Why Obama can WIN

Barack Obama can win in November over John McCain for one simple reason: he offers the one thing people have been clamoring for, and never recieved -- an actual choice.

Assume for a minute that the Clintons cease shilling for John McBush, and the Democrats can find a way to bring Michigan and Florida back into the fold, thus increasing the chances that the party can win. Further assume that Al Sadr is politically astute (as he has shown himself to be) and he ends the “truce” he’s kept his people under in Sadr City. Finally, assume that the Fed continues its disastrous path of bailing out investment banks with no additional regulation.

Now, flip to July.

Gas is $4.00/gallon. Unemployment is up. More people have walked away from their homes or been foreclosed upon. Food prices are doing what they did in the late 70’s when prices rose seemingly by the hour. The streets of Iraq are running red with blood at a level which makes Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds seem tame by comparison. More of the Antarctic ice shelf has dissipated and chunked off.

John and Barack have a debate.

By the summer, the economy might be more of a news story then it is now. Sure, it’s a story with legs, but the media likes the political sniping better. But by summer, it will be pretty bad. And McBush will likely be on the same page that he was on yesterday: he doesn’t know, he’s hoping someone will give him an answer. (Check out the teleprompter story from yesterday for the details.) Obama will present the ideas he’s already come out with: new green jobs, a modified WPA to rebuild our infrastructure, new training programs, FAIR trade instead of “free” trade, and a renegotiation of NAFTA and CAFTA. Because the campaign personnel are smart, they will likely recommend the kind of banking oversight for the private banks that saved the commercial banks in the ‘30’s (which is actually the only hope the financial markets have).

With the Iraq surge the same level of fiasco as the rest of the war has been, McBush will still be pushing that we stay for 100 years, and Obama will be pushing a path to bringing the kids home.

Stark.

But there are also fundamental differences -- the biggest one has to do with ethics. The Wright thing might continue on, but even the people who find Obama’s responses to be unacceptable cannot deny that he did face the issue head on. He didn’t deny he knew the man. He didn’t deny that he was there in the pews. By summer, when the press is more focused on McBush, his ethics violations will come out, and all will see more proof of his being in bed (literally and figuratively) with the Telecom lobby his Commerce Committee is charged with overseeing.

The money issue will resurface, and Obama is clean. No beholden monies, no PAC money, no lobbyist money. Stark, stark contrast to both McBush and the Clintons. A money flow from regular people, most of whom give less than $50 at a time.

There are many who say that Obama cannot win because of the number of people who will not pull the lever for a black man. That thought repulses me to my very essence. But I know there is SOME truth to it. I’ve had it virtually spat in my face. True vitriol from low lifes too stupid to evaluate people AS people. Horrible sub-humans that continue to spread lies about Obama just because he is half-black.

But I believe that in the end, self-interest will trump malevolence. For racism is the sole thing that people can have against Obama. I believe that even the morons will come to see that hate is a zero sum game, and that “together” can lead to win-win.

Further, there is the map issue. There are states that are “true blue” which will vote Democratic no matter what. NY, CA, MA, MN and a long list of others. They could as much go red as I could. There is a lot often said about Florida -- and no, Obama can’t take Florida. Neither could Clinton, neither did Kerry nor Gore -- so just mark that off the list, and add in the states that Obama CAN take which Clinton cannot: New Mexico, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, and yes, even Michigan. SUSA has done the maps, and I’ve referred to them before. The Obama map is 290 Electoral Votes. And yes, that’s a win.

Next, there is the issue of coattails. It is important for the Democrats to win not only the White House this year, but to continue the increases in the House and the Senate. We have a clear shot at an unheard of 30 House seats. Plus Senate seats in MN, NM, CO, NH, and ME. They win bigger with the ticket headed by someone who will bring out the vote. Remember, the Clintons in 92, 96 and 98 had NO coattails, and in 94 caused (due mostly to the Hillary health care plan) the greatest House seat loss in history.

And finally, I know Obama can win because I work the campaign. I’ve lost count of how many campaigns I’ve worked - but this is truly different. People, who never in the past wanted to be involved, now enthused. I know Republicans (smart, decent people with whom I generally have philosophical differences, but they ARE smart and decent) and they are considering voting for Obama as their first Democrat. Obama runs a huge campaign, and the campaign runs better than any other. If this is how he runs a campaign, there is hope for the human mass we refer to as “government bureaucracy.”

Everyone touched by the campaign will tell you that this is different, this is hope, this is the legitimate chance for a better future for which we’ve been waiting. And once he is the nominee, more people will see that. And the country will be better for his leadership.

And as for winning the nomination -- yesterday, ABC news quoted a DNC member (and SuperDelegate) as saying Hillary Clinton was now playing Tonya Harding. Her last hope is to knee-cap Obama. Some say she is attempting to put a stake through the Democratic Party (okay, in the interest of full disclosure, I say that too) but my new take is that people ask if he’s battle-tested, ready to lead, able to take what the Republicans will throw at him in the general. I answer -- since he can survive the Clintons, he’s already seen the worst. I don’t know that she’s Tonya, but she’s certainly taking a page from Karl Rove’s playbook.

Bring it on.

Electability Redux

This is my third shot at the electability issue. The first, 1200-word, essay was a personal one on why I am supporting Obama. The second was a mathematical treatise on voter turnout statistics and a state-by-state data set on who could win what. Neither published because they didn’t speak anywhere near succinctly to the base issue à why Hillary Clinton cannot win the General Election, no matter what.

The context is all the people I know here in Pennsylvania (and in North Carolina) who are considering who to vote for in the primary EXCLUSIVELY on who gives the Democrats the better shot in November.

So, as briefly as possible, here is why she CANNOT win.

1. Voter Turnout: HUGE this year. Biggest ever. A lot of these people are engaged in the process this year for the first time. When June 4^th comes, and Obama is winning by 500,000 popular votes, and has won the states and territories 32 to 18, and the pledged delegate count by 150, they will expect that he has won the nomination. If it is stolen by a group of party elders, they will stay home in November. (I will spare you the “turn out the others” discussion, but at base, it says that 70% of the November electorate will vote Democratic or Republican based on muscle memory -- it’s that last group of new voters and independents and moderate party switchers that actually decide an election.) If you don’t believe me, ask yourself this: if you belonged to an organization, be it the 5^th grade class, B’Nai Brith, CYO, Sierra Club or WHATEVER and they held an election where someone won 65 to 35 and they gave the person who won the 35 the nod, would you want to continue your participation?

2. The Lies: Clinton’s campaign strategy is founded on “experience”. She had no portfolio nor security clearance at the White House. That trip under “sniper fire” in the Balkans? Complete falsehood. Peace in Northern Ireland? Didn’t happen. The recently released daily diaries (yes, they’re available, and I only skimmed them) show a typical first lady setting up photo ops and luncheons. NOT some great participation level after the health care fiasco. The Republicans will end up showing that in the 8 years she has been in the Senate (which she rarely mentions) she sheparded two (ONLY 2) pieces of legislation through the Senate. Same number as Obama in 2 years. That’s it for 8 years. Oh, and the Iraq vote….And the McBush campaign will likely bring out the donation issues to this campaign -- the donor list is interesting, and the Clinton money from Bill’s income isn’t going to play well either, if they ever release their tax forms. I say “likely” because McBush has his own issues -- including the fact that he’s going to get dinged by the Ethics Committee for cheating them out of $285,000 LAST WEEK relative to the Mideast trip.

3. The Clinton Name: there are many people who want to see a woman president, just “not that woman”. There are people who detest the Bush administration as an abomination, who understand that McBush will be a continuation of all policies, except we’ll also bomb Iran, further kill off civil rights domestically, and destroy any chance of the economy recovering in the next decade. BUT they will not put another Clinton in the White House, and do not want Bill prowling the halls. Again. Make no mistake, in the general, Whitewater, NAFTA (and her public support of it, which DID make the daily diaries, with art), Vince Foster’s death, Bill’s women, the China connection -- they will ALL come back. And if you don’t remember the scandals of the 90’s, trust me, they dwarf the Wright issue.

4. The Head-to-Heads: In going up against McBush, Hillary cannot run on “change” only on “experience”. Hers pales in comparison to his. No matter what you may think of McBush’s positions, he has portfolio, he has standing, he has BEEN THERE. A strong case against McCain can be made for his ethics violations, his lobbyist connections, his cheating on his first wife (it’s in his autobiography), his violations of campaign finance laws. That case can be made by anyone BUT the Clintons, as that would be the pot calling the kettle black.

And finally: the Clintons already know that they cannot get her the nomination this year. They actually do. Therefore, the plan most likely is to make sure that Obama loses in the general so she can run again in 4 years. It’s true, and it’s in EVERY speech she and her surrogates give which pump up McBush at the expense of Obama. If you doubt the desperation, yesterday surrogate Evan Bayh came out with the latest argument to the Supers to only look at the Electoral College votes of the won states INSTEAD of the delegate counts, the state counts, or the popular vote. Since there is no correlation from a primary win extrapolated to a national win, it is, at best, a specious argument. They are running the rest of the primary campaign dedicated to shoring up McBush in every way possible. If she does get the nomination, he can easily say “Well, Hillary, YOU said I would be good for this job.” And that will resonate with fence sitters, because their choice will be a similar one, and his National Security bona fides micrify hers.

So there you have it.

Tomorrow à why Obama CAN win.

Pennsylvania by the Numbers

The people on this blog/e-mail list live in 16 American states, and 3 foreign countries. But the majority of recipients (who I assume are also readers) live in Pennsylvania. So, since we have the next primary, and since I have gotten a lot of questions over the past months as to how Democratic primaries actually work, we’re going to use PA as an example, and then go into the national numbers.

Let’s start with how we allocate delegates here.

There are 19 Congressional districts, and they are allocated delegates based on a formula related to population and registration. In some states, there is a skew for previous participation, but I can’t find any documentation that we do that here. (I COULD be wrong, but I couldn’t find it, and I looked…)

If you want to see the Congressional districts in graphical form, use this link: http://nationalatlas.gov/printable/congress.html#pa This is the site of the National Atlas, and you can view/print any state, and any specific district. The fun part is the Southeastern part of the state, one of the “best” examples of gerrymandering since the term was coined. Think interwoven snakes. These 19 districts will produce from the primary 103 District-level delegates, allocated in the following manner:

District 1	7	District 11	5
District 2	9	District 12	5
District 3	5	District 13	7
District 4	5	District 14	7
District 5	4	District 15	5
District 6	6	District 16	4
District 7	7	District 17	4
District 8	7	District 18	5
District 9	3	District 19	4
District 10	4

Note the following: Districts 1 and 2 include the city of Philadelphia (and environs), and the rest of the southeast is comprised of all or part of districts 6,7,8,13,15 and 19. District 5 is comprised of all or part of 14 counties in the north central part of the state. Check the map….it’s really interesting. Therefore, when they talk of Philadelphia and “the counties” deciding this election, they’re talking about half the pledged district-level delegates (52).

The delegates will be assigned proportionately to all candidates winning at least 15% of the vote. This is how people the delegate counts come out so close in a lot of races. For example, if there are 4 delegates in a district, and someone wins 65% of the vote, and the other person wins 35%, they’re each getting 2 delegates. In a 4-delegate district, one would have to win 75% of the vote to make the split 3-1.

In addition, there are 35 At-Large delegates who will represent the statewide totals, also proportionally.

Then, there are the others -- 49 “unpledged” or “Super” delegates. They are comprised of the elected Congressional/Senatorial Democratic delegation, members of the DNC from Pennsylvania, and what’s known as “add-on’s”. (Don’t ask, you don’t want to know).

Below is a list of the known SuperDelegates, broken out by endorsement:

For Clinton:

Governor Ed Rendell

Rep John Murtha

Rep Joe Sestak

Rep Allyson Schwartz

Rep Paul Kanjorski

DNC Members: Rooney, Baumgartner, Groen, Milko, Richardson, McEntee, Rudy and Murray.

For Obama:

Rep Pat Murphy

Rep Chaka Fattah

DNC Campbell and Lynch

Have Not Endorsed:

Sen Bob Casey

Reps Brady, Altmire, Carney, Holden, and Doyle

DNC Donatucci, George and Masloff.

But let’s get back to the numbers.

I could go through the demographics of each district, but the likelihood after all is said and done, Clinton picks up +15 of the pledged delegates (District plus statewide). In context, this doesn’t really matter, because it’s a drop in the bucket of the 150 delegates Obama is ahead.

And then there is the popular vote. It is conceivable that 2 MILLION people could vote in the PA primary. When all the counting is done, Clinton could pick up 150,000 votes -- which would still leave her trailing by 550,000 votes since Obama is currently 700,000 votes ahead in the popular count.

Which brings me to the full numbers deal.

In the past week I’ve spoken to 6 people here in Pennsylvania who have not yet made up their minds about who to vote for in the 22 April primary. Not just any people -- good friends of mine. People who read, and consider. They fall into two camps: “I want to vote for the person with the best chance of beating McCain in November” and “I just plain don’t know which one to choose.”

Now, I’ve also spoken to a lot of people I didn’t know, while working voter registration drives. Including a rabid dittohead. (And I confess that while I would NEVER EVER pull a registration form and drop it into the trash because that would be immoral, unethical, and illegal -- I still hope they charge that @#(&$%#^ with voter fraud….but I digress….)

I wrote a long blog on why I’m voting for Obama, but neither published nor emailed it. That’s just personal opinion. Well-written, but it doesn’t count for much, because as I keep telling you, it is ALL about the numbers.

After PA, there are 408 pledged delegates available. The breakdown (in date order) Guam - 4, Indiana - 72, North Carolina - 115, West Virginia - 28, Kentucky - 51, Oregon - 52, Puerto Rico - 55, Montana - 16, South Dakota - 15. The projections indicate that some will split, Obama will “take” Indiana, North Carolina and Oregon, and Clinton will take West Virginia and Kentucky. It had looked like Clinton would take Puerto Rico once they shifted from a caucus to a primary, but the effect of Bill Richardson’s endorsement on Puerto Rico is unknown. (As an aside, the embeds are pissed that Puerto Rico moved up its date, since they had hoped it would be the last one, and they could spend the following week there.)

Because of the population of the races remaining after Pennsylvania, even given historic turnout, there are not enough physical human bodies to switch the popular vote total from Obama to Clinton. To overtake him in the popular vote, Clinton would have to see huge turnout AND win EVERY remaining race by capturing 75% of the popular vote -- NOT going to happen.

Come June 4^th, Obama will have a popular lead of a minimum of 500,000 in the popular vote, and a minimum of 120 in the pledged delegate lead. That’s the deal. It might even be a bigger spread since most caucus states don’t report turnout numbers (which would give him a bigger spread since he virtually swept the caucuses (except Nevada) and as the caucus system progresses up from district to county to state level, he’ll pick up more votes, as happened in Iowa. (Note to the Clinton campaign -- if you’re going to denigrate the caucus system in loud and vulgar ways -- next time, wait until the votes are OVER.)

It will then be up to the unpledged SuperDelegates, and the uncommitted pledged delegates to put either Obama or Clinton over the magic number (which varies but will be somewhere between 2024 and 2208 depending on deaths, special elections, governors losing their standing due to sex scandals and whatever becomes of Michigan and Florida).

Phil Bresden, an uncommitted Super and governor of Tennessee put out a post that he believes all uncommitteds should commit ON June 4^th, so that we can regroup over the summer, and not have that obnoxious 3 month wait for the outcome. We’ll see what he does. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House and Chair of the Convention, has said that the Supers should vote the will of the people. Whether she meant that state-by-state or nationally was not made clear.

So that’s where we stand this morning. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Yesterday was the 5^th anniversary of the Iraq invasion.

Yesterday, and the day before that, John McCain confused Sunni and Shia, Iraq and Iran, and didn’t have a clear picture of what Al Qaeda is. He did this while speaking in Jordan, in an interview, and published in campaign documentation. He even had help from that turncoat Lieberman, who whispered the correct information. But a few hours later, McCain blew it AGAIN -- IN A PREPARED TEXT. He got the whole picture wrong 4 times publicly in 48 hours.

If Obama or Clinton had done this, they would have been SKEWERED. McCain mostly got a walk. It’s the war hero thing, I bet. Now don’t get me wrong, he IS a war hero. But he’s also 71 years old.

Some have contended that he “misspoke”. OK, it happens.

But there is something called “muscle memory”. You know what this is: it’s the ability to think “call mom” and your fingers do the walking on the phone -- because you know the number so well that you don’t think, you just do. Muscle memory is controlled by the brain, not directly by any muscles. Muscle memory is a cool neurological construct. Our brains allow us to do a lot of things from memory. And certain things are inculcated as memory, and we generally don’t get them wrong. We do not misspeak the ideas and concepts we own, in the same way that we do not misdial.

The Iraq issue should be intellectual muscle memory to John McCain. THIS IS HIS ISSUE. Security. War. The Middle East. This is his platform.

I don’t think he doesn’t actually know. I think it’s something else entirely.

A couple evenings ago I heard Bernard Lewis and Dennis Praeger speak. Professor Lewis is 92 years old. He spoke haltingly, he shuffled from the table where he sat to the podium. But he was brilliant. (And believe me, I have an incredibly high bar for defining “brilliant”). While I vehemently disagreed with a lot of what he said, his arguments held together, he knew his facts, during the post-lecture discussion he was easily able to pull the facts he needed to make his interpretive points. But you could tell that 10 or 20 years ago, his mind was even more brilliant. Age, however, has taken its toll.

And that’s the deal with John McCain -- I think he knows the information; he just can’t access it because he forgets. Campaigning is hard. It’s tiring. If he’s getting this stuff wrong now imagine what will happen after the conventions when he has to debate the Democratic nominee, and campaign at their pace. (No more bbqs for the press at his Arizona digs.) Age matters.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Being in one’s 70’s isn’t old -- especially not in my family. People work, they contribute, they are still smart.

But “President of the United States” is not “a job” -- it’s the most powerful political position in the world. And whoever is doing it shouldn’t need a lot of naps. If he forgets the information he “owns” -- what will he be unable to process in terms of new information? What about issues like economics, which he readily admits he knows nothing about?

A few other facts on John McCain -- all of which have citations from McCain’s writings, specific Senate votes, or his campaign literature. Drop me a line if you want a specific page citation -- I’m a little short on time this morning.

• McCain cheated, A LOT on his first wife. In fact he took up with his second wife while married to his first wife.
• He would change the tax code so that health insurance premiums would no longer be tax deductible to ANYONE (including business). Everyone would have to buy individual policies, and no insurance company would be required to accept people. Therefore, if you have a pre-existing condition and current group insurance -- you’re DONE under the McCain plan.
• McCain is a big fan of NAFTA and CAFTA, and voted to allow China into the WTO.
• McCain’s 2007 record was to vote the Bush position 95% of the time. (This actually from Congressional Quarterly, one of my favourite sources).
• He wants to privatize Social Security, and raise the retirement age.
• He used to support Gramm-Rudman, and other fiscally conservative policies -- up to and including voting AGAINST the Bush tax cuts because they were fiscally irresponsible. But oh -- not since he’s running for President….
• Two words: KEATING FIVE (and if you don’t know what it is -- look it up and see how McCain had to give campaign contributions back, had improper relationships with business people, and ran aground of Senate ethics legislation, back when “Senate ethics legislation” didn’t even mean much.)
• He has a lot of financial issues this campaign related to potential misuse of funds -- but since the FEC is lacking a quorum, you won’t hear much about it, although I’ll be doing more McCain lists so you can see the full skinny on it.

Just thought you’d want to know….

The Speech

It's hard to know where to start in discussing Obama's race speech yesterday at the Constitution Center. The politics of it? (Brilliant) The responses to the speech? (Nary a negative word) The tone? Pitch perfect.

It's said that he wrote it himself. Up until 2 in the morning. And that is where I want to start.

But before that, if you have neither seen nor read the speech, here's the link: http://my.barackobama.com/hisownwords. Because you should. Don't take my word for what was said, ignore the pundits -- this one, you should see.

I'm a great believer in words. In the power of words; both for good and bad. Despite my general inability with dates and times, I looked these up. My first poem was published 33 years ago. My first short story was published in 1976, first essay (and political piece) in 1978. My first public speech was in 1979. I know something about being up late struggling with just that right word. I stand in awe of his ability to write things difficult, simultaneously finding the words that resonated from his essence.

Most people who I've heard commenting talk about his views on race in America. How we must see things as dynamic, not static, and accept that by working together we can overcome the zero sum game. And I agree. And yes, I want an "I'm here for Ashley" tee shirt.

But even more importantly to me, speaking as one of Spiro Agnew's "effete intellectuals" (proudly, I might add), was the bravery it took of Barack Obama to believe that Americans can be smart. In a world of sound bites, Senator Obama took the tact that people could understand concepts, consider change for the better, and potentially embrace it.

Senator Obama spoke of his white grandmother and the part of her that is bigoted. There is likely not a person who has not heard someone they love say something which appalled their beliefs. And yes, you disavow the words, strong and painful as they may be, while still loving the person. He could have stopped there. But instead he took that amazing step forward and challenged us all to change for the better. To consider that we can change the most fundamental part of our beings: that is, our individual belief systems, and our culture of divisiveness and blame.

We are fighting wars on multiple fronts: the invasion of Iraq, the quagmire in Afghanistan, the crumbling of our economy (while the current administration does their best Nero fiddling group imitation), the lack of an educational system which can turn out people who think, not to mention master mathematics, science and engineering, able to compete in a changing world economy. To this, the Senator valiantly reminds us that the greatest war might well be within ourselves.

Will he be heard? I don't know. Most people don't read, don't really think, and live lives of one-foot-in-front-of-the-other. Will people understand that the Senator is right when he says that if we do NOT address the most fundamental concepts we will be distracted from what we SHOULD be doing: bringing our country back to greatness? Most importantly, will people take a few minutes and actually THINK about what it could mean if we functioned as a country working toward a common win-win devoid of the desire to assign culpability to SOMEONE for whatever goes on in an individual's life?

The choice itself is simple: embrace the politics of hate, or believe that we, as individuals, as members of families, as members of groups, religions, and corporate cultures, can change for the better, embrace the concept of hope, and then work for the paradigm shift.

For me, the choice is simple. I image joy.

Voter Registration Drive

I worked at a voter registration drive yesterday.

In the past 30 years, I’ve worked 100 voter registration drives if I’ve worked one. And that was AFTER the “lower the voting age to 18” petition drives. (You remember “old enough to die in Vietnam, old enough to vote”)

Anyway -- in all those drives, I never saw anything like what I saw yesterday.

For those of you out of state, PA is a closed primary. (Yes, I DO feel a petition drive coming on, but only in an off-year…) Therefore, to vote in the Democratic primary, one must be registered as a Democrat. Independents cannot vote in any primary unless there is an across-the-board election (as there was last year to fill the seat of a deceased state Senator) or a ballot issue.

Perhaps you’ve heard there is a bit of interest in the PA Democratic primary this year….

So, first -- the drive was held at a little strip mall. The woman running the drive put out signs at each entrance to the strip mall, plus signs at the table pointing out that it was a closed primary. Big, beautiful signs.

Then, there was the enthusiasm of the volunteers. REMARKABLE!

And then there were the people who stopped, read the signs, asked questions, and changed their party or registered as a new voter.

Often, we didn’t have enough chairs for the people who clamored to fill out forms. Cars would stop and people would yell their fervor. The excitement was palpable.

And we finished our day with more than 100 forms -- one drive, one day. Some were new registrations, but most were party-change.

The first thing that struck me was the number of people (one being in his 80’s) who have always (or almost always) voted Democratic, but registered Republican because “Chester is a Republican-controlled county”. We’ll see in May, when the County releases the April registration numbers. The last official numbers are from November 2007, when Chester County was 31.6% Democratic, 51.4% Republican, and 17% Independent/Other Party. If you look at actual vote tallies from recent years, it’s obvious that “registration” did not always equate to “number of votes”. While it’s true that for most positions, most Republicans won, the split is often damn close to 50/50, and Democrats have started winning more and more local and statewide races.

What I think will really wow people will be the 2008 turnout numbers. For frame-of-reference, in 2000 15.3% of registered voters turned out for the primary, and in 2004 21.7% turned out, county-wide. In the general on-year elections, we did 64.7% in 2000 and 71.9% in 2004. While from my personal perspective, these numbers are well below the 98% I think there SHOULD be -- but comparatively to national numbers, they are good. Therefore, based on primary percentage turnouts in other states, I think we could be looking at 60% turnout this year in the primary. And as I always tell you -- it’s the process -- the more people involved, the better. If the process corrupts, the results don’t matter. If the process corrupts, the results will yield a winner, but that winner is often illegitimate.

I ended my day by driving out to the far Western reaches of the County to pick up two change-party forms from 2 dear RINO friends. Welcome home!

Iowa Update

Y’all remember Iowa. The lead-off caucus state. Y’all remember That there were 45 pledged delegates: 16 to Obama, 15 to Edwards and 14 to Edwards. Those numbers have changed….

Yes, it’s all legal.

Remember that in caucus states, the initial votes are at the local level (in Texas, 31 Senatorial districts and in Pennsylvania, 19 Congressional Districts for example) extrapolated by the news organizations toward the final numbers. But what they use are “X” number of local delegates, which is larger than the actual number of district delegates. These delegates go to district, county and/or state conventions (based on state regs) to winnow the numbers.

The County Conventions were yesterday, and it looks like the final count will come out to be 28 Obama/17 Clinton. If you want to see the full breakdown, I refer you to my source: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/. If you think that “11” isn’t that big a number, remember that when Hillary Clinton had her March 5^th “blowout” she netted 4 delegates. This means, including the SuperDelegates and excluding the undeclared delegates, the total count is now 1598 Obama/1492 Clinton. If you include the total Florida and Michigan counts (and I DON’T) the count is 1685 Obama/1670 Clinton. Upshot -- it no longer matters if those numbers are included, in the sense that the outcome will not change.

A personal note, the greatest personal political irony of my life à I’ve always wanted to be called to jury duty. I used to call the county and ask why I HADN’T been called to jury duty. (I gave up on that about 10 years ago because it didn’t help.) I BELIEVE that the jury process in NY is best because there are no excuses. Juries are better when they are comprised of a true section of citizens, not just “those too stupid to get out of jury duty” as the old saying goes. Well, I’ve FINALLY been called to jury duty. Here’s the punch line -- for the day of, and the day before, the most important primary in Pennsylvania history.