially moved up.

[thelakelander]

When my parents told me not to do something and I did it anyway, I didn't always know that they would pull out a belt. 

Did Crist and the state legislature not know that they were violating DNC rules?  If not, then there's an argument.  If so, then rules are rules and we'll have to suffer the consequences.

[Steve]

Did Crist and the state legislature not know that they were violating DNC rules?  If not, then there's an argument.  If so, then rules are rules and we'll have to suffer the consequences.

The National Democrats were quite clear that there would be sanctions.  I think it's funny it wasn't an issue until this race was close.

[gatorback]

Hillary is behind by just 300,000 votes if you count Florida (and why shouldnt you since everyone was on the ballot?).

Btw, will we ever get to the point where these things are uniform across the board?  For example, Republicans and Independents were allowed to vote for their Democratic preferences in the Texas primary, but not in a State like Florida.

This is one of the problems I had my first time out in Texas, since I've voted for the winner in every election since 1980.  Then again, I was a registered Republican so I never got to vote in the democtratic thingy you guys have.

Texas is not an open primary is what that old lady told me.  I was told you can decide at the last minute which party, but when I got to Austin Community College, my precinct, I was bluntly told Pick a line and get the ballot and cast your vote for Obama(j/k) but she was rather short with me.

[RiversideGator]

Steve and Lake:  I suppose y'all did not support Gore's quest in 2000 to change the rules in FL after the election then?   

I wouldnt vote for either one of these candidates, but I generally want the Dem candidate to be fairly reasonable to prevent the election from skewing too far to the left (and just in case they, God forbid, win) so I support Hillary.  It seems to me though that to discount the entire states of Florida and Michigan is not exactly wise politics for the general election despite how it may benefit Lake and Steve's obvious favorite, Obama.  Anyway, this is my take as a Republican.   

[thelakelander]

Steve and Lake:  I suppose y'all did not support Gore's quest in 2000 to change the rules in FL after the election then?

To tell the truth, I really didn't get too much involved in that election.  I'm an Independent.  I thought we were seriously screwed either way during that election.  Nothing that has happened since, has changed my mind on GW and Gore.

I wouldnt vote for either one of these candidates, but I generally want the Dem candidate to be fairly reasonable to prevent the election from skewing too far to the left (and just in case they, God forbid, win) so I support Hillary.  It seems to me though that to discount the entire states of Florida and Michigan is not exactly wise politics for the general election despite how it may benefit Lake and Steve's obvious favorite, Obama.  Anyway, this is my take as a Republican.

Candidates aside, I don't support changing the rules in the middle of the game in politics or sports.   

[vicupstate]

Hillary is behind by just 300,000 votes if you count Florida (and why shouldnt you since everyone was on the ballot?).  She is basically tied with Obama is you count Michigan (this makes less sense as she was the only one on the ballot).  So, Obama's popular vote lead is not that large, if it even exists. 

Second, as to the delegates, neither candidate will be able to win outright so both will have to appeal to the superdelegates to win the nomination.  The conventional wisdom had been that Hillary held an edge here given her long history with the party but this is not so clear now.  I think also that many of them want to see how things play out before they announce their decisions.  Add to this the fact that the delegates from FL and MI (which will end up being seated IMO) will bring Hillary much closer in the elected delegate total.

Remember also that Hillary has won all of the major battleground states which have voted thus far except for Illinois (where Obama is "from" - sort of).  Obama is winning the small states which Dems have no shot at in November.  Looking at it this way, Hillary appears to be much more electable than Obama.  This is a key point which should not be lost on the superdelegates.

Crist and the legislature knew full well that they were breaking the DNC rules.  They knew it would cause 'mischief' and some degree of penalty from the DNC.  That's why it is not fair to simply penalize the Democrats as if it was their idea. 

Believe me, when it comes to elections, I am very adament about following the rules, but there was nothing the FL dems could have done to affect the date.   There should be another vote, and FL taxpayer's should pay for it.  They are the ones that elected Crist and the legislature. 

River, the reason HRC wins the 'big' states is because that is where the 'traditional' Democrats are largely located.  There is no reason to believe that they would not vote for Obama, if he is the nominee.  Obama won in states where Democrats don't traditionlly do well because he drew many independents and moderate Republicans into the Dem caucuses and primaries.  Those voters didn't cross over because of HRC.  There have been probaly 100 polls of Obama versus HRC in the general election, Obams leads HRC in about 90% of them, including the most recents ones. 

It is a figment of your imagination that HRC is more likely to win than Obama in the general, the opposite is true.  In reality, you know that, which is why you want HRC to be the nominee.

It is also a figment of your imagination taht HRC is more conservative than Obama.  That National Journal rating showed only TWO votes were different between the two.  That is out of thousands of votes cast.   

[RiversideGator]

There is no way to know how each Dem candidate would end up doing against McCain b/c only one will actually get the shot.  I prefer Hillary b/c she is more moderate, albeit slightly, than Obama.  I think Obama has some significant liabilities in the general given the fact that I think many Dems will not vote for him although they will not tell pollsters this now.  Check the final polls and exit polls and then check how he actually did when the votes were counted.  This is one reason I think Hillary has a better shot at victory.  But who knows.  I could be wrong.  After all, I do have a vivid imagination, vic.   

[vicupstate]

It's certainly true that we will never be able to say for certain since only one will be the nominee.   

Not long after I posted last night, I came across this source.   Survey USA did a poll in every state with a McCain/Obama and McCain/Clinton matchup.  Obama wins more electoral votes, albeit it is close (280 for Obama versus 276 for Clinton).  However if you look at the states that the poll shows 'in play' (a five point or less loss for the Democcrat) Obama has more than twice as many electoral votes in that category than Clinton (6 states with 64 electoral votes vs. 9 states with 129 electoral votes).   This supports my theory that an electoral landslide is possible with Obama, but much less so with HRC.

This poll also support my contention that against Obama, the GOP will have to defend states that normally would be 'in the bag'.  These include TEXAS (McCain leads by only 1 point against Obama), Alaska, North Carolina and believe it or not SOUTH Carolina.  Obama may not take any of those states, but if the GOP has to spend time and money to keep them, then they will have less time and money to spend on places like Missouri, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania that will essentially decide the winner.   

Also of note, the poll shows BOTH HRC and Obama beating McCain in Ohio in November, and by the EXACT SAME PERCENTAGE. In Texas, where HRC also just beat Obama, Obama is within one point of McCain, while HRC trails by 7.  HRC's votes will go to Obama, but not fully vice versa.     

I realize that it is too early to put too much faith in this poll, and it is only one poll, but it is the first one I have seen that looks state by state for both HRC and Obama.     

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/

[RiversideGator]

Vic:  Again, you are assuming that people are telling pollsters the truth about their intentions.  They may tell a pollster that they intend to vote for Obama but, when they actually vote, they vote for McCain (or Clinton in the primary).  This is the hidden role that the issue of race plays, according to some pundits.  So, I would not necessarily believe the polls re Obama's electability.  I still therefore maintain that Hillary is the more electable candidate.  Again, I dont want any Dem to win, but I am just trying to honestly analyze the election.