1. It's interesting that the Scott McClellan story is the first real Washington story to intrude on the campaign coverage. I find the story fascinating, but I also consume way more political coverage than most people do, and it's possibly the case that the confessions of a former press secretary are liable to be treated with outsized importance by the press pool he was engaging with.
2. In the credit-where-credit's-due department, that was a clever little boxout the McCain campaigned performed on Barack Obama's visits to Iraq.
[UPDATED] 3. If you have the time and the tolerance for legalese, the DNC lawyer memo prepared for the Rules & Bylaws Committee is worth a read. The particular section to pay attention to is "Issue 3", which is covered on pages 5-6. The memo hints that the preferred solution to Michigan's "uncommitted" delegate problem would be to give the four candidates whose names did not appear on the ballot (Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden) the collective right to vet and approve the uncommitted delegate slate, through a means they "could work out among themselves". Since Edwards and Richardson have endorsed Obama, this would very amount to the equivalent of giving Obama control over the uncommitted delegate slate.
One thing the RBC won't do is to apportion the uncommitted delegates based on extrapolated exit polling results -- based on my reading of this document, there is no legal authority to do something like that. They will either effectively hand those delegates to Obama (through the means described above) or they will let the selection of the individuals to fill those delegate slots fall to the state of Michigan, which has already selected its district-level delegates, all but a couple of whom are officially or unofficially committed to Obama.
5.29.2008
Instant Coffee
@ 9:48 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments
On #2, I agree, but the timing was ill-chosen (from McCain's standpoint). It's clear, since they never mentioned it, that Obama was not planning on an overseas visit. McCain could have waited another month or two to trot this out. This would have (1) made the length of time even greater and (2) made it more difficult for Obama to just do the overseas visit and deflate the issue. As it stands now, Obama has already announced plans for an overseas visit.
Actually, justin, you are wrong.
They had mentioned it several times before - anonymously because they did not want to seem cocky about the nomination - but they could not do it before Hillary dropped out.
I think McCain will be sorry for bringing up Obama's length of time away from Iraq, because the Dems will come up with a "boxout" of their own. ksh01
The last time McCain traveled there he couldn't keep his Sunnis, Shiites, Iranians, and al Qaedas straight.
A time before that he bragged about strolling around freely in the streets and markets, and that General Petraeus traveled without using an armored vehicle. Both were far from the truth.
I wish he'd go back again soon, because he provides good fodder for the Democrats every time he goes there.
What is a box-out, and can someone put #2 in context (what did the McCain camp do to Obama). Thanks! I really enjoy this site, keep up the robust analysis.
Anon above:
McCain made an offer to give Obama a "tour" of Iraq, to show him how "conditions on the ground have improved." Reasonably not wanting to look like he's being led around by the nose and lose national security cred, Obama declined. McCain's camp then pointed out that Obama hasn't been to Iraq since 2006 and claimed he should lose security cred there. Now when it comes out that Obama has long been considering a trip, it seems like he was "prompted" by McCain. At least that's how I see what happened.
Obama (or the DNC, as the below post maybe shows us) should recall McCain's flak jacket flap.
Epic-MRA poll of MI: McCain 44, Obama 40 (McCain vs. Clinton not polled).
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080529/METRO/805290372/1374/POLITICS01
3 certainly makes sense. I read a while back that Clinton supporters have a strong backing amongst supposedly "uncommitted" state convention delegates in Michigan, which means that if they were truly just set adrift, it is likely that she would pick up a significant fraction of them. Though she'd like that (and argue that it is the only correct interpretation), to give her *more* delegates than she won in an uncontested primary is on face ridiculous.
Here is a March 8th story where Obama aides tell the WP they will travel to Iraq as soon as they have the nomination sewn up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030703318_pf.html
More and more as I listen to Hilary Clinton and her supporters, I think they are fighting this all the way to the convention. Since according to the memo, the RBC can only hand out ½ the delegates in Michigan and Florida now (100% can be awarded at the convention), this will not be good enough for Hilary Clinton. This will give them the excuse to fight on to the convention using the disingenuous every vote must count talking point. (FYI, I just heard it again on MSNBC where a Clinton delegate said they would take it to the convention). They will not be satisfied unless they are given a facsimile to the Lanny Davis solution, which is overwhelmingly favorable to Hilary Clinton. So, unless superdelegates overwhelmingly move toward Barack Obama and give him the 2210 delegates needed counting Florida and Michigan in full, there will be a fight on the convention floor. Fighting on the convention floor for the nomination has always meant a loss for the candidate. Hopefully, for the good of the nation, superdelegates will give him the 2210 needed or I fear we will have a McCain presidency.
The McCain presidency is already more than 50% likely.
The strange thing is that Hillary and her supporters seem to think that, after all that's transpired, that she can somehow still win the election in November.
Re poll mentioned by lilnev, again quite a lot of undecided votes, at 16%. Pretty odd.
New Rasmussen polls:
Mississippi
McCain 50%
Obama 44%
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/mississippi/election_2008_mississippi_presidential_election
Alabama
McCain 60%
Obama 32%
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/alabama/election_2008_alabama_presidential_election
Mississippi might be a longshot swing state... but it looks like Alabama definitely won't be.
I've got a question. How likely will it be that the Rules Committee will actually make a decision on Saturday? I've read somewhere (I think) that the Committee won't make a decision without the agreement of both campaigns. But the Clinton campaign doesn't seem inclined to compromise. In that case, there can't be a compromise, can there be? Or will the Rules Committee attempt to force a compromise on the Clinton campaign? Thanks for your opinion, in advance.
I wanted to ask why Obama's Rasmussen unfavorable ratings are always so high?
It's evident in the RCP Favs-Unfavs ratings that since February, Obama's unfavs with rasmussen have been around 45% or higher.
No such high unfavorability rating is recorded for him by any other polster.
I agree with #2. It was very well done.
About #3- I'm no expert, but I thought parties could choose the nominee however they want and that there are no legal due process rights for the process?
on #2. . .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/29/axelrod-exclusive-obama-s_n_104064.html
The McClellan thing is interesting. We have the Bush people reading from the same script about being "puzzled" by McClellan, and trying to imply that the guy has had a nervous breakdown. There seems to be some interesting stuff there, such as Bush being the one who personally authorized leaking the Plame information.
I have always thought that George W. himself is the political slash-and-burn artist there. I don't think it's been so much a Karl Rove operation as it's been a partnership between Rove and Bush. I think George W.'s fingerprints are on a lot more levers than people think.
One thing I'd love to know more about is the Jeff Gannon rentboy-turned-White House-reporter scandal that was so effectively swept under the carpet by McClellan and the White House press corps. I doubt anyone will ask about it, but it would be fascinating if someone would.
On First Read today Chuck Todd points out that the net delegate allocation in FL\MI will be different depending on whether the RBC cut their delegates in half or seating them fully with 1/2 a vote each. Is this the case? Poblano Could you do an article explaining further?
Many thanks
Cutting the number of delegates propagates rounding error more than giving each delegate half a vote. If the state gets half the total delegates, that means each CD, the at-large and PLEO delegates are all cut in half, changing the breakpoints where you can pick up a delegate.
Consider a congressional district with 4 delegates. You would need (I guess) about 63% of the vote to get a 3-1 split. If that's cut in half, you get a 1.5-.5 vote difference. Now cut the delegation to 2 and give each a full vote. You need 75% of the vote to go 2-0 now (right? Not sure about that). So at 63%, where you were a vote up before, you're now tied.
I don't know how it'll actually go but that is my off-the-cuff theory here.
I think the Rules Committee will definitely make a decision this weekend (though apparently they've been advised to get hotel rooms for Saturday night, because it may be a long meeting.)
Having the consent of both campaigns is an informal requirement, not a requirement under the rules. The reason it's always talked about is that if you can work out a compromise that both campaigns support, then you know the decision will be final and neither will appeal it to the Credentials Committee. Unfortunately, the indications certainly seem to be that the Clinton campaign wants to keep the nomination uncertain as long as possible, which is why they continue to refuse any compromise.
Since the range of possible decisions is fairly narrow, the most interesting news to come out of the meeting may be watching how the known Clinton supporters on the committee vote. That may provide a clue as to whether her campaign's "take it all the way to the convention" pose has enough support from delegates to look like a serious challenge, or whether it will just be seen as effectively filing a complaint about a process that's really over.
Anyone check out the crosstabs in the new SUSA poll of Kansas. It has McCain winning overall, but there's a curious oddity in the poll. Obama wins self described liberals only by a 59%-30% margin. Thing is, liberals are the one group most likely to vote Democratic, even more so than self identifying Democrats. So, how is it that in the Kansas poll Obama wins liberals by such a weak margin?
I wonder when the poll update is going to come.
Re Kansas, liberals only make up 120 voters. That samples so small you couldn't deduce anything meaningful from it.
So, unless superdelegates overwhelmingly move toward Barack Obama and give him the 2210 delegates needed counting Florida and Michigan in full, there will be a fight on the convention floor.
This kind of logic annoys me no end. Look at the numbers! Obama doesn't need the superdelegates to "overwhelmingly" move towards him to get 2210 delegates.
Democratic Convention Watch has a little box showing the delegate count if Florida and Michigan count. It shows Obama as 127 delegates away from the nomination. Conservatively, Obama should get at least 36 delegates in the remaining contests. That leaves him with 91 delegates to go. Democratic Convention Watch only shows 22 of the 55 uncommitted Michigan delegates for Obama. Obama will almost certainly get virtually all of them. Let's say 53. So that gives him 31 more. 60 to go. This tabulation also shows 18 Edwards delegates - 12 from Florida, and 7 from elsewhere. Obama will get the lion's share of these. Let's give him another dozen. That gets him to 48. Obama also ought to get at least 19 of the 32 remaining add-on superdelegates - i.e., the ones chosen at state conventions where Obama will have a majority. That gets his needed total down to 29. It seems likely that Obama already has around that number committed to come out in support of him after June 3. And it's only 15% of the remaining non-add on or already selected add-on superdelegates. I suppose Obama might get somewhat less of the Michigan uncommitted and Edwards delegates than I posit, but even if he gets only 40 of the 55 Michigan delegates and only 5 of the 18 Edwards delegates, That still means he only needs 49 superdelegates.
The math is inexorable - this is not going to the convention. Obama will have 2210 at some point in June.
Sorry to have annoyed you John, but you don’t have to be a jerk. I am guessing that you and I both want Barack Obama to be the nominee. I have never seen Democratic Convention watch until now. If I would have, I wouldn’t have used as strong of a word. I have been saying since February after the Wisconsin primary that Hillary Clinton cannot win and since then, I believe that Barack Obama has only increased his lead. But, you do understand that unless Hillary gets everything that she wants, she and her supporters want and will try to appeal this all the way to the convention.
Since it appears that the RBC can only give out ½ the delegates at this time, it means of the normal 368 total pledged and super delegates available in Michigan and Florida, only 184 will count at this time. So, there are approximately 221.5 uncommitted superdelegates counting Michigan and Florida and 240.5 pledged (84 in Montana, PR & SD plus 156.5 in MI & FL). Counting like you do 36 in the three remaining primaries gives Obama approximately 2017. Lets also give Obama another 44.5 pledged delegates (11 MI & 34.5 FL) for 2061.5. So at this point, he needs 148.5 to get to 2210 delegates. There are another 23 (156.5-44.5 Obama - 89 Clinton) Michigan and Florida pledged delegates that went to Edwards or “other” left over. You gave all of them to Obama, so I will too. This leaves Obama needing 125.5 superdelegates of the 221.5 remaining. While not overwhelming, it is a very significant number.
In other words, Hillary Clinton will want all delegates from Michigan and Florida seated or she will go to the convention. The RBC rules at this time will force them to cut the delegates in half. It is easy for Barack Obama to get to 2210 when all 4417 delegates are seated in full as you very eloquently wrote. It is not as easy when there are only 4233 delegates when you cut Michigan and Florida in half.
Anonymous, your math is wrong. Obama doesn't need 2210, counting his Michigan and Florida delegates only half. He needs 2210 if you count them as full delegates. At any rate, Clinton's superdelegates and pledged delegates are going to start defecting as soon as Obama gets to whatever number the RBC sets on Saturday. At that point, Clinton will have no further chance. It isn't going to the convention.
John, you still don't understand what I am saying because my math is not incorrect. Hillary Clinton will only accept 2210, as she is counting them in full. When the RBC meets and if they cut the FL & MI delegates per what the DNC lawyers say, Obama should only need 2117 (or some close variation)for the nomination. He will reach that very easily. But, if Hillary Clinton does not agree with the outcome of the RBC, it is within her right to appeal this to the convention floor. Understand, she has not had a real chance at winning for several months now and she has not gotten out. What makes you think that she will get out until someone gets to what SHE thinks is the finish line?
I completely disagree with Poblano (for the first time!) and everyone else it seems on point #2.
I feel that it was a poor tactic and the only reason they are getting away with it is because the DNC is too much of a pussy to come back and rightly accuse John McCain of fault for the dozens of deaths that happened in that marketplace right after he stubbornly visited.
McCain's camp has opened itself up for this obvious conterattack and taking the opportunity would both explain Obama's hesitance to go back there frequently and take control of media dialog about who better understands what is happening in Iraq. Instead McCain has continued to get away with making that disasterous trip on which he clearly learned nothing and now Obama has to waste time on some trip at taxpayers' expense which will accomplish nothing.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment