Yep, a 4:52 second song and video about John McCain's free ride and scary side, courtesy of HuffPo's version of The Onion, 23/6.

Click and Enjoy!

I spent a little time this afternoon capturing the audio source from the War Room from the longer clip available on YouTube, the clip that Politico linked to this morning.  I captured the audio in digital audio editing software, amplified it, then ran noise reduction to lower the background hiss.  That's all I did.  No adding or enhancing sounds, just working to make the existing sound louder and clearer.

I made a quick video with a couple if text-only slides to present what I believe was said in that scene.  I did not use the original video, just the amplified and cleaned audio.  You can check it out for yourself on Youtube.

Have a listen and tell me if I'm closer to what was really said than what has been reported.  I'll discuss what I think about the varying versions in the comments.

With 99% of the vote counted in Pennsylvania, the NY Times is showing a Clinton lead of 9.4%.  With only 7 counties not reporting 100%, and all but one of those already at 98 or 99%, it's looking like Obama will pick up an additional net 2,000 votes when all the ballots are counted.  Adding that to the totals at 99%, Clinton will garner 54.6% to Obama's 45.4%, a 9.2% spread in favor Clinton.

Is it picking nits to look at the slight percentage difference above or below 9.5% that could round up to a 10% spread?  No, there is a clear psychological threshold at the 10% margin.  Clinton cannot claim a double-digit victory.  And Obama can point to the long-stated expectation by his campaign that getting within 10 points of Clinton in PA would be considered a victory, given the demographics of the state.

We can certainly concede that Clinton won Pennsylvania.  But we should not concede that she triumphed, or that she scored a significant victory.  Her net delegate pickup will make no significant difference in the race, leaving Obama in commanding lead in the delegate count.  And her pick-up of 200,000 popular votes will not bring her anywhere near as close as she needs to come to claim a popular vote mandate.

Congratulations Senator Clinton, on your less than convincing victory.

I actually find this kind of amusing, since it was a benign attack. I didn't try to log into Obama's blog site today, but apparently a trickster managed to post some code that was redirecting visitors over to HRC's site.  As noted in the article I linked, the HRC site has an identical vulnerability that was exploited here, so before folks start pointing fingers at the Clinton campaign, consider how silly it would be to intentionally exploit a flaw that you leave open for exploitation on your own site.  Glad to see nothing truly nefarious ensued.

3.6 million ticks of the clock.  60480 minutes. 1008 hours.  42 days.  6 weeks.  An eternity in politics.

Six weeks ago we took in the results of the Wyoming caucus, speculated about the size of Obama’s certain victory in the upcoming Mississippi primary, and generally girded ourselves for the largest chasm of electoral inactivity in this never-ending primary year.  We asked ourselves whether there was any chance Hillary Clinton would drop out of the race before the Pennsylvania primary, whether the Super Delegates would move en masse to one candidate or the other, and whether Obama would suffer the kind of campaign-ending blow that the Clinton camp has predicated as its raison d’etre for slogging onward.

In early March, looking ahead six weeks felt like gazing across the universe.  Yet, here we are, nearing the close of this longest period of pure campaigning with no elections to analyze. Pundits predicting disaster for the Democrats in the form of a prolonged campaign are not really any more credible now than they were six weeks ago.  The campaigns have survived the gulf and we close observers have survived to face another significant six-week stretch: the last primaries of the season are now six weeks away.  

The next six weeks will be another feast of electoral riches as we prognosticate over 10 contests on seven election dates, with the longest interval between contests a mere 14 days.  The final six weeks are going to move faster and provide more definitive movement toward a final outcome than the preceding six weeks.  At long last, the end of this extraordinary primary season is in sight.

What can happen in six weeks in a primary campaign?  Apparently, neither the best nor the worst scenario for either of the Democratic candidates, looking back over the events of March and April.

Six weeks ago, March 8, Greg Sargent posts: “Poll: Hillary Back In National Tie With Obama; 3 A.M. Ad Might Have Helped”.  The Intrade market has Obama’s chances for the Democratic nomination at 72/100.

We learn that one of the children in Clinton’s 3am ad is now a 17-year-old fervent supporter of Barack Obama.

Over the weekend leading up to the Mississippi primary, we ponder whether Eliot Spitzer, outed as a patron of high-priced prostitutes, but not yet having resigned, will hurt Hillary Clinton by association.

March 11 - As Obama scores a 25-point victory over Clinton in Mississippi, SurveyUSA reported a 19-point lead for Clinton in polls of Pennsylvania voters.

Sinbad is quoted: "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"

March 12 - Geraldine Ferraro resigns her position on the Clinton campaign finance committee.

Keith Olbermann, in a special commentary on MSNBC, implores the Clinton campaign to disavow race-based rhetoric and improve the tone of the contest.

March 13 – Nancy Pelosi suggests there will be no Obama/Clinton dream ticket in the fall.

March 14 - Obama posts a statement on the Huffington Post condemning Rev. Wright’s controversial remarks.  Rev. Wright resigns from his role on Obama’s African American Religious Leadership Committee.

5 weeks ago

March 16 – Chicago Tribune editorial board reports satisfaction with Obama’s answers to all Rezko-related questions fielded in a 90-minute interview on March 14.

March 17 – in a speech on national security Clinton laughingly recounts running across the tarmac at the Tuzla airport in Bosnia in 1996 in fear of sniper fire.

Florida Democrats declare a revote there officially dead. 

March 18 - Obama gives a speech at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia to address race in America.

March 19 - The National Archives release Clinton’s White House calendar and daily agendas. 

March 20 - the Clinton campaign acknowledges that it’s making an argument to undeclared Super Delegates based on the statements of Rev. Wright. 

In an interview on Philadelphia radio, Obama characterizes his grandmother as a “typical white person”.

Michigan’s Gov. Jennifer Granholm announces her disappointment that a revote in Michigan is officially dead.

We learn that State Department employees have opened passport records of the candidates.

A photo of Rev. Wright at a White House meeting of religious leaders surfaces.

March 21 - Bill Richardson endorses Barack Obama. 

James Carville likens Richardson’s endorsement to Judas’ betrayal of Jesus.

FEC reports indicate that the Clinton campaign is running a net debt in campaign funds. 

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker awards Clinton’s Tuzla sniper remarks 4 Pinocchios.

March 22 – Gen. Tony McPeak compares statements by Bill Clinton to tactics used by Joe McCarthy.

4 weeks ago

March 23 – JedReport.com posts footage of Clinton’s arrival and greeting in Tuzla, Bosnia.

March 24 -  Clinton supporter Evan Bayh suggests that Super Delegates should consider the aggregate electoral college votes of the states the Democratic candidates have won in the primaries. 

Clinton campaign states that candidate may have misspoke in recounting her visit to Tuzla.
 
March 25 – Clinton tells the editorial board of the Philadelphia Daily News the Pledged Delegates, like the Supers, can vote for whomever they like at the convention. 

Speaking to the Pittsburgh newspaper, Clinton says Rev. Wright would not have been her pastor.

Obama releases tax returns for 2000 – 2006.

March 26 – Clinton fundraisers send letter to Nancy Pelosi criticizing her statements about how Super Delegates should vote for the pledged delegate leader.

March 27 – MoveOn.org initiates petition in support of Nancy Pelosi’s Super Delegate position.

March 28 – Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey endorses Obama.

Howard Dean calls on Super Delegates to declare their support by July 1.

Patrick Leahy calls on Clinton to withdraw from primary race.

The University of Chicago Law School releases statement verifying Obama’s Professor status. 

March 29 – Texas holds County Conventions, assigning complete delegate count for Texas caucuses.

Obama bowls 7 frames at Pennsylvania bowling alley and knocks down 37 pins.

3 weeks ago

March 30 – Obama says he doesn’t want his daughters punished with a baby.

March 31 – A 1996 positions survey completed by Obama reported to include Obama’s handwriting on survey. 

Richard Mellon Scaife publishes favorable editorial about Clinton in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Reviews of the Clinton campaign’s FEC filings reveal a large number of unpaid bills to vendors. 

April 1 – SurveyUSA puts Clinton lead in Pennsylvania at 12 points, down 7 from 3 weeks earlier.

Clinton challenges Obama to a bowl-off.

April 2 – Karl Rove praises Clinton’s 3am national security ad. 

Clinton unveils a second 3am ad, focusing on the economy. 

Obama tells a photo-seeking voter that he won’t be smiling in the picture.  

April 3 – Clinton campaign says Bill Richardson told Clintons that Obama was unelectable.  Richardson denies the statements. 

Randi Rhodes suspended from Air America radio. 

April 4 – Reports surface that Mark Penn met with Colombian ambassador to discuss advocacy of Colombian trade deal. 

Clinton releases tax returns for 2000 -2006.

April 5 – Colombia cancels its PR contract with Mark Penn’s firm.

An Ohio hospital disputes a Clinton campaign narrative about the death an uninsured woman. 

2 weeks ago

April 6 – Clinton campaign demotes Mark Penn.

April 7 – Obama reveals he traveled to Pakistan while in college. 

April 8 –  Clinton and Obama question Gen. Patraeus in Senate hearing.

Reports surface that Bill Clinton supports trade deal with Colombia.

April 9 – Elton John headlines a fundraiser for Clinton. 

April 10 – Bill Clinton defends Hillary’s Bosnia statements. 

April 11 – Obama comments in private fundraiser, suggesting small-town voters are bitter, come to light via Huffington Post.

April 12 – Clinton relates that her father taught her how to shoot. 

1 week ago

April 13 – Obama responds to Clinton criticisms with “Shame on You” and chides Clinton’s Pennsylvania shot-and-a-beer episode. 

April 14 – Clinton airs TV ad in Pennsylvania critical of Obama’s small town remarks. 

Kentucky Republican Geoff Davis refers to Obama as “that boy”.

April 15 – SurveyUSA puts Clinton lead in Pennsylvania at 14 points.

19 Pennsylvania mayors appear for Clinton to endorse her. 

April 16 – Bruce Springsteen endorses Obama.

Clinton and Obama participate in ABC debate in Philadelphia.

Obama releases 2007 tax return. 

Accounts of a 1995 meeting surface where Clinton alleged to have said “Screw Em” about southern working class white voters.

April 17 – Howard Dean calls on undecided Super Delegates to begin immediately announcing their support for candidates.

April 18 – Clinton and Obama campaigns trade criticisms about “whining” over debate treatment. 

Former Senators Sam Nunn and David Boren and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich endorse Obama.

Newsweek poll puts Obama national lead at 19 points.

Clinton remarks surface about MoveOn.org activists intimidating Clinton supporters at caucuses.

April 19 – Gallup’s daily national tracking poll shows Clinton retaking lead from Obama.

Today

Pollster.com’s national polling averages put Obama’s support at 49.8%, Clinton’s at 40.4%.  Pollster’s Pennsylvania averages show a 5-point lead by Clinton.

The Intrade market puts Obama’s chances for the nomination at 84/100, as 12 point gain over six weeks.

Two days to go until the final phase of the campaign season kicks off.  Six weeks and change to the end of this endless primary season.

ABC News is reporting Penn's resignation from the Clinton campaign:

HILLARY CLINTON'S CHIEF STRATEGIST, MARK PENN, IS STEPPING DOWN AMID CONTROVERSY OVER HIS ADVOCACY WORK ON BEHALF OF A TRADE DEAL CLINTON OPPOSED

An April 1 piece on the NY Observer titled “Gonna Fly Now! Clinton Runs as Rocky In Philly” presents a fairly typical account from the campaign trail, reporting on Hillary Clinton’s stump speech and how it speaks to blue-collar white voters in Pennsylvania.  The article also quoted several Clinton supporters whose views are a telling reflection on an important segment of the electorate and an object lesson for what an Obama presidency can represent.

The article’s author doesn’t characterize the remarks as typical or atypical, but the message is clear:

“We need her,” Barbara Vizzini, a 46-year-old equipment operator from Middletown, said before Hillary Clinton took the stage at a rally in Fairless Hills Monday night. “If we don’t get her, we’re going to end up with John McCain.”

What about Barack Obama? Why couldn’t he beat the Republican nominee?

“The race thing,” interjected her colleague Daniel Kirner, 52, from Tullytown.

“I mean, a president named Barack?” agreed Ms. Vizzini.

One of these Clinton supporters recognizes that race may play a negative role in the general election if Obama is the nominee.  But do they realize that by choosing to vote for Clinton on the basis of this sentiment that they would just be reinforcing a race-based rationale with their vote?  Given no preference between Clinton or Obama on policy issues, it would make more sense to support Obama, as a principled statement about the irrelevance of race, and in an effort to vote for a candidate whose election will nullify the narrative that race matters in the general election.

Equally disconcerting is the “president named Barack” response, which is indicative of either gross ignorance (as though a candidate’s name would be any predictor of how they would govern) or a reflection of a smug nativism embodied in voting for a “Hillary” instead.  In either case, the point of view speaks to an electorate that continues to harbor irrational prejudices and that places visceral reactive factors over policy- and leadership-based considerations in selecting a presidential nominee.

The article continues:

Hillary Clinton has spent the past few days courting the white, blue-collar workers who are most receptive to her no-nonsense message of hard work and experience. They also happen to be the people most suspicious of Mr. Obama. Some, like Ms. Vizzini, like him well enough, but echoing Pennsylvania governor and Hillary surrogate Ed Rendell, they think he will have problems with some white voters. Others think he’s an unreliable upstart who will stumble when it counts, or worse, that he’s simply a fraud.

It’s hard to accept that final line as an inference drawn from a close examination of the candidate himself.  Where do the perceptions of “upstart”, “unreliable” and “fraud” come from?  I don’t believe they come from Obama’s record or from his comportment on the campaign trail.  Instead, they are further evidence of simple prejudice.  

And finally, the article provides an example of the worst kind of misinformation to which voters are deliberately clinging as a rationale for voting against Obama:

“She’s got this one locked,” said Mary Yates, a 67-year-old retired worker in a chemical factory. “No Muslim is going to be president. No drug addict. If Hillary isn’t the one, everyone I know will vote for John McCain.”

In light of the whole “race chasm” discussion of late, it’s clear that there are a number of ways to look at how race is affecting the Democratic primaries, and no simple overall pattern.  Without question, there are some voters in Pennsylvania who will cast votes based on prejudices.  Surely, the same has been true in earlier contests this year, and we will unquestionably see prejudices affect the decision of some voters in the general election in November when Obama faces McCain.

I would urge all voters who find abhorrent and anti-democratic the prejudices expressed in the NY Observer article to take into consideration what an Obama presidency will do for this country.  It’s impossible to predict exactly how Obama will govern, but based on his abundant abilities I think we can expect an effective administration and a new kind of leadership that will help heal our internal rifts and repair the American image around the world.  And these accomplishments, by a mixed-race president, will not only send an irrefutable message to Democrats in Pennsylvania, like those cited here, but to all those who have pre-judged Obama based on his racial background or on misinformation.  The resounding message will be that race is irrelevant to ability, that a name portends nothing about a candidate’s capabilities, and that the truth about character cannot be overcome by viral smears and willful disbelief.

We need a President Barack to prove to the prejudiced and the skeptical and the misinformed that they were wrong in their assumptions and beliefs.  And with that proof, I am hopeful that we will attain the critical mass in the American electorate to move us past this tipping point in our history, to discrediting racial prejudice and truly living up to the best of our democratic ideals.

I won’t pretend to have any expert knowledge of the situation in Iraq today, but it seems pretty clear that the history of the conflict since 2003 has made the recent events in Basra pathetically predictable.  Take what’s reported in the NY Times today.

Senior members of several political parties said the operation, ordered by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, had been poorly planned.

Was the operation in Basra poorly planned because the US military didn’t play a central role in the operation?  Or, if the US did play a role, is it evidence of the continuing inability of our military in Iraq to effectively take on an urban insurgency?  If planned by Iraqis, it says a lot of about how poorly US efforts to train Iraqi forces has gone.  The  failure of the Iraqi national forces this week is sad evidence that we have made little progress on one of the most critical goals we set five years ago.

“We don’t have to rush to military solutions,” said Nadeem al-Jabiri, a Parliament member from the Fadhila Party, a strong rival of Mr. Sadr’s party that would have been expected to back the operation, at least on political grounds. Instead of solving the problems in Basra, Mr. Jabiri said, Mr. Maliki “escalated the situation.”

Indeed, as many experts have been saying for some time, we need a political solution in Iraq, not a military solution.  Maliki has either understood failed to understand this or failed to bring effective political leadership to the divisions still so evident among Iraqis, between religious factions and also among the Shiites themselves.  Rather, the national Iraqi leadership seems to have signed on to the standing Bush strategy with respect to the Iraqi insurgency: respond with military force to stop the symptoms of division, while ignoring or applying failed strategies to the cause of the divisions.  

And what of “the surge” that McCain continues to insist has been so successful?  Have we witnessed any tangible political progress that was supposed to be made in the space created by an increased number of US troops In Iraq?  Has the surge had any impact on Basra, a city split among three rival factions who have shown little desire for political reconciliation?  The contrary seems to be true.  Whether because the surge was never directed at Basra or because it failed to have a meaningful impact there, the surge is clearly a failed effort.

Unfortunately we were expecting one thing but we saw something else,” said Ali Hussam, 48, a teacher, who said that after Saddam Hussein the people of Basra had hoped for peace. “But unfortunately with the presence of this new government and this democracy that was brought to us by the invader, it made us kill each other.”
“And the war is now between us,” he said.

Let’s see what John McCain has to say to explain what’s happening in Basra and whether he offers any new thinking beyond the inept, ill-conceived and futile efforts of a Republican administration he seems to have endorsed for a third term in the White House.

The Clinton campaign will tell anyone willing to listen that she has amassed more popular votes than Obama, which is true, if you add up and compare the number of votes she and Obama have received in the primaries (whether or not you count Florida).  Of course, to accept the Clinton campaign’s assertion one needs to accept their reasoning – caucuses don’t count.  Since caucus results only report on how many delegates were chosen for each of the candidates (delegates chosen to represent their candidates at a county and/or state convention), the numeric totals coming out of caucuses are meaningless in terms of actual votes cast.
It’s a really disingenuous argument, since we know real people, individual voters, have turned out for the 13 caucus elections and that far more voters have supported Obama than Clinton in those contests.  In most cases we don’t have actual tallies for how many individual votes were cast in the caucuses.  Even in cases where we do have actual vote tallies, the numbers are inarguably lower – much lower – than the turnout we would have seen had those caucus states held primaries instead.  On this, at least, the Clinton campaign is correct.
So, what would the results have been if the caucus states had run primaries instead?  Some, I’m sure, will dismiss this exercise out of hand.  Estimating total turnout and allocating popular votes for the caucus states might inherently be considered a fool’s errand.  Nevertheless, a good fool has to be especially clever if he hopes to bewitch the king’s court with sophistry.
Let me cut to the spoiler, then review the assumptions and calculations that led to my headline.

Popular vote totals for all primaries through March 4, as reported by Real Clear Politics:
Clinton - 13,452,127 (50.4%)
Obama - 13,222,609 (49.6%)

If the caucus states had held primaries, vote totals based on estimated Dem turnout multiplied by the actual percentage support for each candidate in the caucuses:
Clinton - 1,296,899 (33.4%)    
Obama - 2,580,438 (66.6%)

Estimated total popular vote to date, caucuses and primaries combined:
Clinton - 14,863,015 (48.3%)
Obama - 15,668,597 (51.7%)

Obama leads in popular vote by 1,054,021 votes, a 3.4% advantage.

So, why does this exercise matter?  My projections are based on a number of estimates and assumptions that can be challenged, but I believe the underlying idea that Obama would have a significant popular vote lead at this point is sound.  If the Clinton campaign seeks to accrue superdelegate (SD) support by arguing that she has more popular vote support then Obama, one would have to agree that the caucuses should not be considered, a serious shortcoming for basing a SD vote on behalf of Clinton.
But granting the argument to Clinton, that caucus results can’t be included in a calculus of who received the most popular votes, there’s no reason the SDs should not be open to considering a what-if scenario, to see what the popular vote totals would look like if they agree that caucus delegate votes are irrelevant.  Had the caucus states run primaries instead of caucuses, what would the popular vote outcome have been?   I believe it is equally legitimate (or illegitimate) to exclude caucus results entirely as it is to project what the popular vote would have been if the caucus states had held primaries.  Each analysis relies on a hypothetical.
I expect the chief argument against this analysis to focus on the purported undemocratic nature of the caucuses and that the percentage results from the caucuses can’t be used to project what would have happened in a primary.  I concede there is some merit to this argument, but I will stand by my belief that both Clinton and Obama had an equal opportunity to prepare for and compete in the caucus contests and that the percentage difference in their outcome is a result of Clinton’s failure to garner support, not the result of the nature the caucus process itself.
I should point out that it should obvious that my line about “bewitching with sophistry” was in jest. When the SDs review the outcome of this nominating season, they will weigh many factors in determining who received the most support from the Democratic electorate.  I don’t advocate bewitching the SDs, but do believe it is fair to consider the popular vote argument from more than one perspective.
Methodology:
-    To project how turnout might differ if a caucus state had run a primary, I reviewed general election (GE) votes cast by Dems state by state in the GE contests in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004.
Example: In Iowa, the average number of Dem votes cast in the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 elections was 691,585.
-    I isolated the states that ran primaries in 2008 and compared how many total Dem votes were cast in 2008 as compared to the average number of Dem votes cast in the last 4 GEs.
Example: In Missouri, the average number of Dem votes cast in the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 elections was 1,204,520 and total Dem votes cast in the 2008 primary was 800,037, or 34% fewer votes than the average cast in the recent GEs.
-    Looking at the states that have run caucuses in 2008, I used the baseline of average votes cast in those states in the recent GEs to estimate how many Dem voters would have voted in a primary, assuming that primary turnout is lower than GE turnout by some percentage.
Example: In Kansas, the average number of Dem votes cast in recent GEs was 453,402.  Assuming that turnout for a primary would be 33% lower than in the GE, the projected turnout if Kansas had a run a primary would have been 299,246.
-    All 2008 caucus results have been reported in terms of the percentage of support for each of the candidates (I used data from the NY Times).  I used those percentages to determine how many actual votes would have been cast for Obama or Clinton if the state had run a primary.
Example: In Maine, average Dem turnout in recent GEs has been 359,849.  Assuming the a primary would bring out 1/3 fewer voters, I estimated primary turnout would have been 236,075 and allocated those popular votes to the candidates based on actual percentage support in the 2008 caucus -- 59.5% for Obama and 39.9% for Clinton, in this case.  The estimated popular vote totals would be 141,313 for Obama and 94,763 for Clinton.
-    Reviewing average Dem GE turnout in the states that ran primaries in 2008 and comparing the GE turnout averages to the actual Dem turnout in thosee primaries, I arrived at an average of how much lower Dem turnout has been in the 2008 elections when compared to historical GE turnout.  The range of turnout difference was between -59% in Louisiana (where an average of 880,959 Dems have voted in the GE between 1992 and 2004, but only 357,557 Dem votes were cast in the 2008 LA primary) to +4% turnout this year in the Texas primary (where recent Dem GE turnout has been 2.7 million compared to 2.8 million Dem votes cast in the 2008 primary).  The average difference in turnout was 33%, i.e., about 2/3 of the number of GE Dems are voting in the 2008 primaries.  The standard deviation from the 33% average was .16, or +- 16%.  Clearly, the Louisiana and Texas figures are outliers.
Assumptions:
-    Votes for Edwards and other candidates in the caucuses were not a consideration.  I limited the analysis to the actual percentage of reported delegates captured by Obama and Clinton in each caucus.  Almost none of the combined percentages of Obama and Clinton totaled 100%, reflecting a proportion of local delegates awarded to Edwards or another candidate.  E.g., in Iowa Obama received the support of 37.6% of Dems while Clinton received 29.5%.  In allocating popular votes, the actual reported percentages were multiplied against estimated Dem turnout as indicated by the average number of Dems voting in recent GEs.
-    I have not included Florida or Michigan vote tallies in presenting the existing or projected total number of popular votes cast.  It would not be difficult to run the analysis with those states included, but the conclusion that Obama is far ahead in popular vote projections would not change.
-    In recording Dem turnout in the 1992 and 1996 elections, I assumed turnout was non-representative of Dem voting patterns because of the large number of total votes cast for Ross Perot.  To compensate for lower than normal turnout, I divided votes cast for Perot in half, assigning half of the votes Perot received in each state to Clinton’s total Dem votes received in those states.
-    In calculating Dem turnout in the 2000 and 2004 I did not allocate out votes for Ralph Nader to Al Gore or John Kerry, but simply used total Dem vote counts.
-    While the methodology of adding 50% of Perot votes to Clinton, but not allocating Nader votes to the Gore or Kerry Dem totals certainly affects the dependability of the derived average figure for Dem votes, it should be noted that the totals were averaged to provide a best estimate of how many Dem votes would be cast and that if the average number were higher or lower, it would not be significant with respect to how those Dem voter totals were divided between Obama and Clinton in projected turnout.  The projected votes were allocated to Obama and Clinton based on their percentage support in the caucuses, so the percentage difference would not change, nor, I submit, would the magnitude of difference have a significant affect on the conclusion that Obama would receive substantially more popular votes than Clinton.
-    I did not attempt to distinguish votes cast by Independents or cross-over Republicans in the 2008 contests in my calculations.  When looking at voter turnout in GEs, one can’t determine how many self-identified independents voted since they must vote for one of the parties whose candidate is on the ballot.  Additionally, I don’t believe cross-over Republican votes in the 2008 nominating season have been in sufficient number to have a significant effect on my conclusions.

You know the Democratic nominating contest has heated up by the increasing level of flames seen among blog commenters on the web in the last 2 weeks.  We’re seeing more and more Obama supporters declare that they’ve reached a tipping point, vowing not to vote Democratic in November if HRC is the candidate.  Some of this reaction is based on the changing tone of the campaign since the days preceding the WI primary and the cumulative effect HRC’s negative tactics have had in blunting Obama’s momentum.  Some of you have set your focus on the possibility that HRC could end up the nominee by virtue of superdelegates casting deciding convention votes for HRC in spite of the near certainty that Obama will bring to the convention a lead in pledged delegates.  Another group – the dyed in the wool Hillary haters – has been vowing from the beginning that they will never, under any circumstances, cast a vote for HRC.

Please… listen up.  This election is not only about who will head the executive branch for the next 4-8 years.  There are 2 branches of government at stake in this election, with far more on the line beyond the executive: the federal courts.  Federal judicial nominees are lifetime appointees and cannot be turned out of office via a presidential election.  Younger voters will not remember the Warren court and the enormous impact its progressive decisions have had on this country.  The Supreme Court decisions from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s have defined and under girded our civil liberties across the spectrum of the Bill of Rights and the post-Civil War constitutional amendments.  Consider where we might be without the SC’s decisions on privacy, the rights of the accused, and free speech.  Consider the crucial decisions the Court is now facing (on habeus corpus, detainee treatment, military tribunals) and what issues we’ll be facing when, with a Democrat in the white house, the Republicans seek to litigate policy through the SC.

We are at a critical juncture now in the composition of the court.  A quick review of the nine most powerful jurists in the land (including who appointed them, their age, and their record of opinions):

John Roberts – GWB – 53 – conservative
Samuel Alito – GWB – 57 – conservative
Clarence Thomas – GHWB – 59 – conservative
David Souter – GHWB – 68– liberal
Stepehen Breyer – Clinton – 69 – liberal
Anthony Kennedy – Reagan – 71 – SWING
Antonin Scalia – Reagan – 71 – conservative
Ruth Bader Ginsburg – 74– liberal
John Paul Stevens – Ford – 87– liberal

The last two SC appointees (Alito and Roberts) replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, a swing voter, and William Rehnquist, a conservative.  In losing O’Connor, the conservative bloc is now just one justice removed from an outright 5-4 majority (or 6-3, depending on how  Kennedy votes).  At is now stands, there’s a 50-50 chance that any given close decision will go 5-4 liberal or 5-4 conservative.  Now consider the age of the current justices.  I believe Stevens has chosen to remain on the Court through this term so he can be replaced by a Democrat.  If he is the only justice to retire with a Democrat in office next year, the composition of the court will not change.  A Democrat will replace Stevens with a liberal.  The same is true for Ginsburg.  If both Ginsburg and Stevens retire under a Democrat, the court will continue to have 4 conservatives, 4 liberals and a swing voter. 

If HRC wins the nomination and a sufficient number of disaffected democrats sit out the 2008 election, and if McCain is the next president, you can be certain that the composition of the Supreme Court will change, and that it is highly likely it will move to a conservative majority.  With another young Republican appointee on the Court, the critical questions of civil liberties and privacy will be determined from a conservative philosophy for the next generation and probably another generation beyond.  It could be 30 years before the last of the conservatives now on the court will retire.  If there is a Republican in office, the conservatives will certainly obtain the 5-4 conservative majority they have been aiming for.  With HRC in office, we can at least maintain the 4-4-1 composition of the court, and may be able, over 8 years, to move the court to a 5-4 or 6-3 liberal majority.

What is at stake is not just whether, with HRC, there will be a continuation of the politics of division for the next 8 years and another Clinton team in the white house (nothing I would look forward to).  But we can prevent the creation of a long-term conservative branch of government, one with powers commensurate to the legislative and executive branches, but with no possibility for electoral change and a guarantee of many years of conservative decisions.  The SC is the most important of the federal appointees the next president will make, but the federal District and Appellate judges are also critical to local and regional judicial decisions and serve as the farm system for the SC.  The future of the entire federal judiciary is at stake this November.

I voted for Obama in February.  I am very hopeful he will be the Democratic nominee in August.  I am loathe to return the Clintons to the White house.  But I will not cast a vote for McCain or Nader or sit out the election in November if my vote will help assure that we do not enable a conservative Supreme Court and federal judiciary for the foreseeable future.

Please… listen up, and think beyond the immediate anger and frustration, put aside the Hillary hate, put in perspective what is at stake in November, and cast your vote to keep the SC out of the hands of the conservatives.  We would elect McCain at our peril.  And not just for what it means in the next 4-8 years, but what it means for the next 4-8 presidential elections.

With only two one-on-one debates to guide us on what to expect in the next (and final?) Democratic primary debate, I'm really looking forward to Tuesday night's event in Ohio to see what approach the candidates will take.  In California and Texas HRC performed characteristically well on the issues and maintained a dignified presence in the face of very bad news on the campaign trail.  But was her denouement at the Texas debate a scripted evocation  for sympathy/empathy or more of momentary glimpse at the kinder, gentler HRC we've heard lives beneath the measured and premeditated politician's approach to the world?

I believe Obama has done equally well in the last two debates and that neither candidate has scored a blow-out or game-changing win in the last 2 events.  So what can we expect on Tuesday night, at what might well be the final debate between Democratic candidates in the 2008 election?

HRC's tone on Saturday, in decrying O's mailing materials and invoking the dreaded Rove to characterize O's campaign was a revelation, the work of a hard-hitting, take no prisoners campaigner whom we hadn't seen before, and all the more shocking in light of HRC's better-than-usual personal closing argument in Thursday night's debate.  And let's not forget that challenge to O, to meet in Ohio and debate campaign tactics.

Some have taken to comparing HRC to Jekyll and Hyde.  So who's going to show up in tonight's debate?  And how will Obama respond?  Is it possible her campaign has a new tact based on O's past that hasn't come to light before now?  And is she serious that she wants to debate O on their respective campaign tactics?

I really don't know, so I'd love to hear the opinions of the TPM readers and bloggers. :-)

The NY Times today published an Op-Ed today titled “Got a Problem? Ask the Super”.  Written by Geraldine Ferraro, a respected former party elder who Walter Mondale plucked from the House of Representatives to fill the Vice Presidential slot on the 1984 Democrat ticket, I approached the piece with the expectation of getting a fresh perspective on how the Democratic party can work through the unresolved issue over how the Super Delegates should play a role in the 2008 nominating contest.  In 1984, the first election in which I was old enough to vote, I was prepared to cast my vote for Gary Hart in the primary.  But by the time the primary season reached Illinois, Walter Mondale was the “frontrunner” and it was clear to anyone following the race that Mondale was the pick of the Democratic establishment and that he would be the party’s nominee.  As a fervent ant-Reganite I felt obliged to be the good Democrat and support the Party’s choice.  I held my nose and voted for Mondale in the primary, the presumptive nominee. 

There was a strong sense at the time that no one could defeat Reagan in the fall, no matter who the Democrats ran, so I was pleased when Mondale and the Party made the unconventional and risky choice of placing a woman on the ticket in the number two spot.  Ferraro had not run in the primaries, but she was impressive in the campaign and I was frankly more excited by her in the race than by Mondale.  We all know the rest of the story, at least how it ended in November of ’84.

Younger voters may only know Ferraro as a name from Democratic Party trivia, which is understandable since she resigned her House before the 1984 general election and, after losing with Mondale, was unsuccessful in two subsequent bids for a Senate seat.  But I’ve remembered her fondly as the first female candidate ever to run on a major party’s presidential ticket.  I guess I can be forgiven for the positive attitude with which I looked forward to reading the NY Time Op-Ed.

I had no idea that Ferraro played a role in setting up the Super Delegates in 1982 and was anxious to read a first-hand account of the reasoning behind the Party’s decision to add a rather undemocratic wrinkle to the Democratic nominating process.  But Ferraro’s account of the Hunt Commission’s work in 1982 shed little light on why the Super Delegates were given their role in the nominating process.  Instead, this Op-Ed reads like a press release for the Clinton campaign, an extended self-contradictory agglomeration of spin in the service of the Clinton’s campaign’s views on this primary season.  As an Obama supporter I found Ferraro’s piece disconcerting and very disappointing, having hoped for a more neutral and balanced disquisition.  Sadly, after years on the sidelines, Ferraro is using her faded brand name to replay the role of Party establishment hack.

Ferraro suggests that because of infighting at the 1980 convention, “members of Congress who were concerned about their re-election walked away from the president and from the party.”  She mentions her role in the Hunt Commission which created the Super Delegates, but she does not explain how infighting over the Party platform related to giving the Super Delegates their role as electors at the convention.  In what I assume was meant as elucidation, Ferraro continued, “Democrats had to figure out a way to unify our party. What better way, we reasoned, than to get elected officials involved in writing the platform, sitting on the credentials committee and helping to write the rules that the party would play by?”

If the problem was that elected officials were not given a voice at the convention, to contribute to Party rule-making or in creating the Party platform, the Party could simply provide Party members more rights on committees at the convention.  Why go the extra step of giving those “delegates” the power to cast 20% of the votes in the selection of the Party’s nominee?

“These superdelegates, we reasoned, are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation.”

All well and good.  Create a broader base of party interests in creating the party platform.  But why change the actual voting process for the Party’s nomination?   Ferraro moves on without answering the key question: why did the party create a new voting bloc not tied to the primary process?

Noting this season’s conflicts over the role of the Super Delegates, Ferraro says “the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.”

Why would the Super Delegates “have already chosen” a candidate?  What in the Party’s thinking process back in 1982 would bring us to that conclusion?  Ferraro doesn’t say.   As it stands, a plurality of the Super Delegates have not yet committed to a candidate, so it’s a moot point suggesting that they should already have done so.  And to what end?  How could the Super Delegates know what is best for the country before the campaign and primary elections took place?  The primary season is an excellent vehicle in which to learn about the candidates and to gauge who rank and file Democrats are willing to support and elect in the general campaign.  The only way I can read Ferraro’s suggestion is in light of her support for Clinton, whose strength in the polls early on and whose “inevitable” status in the eyes of the Party establishment make the primaries and caucuses a moot point to the Super Delegates.  Decide early and decide for the voters who will be the nominee.  This strikes me as particularly arrogant and altogether undemocratic.

Ferraro’s next line of argument is even more reprehensible.  She argues that the voters in the primary process are not representative of the Democratic electorate.  After all, only 30% of voters participate in the primaries.  Following that line of reasoning, perhaps we shouldn’t have any primaries at all.  And while we’re at it, given the apathy of American voters every 4 years as we select a president, let’s dispense with elections altogether!   Ferraro’s argument is in complete denial of modern reality.  We have a process that allows all American to participate in shaping our parties and selecting who we feel will make the best president.  The voters have come out this year and turned against the Party’s establishment pick, so the establishment is now arguing that it’s better for the insiders to predetermine the candidate than allow that pesky 30% of us to have its say.

How voter turnout justifies the existence of Super Delegates is beyond me.  But there’s more cynical insight to come in Ferraro’s discourse.  She tells us that “many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, [and] in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses.”  Indeed, and this is certainly something to consider when making Party rules.  And when Ferraro had an opportunity to participate in making those rules, did she support a mandate for closed primaries?  And is giving the Party establishment a piece of the action in the nominating process really the best solution to this issue?  Let’s face it: all the Democratic candidates were faced with the same electoral conditions when the race began.  It’s absolutely disingenuous to now make arguments about how the Super Delegates should act because the existing rules have given an edge to one of the candidates.  All the candidates had an opportunity to leverage the rules when the game began; only one of the candidates succeeded. 

Adding insult to injury, Ferraro weighs in on what the candidates’ supporters are saying about the process: “Perhaps because I have endorsed Mrs. Clinton, I have noticed that most of the people complaining about the influence of the superdelegates are supporters of Mr. Obama. I can’t help thinking that their problem with the superdelegates may not be that they’re ‘unrepresentative,’ but rather that they are perceived as disproportionately likely to support Mrs. Clinton.”

The Super Delegates were only likely to disproportionately support Clinton when she was the Party’s establishment pick, before the elections began.  Only after the campaign played out could the Party make an informed decision over which candidate was better positioned to win a general election. To even suggest that the Super Delegates should have disproportionately supported anyone is more arrogance and presumption.  As an Obama supporter I have not had an expectation that the Super Delegates would be supporting anyone before the primaries, and thought the Super Delegates shouldn’t express a preference for one candidate or the other until the voters showed a strong preference one way or the other.  If that preference were for Clinton, then a Super Delegate’s support for Clinton would be justified.

It makes no sense for the Party insiders to speak out in support of one candidate before any primary votes are cast.  Do we really want a candidate to have a 20% leg up before the voting begins?  If that were the case, no candidate would bother with seeking endorsements by party officials. What official would endorse a candidate for whom they’ve already committed to vote against at the convention?

After making a case that Democratic voters are irrelevant to choosing a candidate, Ferraro pivots to making the case for seating the Florida and Michigan delegations. Ferraro doesn’t provide a reason for connecting the Super Delegate and FL/MI issues, but as it’s apparent by this point in the article that she is shilling for the Clinton campaign, she may as well put in her two cents on the other democracy issue at hand.  And is Ferraro concerned about party rules and how important it is for a broad coalition of Democrats to legitimize Party decisions?  Weren’t the Super Delegates created so more Party members had a say on DNC committees and the party platform?  Wouldn’t those voices be disenfranchised by failing to enforce the rules they created?  But it’s convenient now for the Clinton campaign to do just that.  Rules be damned, that 30% of the electorate that doesn’t matter anyway needs to be represented at the convention!  On the one hand, Ferraro argues that voter participation is so low that the Party needs a super force to back up the Party’s will, while on the other she thinks the Florida and Michigan voters are indispensable to making a democratic decision.

I’m saddened that Ms. Ferraro has not understood what the Democratic electorate has been saying in this election.  We want a fair, open, democratic process, and we are not happy with the Party establishment and its effort to perpetuate its own interests to the detriment of the democratic process.  If Ferraro is truly concerned about Democratic turnout, she and her fellow establishment hacks would do well to not use arrogant and undemocratic reasoning in an effort to change the results of elections in which Democrats are voicing their preference for who they want to see as our next president. 

I wish I had read an Op-Ed piece like this by the Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.  I would have been far less likely to support the Democratic frontrunner for the sake of party unity if I understood the establishment’s jaded approach to prearranging the Democratic nomination and scorning the very voters who make up the Democratic constituency.

Anyone else catch Obama's gaffe inn the beginning of the debate, when he said Cuba has been under embargo all of his life, <i>and</i> Hillary's?  Guess that makes Hillary... 49?  Whoops!  ;-)

Milwaukee's largest newspaper is reporting a change in plans today for the Clinton campaign schedule in WI.  Clinton was originally scheduled to campaign in WI through Tuesday morning:

Today is Clinton's first day of campaigning in the state, with an event in Kenosha and a state party dinner in Milwaukee, where Obama also will appear. Clinton will campaign Sunday in De Pere, Wausau and Madison, and is expected to do one event in the state Monday morning before leaving.