Please note, both Sarah and Eleanor have asked for a clarification of the role of the Superdelegates in the nominating context, and I have responded with an explanation in the comments of the last post. If it's still unclear, let me know and I can try some more...
I should add to what I wrote there with just a slightly higher level view, for those who need it:
There are about 4050 delegates to the national convention. Most are selected through the primaries and caucuses - that's the process we're going through now. But roughly 800 of them are not. These are the Superdelegates - Party Leaders and Elected Officials, or PLEOs. They are your congresspeople, your senators, your governors, your big city mayors, your former ones of all of those, and your state party officials. They decide all on their own about for whom to vote at the convention. Every delegate at the convention - Pledged and Super - has one vote of equal weight.
By the way, I'm not sure at what point the pledged delegates become unpledged. In other words, we know that if no candidate gets a majority on the first ballot, there is a second ballot. And so forth. Perhaps it is after the first ballot...
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
See, this is what happens when people don't get statistics...
Diehard Pickle reader Sarah asks why Super Duper Tuesday is for the most part being reported as a marginal victory for Clinton, as opposed to the story that Obama may in fact have edged Clinton in the delegate count for the day.
I think this has a lot to do with the way the evening unfolded. I was watching from 8:15 pm to 12:45 am EST, with one or two bathroom breaks, and my exprience of the evening was that Hillary asserted herself early with wins in TN and NY to overcome his IL and GA victories, and she had big early leads in NJ, MA, and MO. It felt like hse was crushing him in a few places. Then, Obama picked up a handful of wins in states like CT and MN and began to close the gap in NJ, MO, and even NY, and the interior west and southewest was a draw (CO and AZ), and things seemed more even. So when people went to bed and papers went to press with CA looking unexpectedly lopsided, the story gave the edge to Clinton.
But the fact that the actual delegate count hasn't scrubbed that story line completely is a testiment to how muddled this process is likely to remain, and, in fact, how undemocratic it may turn out to be. The big take-away from the night for me, really, was how the state-by-state popular vote is such a beauty contest. I mean, I really understand statistics quite well compared to the average person, and I was really gripped by the drama of who would win MO; but in fact, who ultimately would come out on top was not really important. But nevertheless, winners and losers are easy to understand, and hence the bias in the coverage.
I want to refer Pickle readers to me post from last week in which I urged people to begin to think about writing to their super-delegates. This is looking more and more important, and I expect to write more about it...
I think this has a lot to do with the way the evening unfolded. I was watching from 8:15 pm to 12:45 am EST, with one or two bathroom breaks, and my exprience of the evening was that Hillary asserted herself early with wins in TN and NY to overcome his IL and GA victories, and she had big early leads in NJ, MA, and MO. It felt like hse was crushing him in a few places. Then, Obama picked up a handful of wins in states like CT and MN and began to close the gap in NJ, MO, and even NY, and the interior west and southewest was a draw (CO and AZ), and things seemed more even. So when people went to bed and papers went to press with CA looking unexpectedly lopsided, the story gave the edge to Clinton.
But the fact that the actual delegate count hasn't scrubbed that story line completely is a testiment to how muddled this process is likely to remain, and, in fact, how undemocratic it may turn out to be. The big take-away from the night for me, really, was how the state-by-state popular vote is such a beauty contest. I mean, I really understand statistics quite well compared to the average person, and I was really gripped by the drama of who would win MO; but in fact, who ultimately would come out on top was not really important. But nevertheless, winners and losers are easy to understand, and hence the bias in the coverage.
I want to refer Pickle readers to me post from last week in which I urged people to begin to think about writing to their super-delegates. This is looking more and more important, and I expect to write more about it...
We have a situation here...
TPM closed the night last night with the observation that it's difficult to imagine now how this does not go all the way to the convention. If that's an overstatement, it's a small one - it is certainly easy to see how this could be decided at the convention, with over half the states done and Obama and Clinton all but tied, and with the same preportional allocation system that helped us get here awarding delegates in the remaining contests.
In almost all ways, this is great. I think our party is getting stronger as we watch these two excellent candidates continue to make their cases. (BTW, doesn't it feel like the longer this goes on, the more we're going to end up demanding both of them on the ticket?) But a concern has to be that, if we wait until August to pick a nominee, John McCain gets to campaign all by his lonesome for all that time.
Here again, though, this could work to our advantage. Perhaps divisions within the GOP will soften him up before we even turn our full attention in that direction. And if the primary concern is making sure we win in November - which, for many people who become familiar with Obama and Clinton and decide that they both would make excellent Presidents, it is - then maybe we'll have a better view of November from August than we do from February.
At least McCain's totally robotic speech last night, along with his unnerving discomfort with hugging his wife on national TV, and the Obama campaign's deft state-managing of the juxtaposition of the two of them, went a long way towards easing my McCainophobia.
In almost all ways, this is great. I think our party is getting stronger as we watch these two excellent candidates continue to make their cases. (BTW, doesn't it feel like the longer this goes on, the more we're going to end up demanding both of them on the ticket?) But a concern has to be that, if we wait until August to pick a nominee, John McCain gets to campaign all by his lonesome for all that time.
Here again, though, this could work to our advantage. Perhaps divisions within the GOP will soften him up before we even turn our full attention in that direction. And if the primary concern is making sure we win in November - which, for many people who become familiar with Obama and Clinton and decide that they both would make excellent Presidents, it is - then maybe we'll have a better view of November from August than we do from February.
At least McCain's totally robotic speech last night, along with his unnerving discomfort with hugging his wife on national TV, and the Obama campaign's deft state-managing of the juxtaposition of the two of them, went a long way towards easing my McCainophobia.
Kalifornia
CNN just called California for Clinton. And though she's now collected all the big states and can start building houses and hotels on them*, CNN's Jamal Simmons makes a great point: these states will certainly be going Democratic in the fall, and the states which Obama has won are the states in which the Democratic candidate needs to be competitive.
I hope we will start to hear electability arguments from the Obama campaign. Even if you think a Democrat victory is a fait accompli (you obviously don't care about jinxing), shouldn't we be going for the biggest margin possible?
* - Illinois is pretty big, but I really wanted to make the Monopoly joke.
I hope we will start to hear electability arguments from the Obama campaign. Even if you think a Democrat victory is a fait accompli (you obviously don't care about jinxing), shouldn't we be going for the biggest margin possible?
* - Illinois is pretty big, but I really wanted to make the Monopoly joke.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Yes We Can
As the first of the Super Tuesday polls close, I want to share my thoughts about the Obama campaign’s unofficial slogan – Yes We Can. (I think we all like that better than the official slogan – Change We Can Believe In – which is at worst sort of confusing and at best not grammatical.)
We’ve got issues – huge whoppers. We’re stuck in a war we never should have chosen, our economy is burdened by terrible economic habits and fundamentals, we suffer from the terrible injustice of the best health care we know how to provide not being available to most, our nation of immigrants hates its permanent underclass of immigrants, opportunity is yet constrained by race and class, and even the planet’s future is grim and uncertain. We ride into battle against these challenges – challenges of a scope and scale that they definitively can not be solved without the federal government – led by a President no one likes, a congress even fewer people like, and a supreme court that thinks separate but equal is constitutional (and sometimes, like in the case of equal pay, separate but unequal is OK too.) It is possible – understandable, really – that an American citizen could look at this situation and say “No, we can’t fix this.”
But yes, we can. All we need to do it try, and we can fix this. The only thing that stops us from solving these problems – literally the only thing – is the health and vigor of our democracy. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Because when we say “No, we can’t fix this,” or when our political leaders (one of whom in particular, the subject of this criticism, I admire and respect a tremendous amount, more than when this campaign began) tell us that what we don’t need is false hope, people leave the process, and all who are left are those who stand to make money from perverting it. The only thing in history that has ever reliably defended the public interest is political participation, motivated by the belief in an ever more perfect union.
Yes We Can. I love to think of it as a slogan about Barack Obama becoming President, and I hope it is. But more than that, it is a progressive strategy for fixing our problems, about community. Whatever happens tonight, and whoever gets the nomination and ultimately wins the Presidency, this is the song that, when it is in enough of our hearts, will put us back on track.
We’ve got issues – huge whoppers. We’re stuck in a war we never should have chosen, our economy is burdened by terrible economic habits and fundamentals, we suffer from the terrible injustice of the best health care we know how to provide not being available to most, our nation of immigrants hates its permanent underclass of immigrants, opportunity is yet constrained by race and class, and even the planet’s future is grim and uncertain. We ride into battle against these challenges – challenges of a scope and scale that they definitively can not be solved without the federal government – led by a President no one likes, a congress even fewer people like, and a supreme court that thinks separate but equal is constitutional (and sometimes, like in the case of equal pay, separate but unequal is OK too.) It is possible – understandable, really – that an American citizen could look at this situation and say “No, we can’t fix this.”
But yes, we can. All we need to do it try, and we can fix this. The only thing that stops us from solving these problems – literally the only thing – is the health and vigor of our democracy. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Because when we say “No, we can’t fix this,” or when our political leaders (one of whom in particular, the subject of this criticism, I admire and respect a tremendous amount, more than when this campaign began) tell us that what we don’t need is false hope, people leave the process, and all who are left are those who stand to make money from perverting it. The only thing in history that has ever reliably defended the public interest is political participation, motivated by the belief in an ever more perfect union.
Yes We Can. I love to think of it as a slogan about Barack Obama becoming President, and I hope it is. But more than that, it is a progressive strategy for fixing our problems, about community. Whatever happens tonight, and whoever gets the nomination and ultimately wins the Presidency, this is the song that, when it is in enough of our hearts, will put us back on track.
Monday, February 4, 2008
The Pickle Has Arrived!!
The Pickle's first link, from none other than The Nation Washington Editor and progressive standard-bearer of our generation Christopher Hayes.
Links
Chris Hayes: http://www.chrishayes.org/blog/
Reihan Salam et al: http://www.theamericanscene.com/
Staci Mellman: http://buckogirl.blogspot.com/
NASA image of the week: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/multimedia/images/iotw-gallery-index.html
Music: http://www.hypem.com/
Architecture: http://www.thecoolhunter.net/architecture/
Rex Parker does the NYT Crossword: http://www.rexwordpuzzle.blogspot.com/
Ninjas: http://www.realultimatepower.net/
Reihan Salam et al: http://www.theamericanscene.com/
Staci Mellman: http://buckogirl.blogspot.com/
NASA image of the week: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/multimedia/images/iotw-gallery-index.html
Music: http://www.hypem.com/
Architecture: http://www.thecoolhunter.net/architecture/
Rex Parker does the NYT Crossword: http://www.rexwordpuzzle.blogspot.com/
Ninjas: http://www.realultimatepower.net/
Sunday, February 3, 2008
My day on the doors
I spent a few hours canvassing today in Bridgeport, CT for Barack. For Pickle readers who don’t know, my first job after college was as a door-to-door canvasser for Mark Warner in VA. Canvassing was always my favorite job on campaigns, and I bet I’ve knocked on about 12,000 doors in the last 6 or 7 years.
I like being outside. Walking from house to house can be very meditative. And I just like talking with people. It’s counterintuitive, but there’s no other job on a campaign – other than candidate – where you get to talk to voters all the time. Also, in a society as segregated and private as ours, it’s always eye-opening to spend some time in a community where I wouldn’t usually go. Today, for example, I canvassed in a poor, minority neighborhood.
There’s always a lot to say after a day of canvassing, but today I have two things worth passing along in particular:
First, the bad news. The systematic inequality in health status everywhere I have canvassed in this country is striking. Today, just as on other days when I’ve canvassed in a black neighborhood, a really high percentage of people who come to the door are in poor health. It’s very noticeable. Talk about two Americas. This is a great example of why canvassing is a worthwhile activity. It would make anyone stop and think - you can defend wealth inequality, but you can’t defend health inequality.
Second, the good news. At the second-to-last house I canvassed I talked to a 72 year old guy who didn’t want to tell me who he was voting for, but who said he was happy to see young people getting involved. I told him that Barack motivates and inspires me and many others.
He said “I’m proud of you.” No shit, he really said that. Complete stranger told me he’s proud of me. It’s stuff like that that makes me love canvassing.
I like being outside. Walking from house to house can be very meditative. And I just like talking with people. It’s counterintuitive, but there’s no other job on a campaign – other than candidate – where you get to talk to voters all the time. Also, in a society as segregated and private as ours, it’s always eye-opening to spend some time in a community where I wouldn’t usually go. Today, for example, I canvassed in a poor, minority neighborhood.
There’s always a lot to say after a day of canvassing, but today I have two things worth passing along in particular:
First, the bad news. The systematic inequality in health status everywhere I have canvassed in this country is striking. Today, just as on other days when I’ve canvassed in a black neighborhood, a really high percentage of people who come to the door are in poor health. It’s very noticeable. Talk about two Americas. This is a great example of why canvassing is a worthwhile activity. It would make anyone stop and think - you can defend wealth inequality, but you can’t defend health inequality.
Second, the good news. At the second-to-last house I canvassed I talked to a 72 year old guy who didn’t want to tell me who he was voting for, but who said he was happy to see young people getting involved. I told him that Barack motivates and inspires me and many others.
He said “I’m proud of you.” No shit, he really said that. Complete stranger told me he’s proud of me. It’s stuff like that that makes me love canvassing.
Labels:
favorite
New Slang
While it’s something I have legitimate interest in, the above promise of “attempted slang coinage” admittedly has an element of tongue in cheek to it. Setting out to create slang, with a public intention of trying to get people to adopt it, seems to be a tall order (in the same way that it’s difficult to intentionally make a viral YouTube video).
However, seeing as how readers of The Pickle are drowning in wit and influence, let’s take a crack at it.
Lately, I’ve been abbreviating Dunkin’ Donuts as “Dundo’s.” “Can we stop at Dundo’s?” “Oof, I could use some Dundo’s.” “Well hurry up. Yes, I’m waiting. Outside the Dundo’s on 3rd.”
“Dundo’s” captures the whimsy of "Dunkin’ Donuts" but saves you two syllables. A few nears and dears have taken it up, but of course, success is met only when I (or you) hear it from a perfect stranger.
Labels:
Slang
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Land of Opportunity
I just came from the MIT European Career Fair. I thought I'd check it out on my way out of town to New Haven (to hit the doors for Obama and then watch the Super Bowl with my bro.)
Quite a scene. Incidentally, no one wanted to hire me, just to get that out of the way. Everyone was looking for engineers. There were like 150 to 200 companies, universities, and governments (yes, governments) recruiting the best engineers that America has to offer. Every company had a big poster that said something like "Changing the world one incredibly complex and revolutionary molecule at a time." The EU and Germany had a particularly noticable presence - state funded science and technology looking for super-nerds.
Now, I've never been to the Wittenburg American Career Fair - I actually don't think I've been to the MIT American Career Fair - but I wonder if it was always like that. I wonder if the US DOE spends as much as its counterpart German ministry to get the best people into public R&D.
Also, since we're talking about engineering and MIT, I just finished a book that has some fantastic insight into what it's like to be an engineer, studying at MIT. The Idea Factory. Check it out. Especially if you are at MIT right now. Like me.
Quite a scene. Incidentally, no one wanted to hire me, just to get that out of the way. Everyone was looking for engineers. There were like 150 to 200 companies, universities, and governments (yes, governments) recruiting the best engineers that America has to offer. Every company had a big poster that said something like "Changing the world one incredibly complex and revolutionary molecule at a time." The EU and Germany had a particularly noticable presence - state funded science and technology looking for super-nerds.
Now, I've never been to the Wittenburg American Career Fair - I actually don't think I've been to the MIT American Career Fair - but I wonder if it was always like that. I wonder if the US DOE spends as much as its counterpart German ministry to get the best people into public R&D.
Also, since we're talking about engineering and MIT, I just finished a book that has some fantastic insight into what it's like to be an engineer, studying at MIT. The Idea Factory. Check it out. Especially if you are at MIT right now. Like me.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Celebs!!!1!11!
I also wanted to register a thought about the debate, and actually, it is not about the candidates.
When I learned the venue would be the Kodak Theater, I was dismayed, because I thought it would open the door for the debate to be characterized by certain people as an exercise in foppish Hollyweird liberalism. The building is, after all, a temple to glitz, as it was constructed expressly as a home for the Oscars.
But as CNN’s cameras kept finding a celebrity to cut away to, my silent dismay gave way to more extreme reactions – an eye-roll (Jason Alexander), a contemptuous snort (Pierce Brosnan), and finally, the moral outrage normally associated with witnessing violent crime (Topher Grace). I became very ashamed of L.A. Why did we always have to make everything so goddamned silly?
Then I calmed down. I realized every debate audience thus far has probably been liberally sprinkled with the town’s elites, and that actors and their cohorts are the elites of Los Angeles (for better or worse, mostly worse), and the only reason they were noticeable is that they’re, well, noticeable. And who am I to question Topher’s motives?
But did CNN have to cut away to them so much? There’s a time and a place, CNN. Why do you always have to make everything so goddamned silly?
Labels:
Debate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)