If anything, the Democratic Party is more invigorated than ever due to the tight primary race. All the media attention has been encouraging Democrats to participate in the electoral process. Even Democrats in states that have primaries as late as Oregon have been registering (http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/120918572488500.xml&coll=7&thispage=1) in record numbers.

Likewise, if the dollars raised represent relative enthusiasm for a party, the GOP equally screwed. "For example, in the last month alone Obama raised $55 million, Clinton $35 million and McCain $12 million. That is a 90 to 12 money advantage and money is the mother’s milk of politics." --Source (http://www.atmoreadvance.com/articles/2008/04/17/opinion/columns/col3.txt)

If anything, the Democratic Party is more invigorated than ever due to the tight primary race. All the media attention has been encouraging Democrats to participate in the electoral process. Even Democrats in states that have primaries as late as Oregon have been registering (http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/120918572488500.xml&coll=7&thispage=1) in record numbers.

Likewise, if the dollars raised represent relative enthusiasm for a party, the GOP equally screwed. "For example, in the last month alone Obama raised $55 million, Clinton $35 million and McCain $12 million. That is a 90 to 12 money advantage and money is the mother’s milk of politics." --Source (http://www.atmoreadvance.com/articles/2008/04/17/opinion/columns/col3.txt)
My only issue with your first comment is: The television media is allways biased towards Democrats. Allways. They were even hyping John Kerry.

The television media is allways biased towards Democrats. Allways. Except Fox of course. Maybe that doesn't count as television media. :p

There is one current day example, and I am sure there are others. Michael Ducacus, Gov. of Massachusetts. He was hyped by the media, and he ended up loosing the election. Obama is the next Ducacus. Many people are seeing this. Ducacus himself had mentioned it on the radio.

Fox?! Lol... UFOs? :xp:

I followed Dukakis' campaign. Barack Obama could run circles around Dukakis. He's smarter, more polished, more articulate.

The money issue--in politics, the one who can raise the most money is far more likely to win. That's not always true, but it is often true. I wouldn't make last month the model for fundraising, however--McCain's already won the nomination and is not getting near the attention that Obama or Clinton are getting. A better comparison might be from when all three were in the running for their parties' nominations. The Democrats have raised far, far more funds than the Republicans have and that is significant, but I don't think the big donors for the Republicans have come out of the woodwork yet. I suspect they're waiting to see who the VP nominee will be.

@Gavroche--There are more Democrats than Republicans in the US, so any Republican seeking to win the Presidential election has to gain more support from moderate Democrats than does a Democratic nominee from moderate Republicans. It also depends on the states they win because of the electoral voting for President, but that's another story, too. :)

In terms of what happens when either Clinton or Obama loses the nomination--theoretically the loser could take his or her support and go for McCain, but both candidates have said they want a united party and would support whoever won. Neither Obama nor Clinton want to see another Republican in the Oval Office, and they'd rather give each other their support than to give it to McCain. Their ultimate goal is to see a Democrat in the office.

I would not be surprised to see an Obama-Clinton ticket. I think that unless some horrible skeleton comes out of Obama's closet rendering him unwinnable in the general election, he's going to be the nominee. He has more popular votes, more delegates, and is gaining more super-delegates by the day. If Clinton and Obama are both agreeable to that ticket, I think they would be utterly unbeatable in the November general election. They have absolutely energized the Democratic party in a way I've not seen since Bill Clinton's first race for the White House, and I think even more than that. This may be a long drawn out battle for the two, but the record voter registrations and turnouts in states that normally only have a token say and small turnouts this late in the nomination process will bring even more people to the Democratic party.

OK, so I guess media outside the US just tends to insist only on the opposition between Obama and Clinton, while in fact Democrats won't be dumb enough to get stuck after either one's nomination.
I'll keep watching what's going on in America, thanks for the answers :)

The Democrats have raised far, far more funds than the Republicans have and that is significant, but I don't think the big donors for the Republicans have come out of the woodwork yet. I suspect they're waiting to see who the VP nominee will be.

Correction: The Democratic candinates has raised far, far more funds than the Republican candinate. The actual Republican party has raised more money than the Democratic Party. Still, fundraising is a big problem for the Republicans, especially for the possiblity of a 'veto-proof congress'.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and its Senate counterpart have reportedly raised $66 million for this election cycle so far. The Republican committees have raised $20 million. While the seesaw is somewhat righted by fundraising by the Republican National Committee ($22 million versus only $3 million for the Democrats), the rest of the picture is pretty alarming for Republicans.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/a_vetoproof_congress.html)

Except Fox of course. Maybe that doesn't count as television media. :p:tsk: Fox News is "Fair and Balanced." I saw it on television, so it must be true. :xp:

:tsk: Fox News is "Fair and Balanced." I saw it on television, so it must be true. :xp:
If you use a stopwatch, you might be suprised bu how balanced it really is. Sure the hosts may be more right leaning, but the left leaning guests tend to get more air time. Granted because most people are used to the heavy left leaning media, it appears that Fox News is far right.

By no means am I actually making the claim that it is truly fair and balanced, just that it isn't so far right as you might think. It is actually nice to hear some of the good things that come out of Iraq.

My problem with fox has less to do with the amount of air time given to each "side" and more to do with the fact that they seem to love to set a stammering lefty ranter up against a well-spoken/diciplined righty.

There is a small chance that Clinton may pull off a sweep, taking West Virgina, Kentucky, and Pureto Rico, according to RCP, but RCP then claims it is rather unlikely for it to happen. It is rather likely that she will at the very least claim one of those three...er...places. Yes places. Not states. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/05/not_quite_yet_1.html)

My problem with fox has less to do with the amount of air time given to each "side" and more to do with the fact that they seem to love to set a stammering lefty ranter up against a well-spoken/diciplined righty.
That isn't so much Fox's fault. They invite them, but the more articulate boycott going on Fox.

I dunno. They had Bill Clinton on there not too long ago.

I dunno. They had Bill Clinton on there not too long ago.
Again I say... Hehe. Just kidding. He's a really good orator...

Anyway... We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic...
The Democrats may have been gathering cash, but while McCain has been able to campaign for his presidency, They're spending more money saying why the future candidate for their party shouldn't be president. Well one of them is... So technically McCain doesn't have to spend as much right now.

Since the race for the Democratic nomination is almost over, I can honestly say that Obama will be the 'Democratic nomination' for president. However, I do not see Hillary as his Vice President.

My prediction:
Here is how Hillary will be nominated for President, and how the race will be played out for the genderal election:

Tom John McCain and (His Unknown Running Mate)
Republican Party

vrs.

Brock Barack Obama and John Edwards
Democrat Party

vrs.

Hillary Clinton and Joe Liberman
Independant Party

Since Hillary has the essential states to win the presidency, her best bet is to declare herself as independant. She will be able to take a mess of votes away from both canidate, and it will ensure her success now or in 2012.

Hillary Clinton and Joe Liberman
Independant Party

Since Hillary has the essential states to win the presidency, her best bet is to declare herself as independant. She will be able to take a mess of votes away from both canidate, and it will ensure her success now or in 2012.

ERROR: CRITICAL READ FAILURE. BUFFER OVERRUN.

No, not gonna happen. Aside from Liberman and Hillary being politically close in terms of ideologies, Hillary will not switch to independant. Not matter how desperate the Independant party gets. She's already got enough heat on her, switching parties to win the election would strip her of any credibility she may have had.

Additionally, it will not strip votes from both candidates, it will strip voted from the democrats, ensureing another "4 more years!" which is the last thing this country needs.

Aside from Liberman and Hillary being politically close in terms of ideologies,

...Huh? Liberman endorsed McCain for the Presidency, and is likely to speak at the Republican convention. And the Democrats want to kick Liberman out of their cacacus as punishment for that. You're telling me Clinton is just like him?

You DON'T go out and declare an indepedency candinacy every time you are upset, that just makes you look like an idiot. As for if she'll/he'll receive VP pick, I think it's a rather dumb move that both Obama and Clinton would not want to consider. You'll get the worst of both sides, Obama's inexperience, and Clinton's "bad repuation".

I think I may be convinced that Clinton will lose the nomination (but she will lose in a divided convention, not lose now), but I can take comfort that she can be able to take over the Popular Vote by June 3rd, and thereby turn the tables around: Obama will be the one who is overturning the will of the people by using the superdelegates. I can also take comfort however in the following:

We have all but forgotten Flordia and Michigan.

Obama is set to declare victory when he gets a majority of 2,025 delegates, but that excludes both Flordia and Michigan, major swing states who violated the Democratic party rules by having their primaries early. If you include Flordia and Michigan, then the amount of delegates needed to win will ALSO increase, which will benieft Clinton a lot. Plus, counting Flordia and Michigan will also aid in increasing her popular vote tally.

If Clinton is to prevail, she needs to ensure that those delegates get seated in a way that will benieft her (as in, don't just go and spilt it 50-50 Flordia and Michigan, so that Obama gets 'free' delegates too), and the only group that can do that...is not the Superdelegates, but the Rules and Ways Commitee.

We're going to see a ton of fights over there. And it's a fight that is needed. Snubbing your nose at Flordia is...quite simply...dumb.

There's no chance for an independent ticket. Lieberman won as Senator after losing the Dem primary because the Republicans and moderate Democrats let him know in overwhelming numbers that they would re-elect him if he ran on an indy ticket. His situation was extraordinary and had unique aspects that allowed that to happen. Those same dynamics would not be present at the national level.

I'm not sure if Edwards will run as VP or not with his wife fighting a recurrence of her cancer.

Edit: Obama didn't campaign in either MI or FL because he was following the Dem leadership that had already said the delegates wouldn't be seated from those states. He wasn't even on the FL ballot. Seating delegates from those states would be very controversial.

He wasn't even on the FL ballot.

Yes he was. He wasn't on the MI Ballot. There's the difference.

Seating delegates from those states would be very controversial.

Which is why I think Clinton will lose the nomination.

If, however, I was in charge of the Democratic Party, I would half Flordia's delegates (like how the Republicans penalized Flordia), and then spilt MI's delegates 50-50 to Obama and Clinton. I think neither Clinton nor Obama offically campagined in Flordia, and since they were both on the ballot, you can be ensured that any who wanted to vote for Obama get counted.

MI, on the other hand, had Obama not on the ballot, and even if you give ALL of the 'None of the Above' votes to Obama, you still have to worry about lowered turnout for Obama.

However, this compromise will likely weaken both Clinton's hand, which is why I'm not so happy with it.

According to the Associated Press count, Obama officially overtook Clinton on super delegates yesterday. More than a few of these new SDs have left Camp Hillary to throw in with Barack, so while his number is growing, hers is shrinking.

For tk102's sake, I'm hoping that Clinton waits until the 21st to drop out.

Hilary isn't going to give up any time soon, I'm betting. She's too stubborn. She's going to keep clinging on until it is absolutely impossible for her to win.

As for her being Obama's VP, unless she institutes a plan to have him assassinated, which I actually don't see being beneath her, unfortunately, I really doubt she's willing to take the 'Mostly-useless' spot.

Clinton isn't dumb. She may be a nut job, but she isn't stupid. She knows as well as we do that if she were to run as an independent, it would only split the democratic vote and pretty well ensure that McCain gets elected.

With either one winning the primary it's going to hurt the winner. If Obama wins then he has disenfranchised the voters of FL and MI. If Clinton wins(by including FL and MI) she cheated the election by using delegates that were not supposed to be used.

Which is exactly why I'm really hoping Hilary pulls the cat out of the bag and wins. I think McCain has a good bet of beating her. I don't think he's got as good of a chance of beating Obama, the man's got charisma, even if I despise his politics.

Clinton and Obama are two of the most energetic campaigners I've seen in a long time. I think McCain will have a tough fight no matter who wins--he's representing the party that so many are now disenchanted with. He's already starting the race with that handicap.

John Edwards will be endorsing Barack Obama tonight. So much for his pledge not to endorse.

Oh, I knew he'd give an endorsement to someone--that was a political inevitability given the delegates he held. A small number, to be sure, but in a race with this relative level of closeness, no delegate is unimportant. I think he's timed it to blunt the impact of Clinton's double-digit win in WV yesterday.

With either one winning the primary it's going to hurt the winner. If Obama wins then he has disenfranchised the voters of FL and MI. If Clinton wins(by including FL and MI) she cheated the election by using delegates that were not supposed to be used.

I'm an Obama-ite, but seriously? How can you say that the delegates in MI and FL were not supposed to be used?

They made mistakes there, sure. But IMHO it is not in this country's best interests to completely remove two states from the process. We'll have to pull out our old 48-star flags (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/US_flag_48_stars.svg) for the convention.

_EW_

Oh, I knew he'd give an endorsement to someone--that was a political inevitability given the delegates he held. A small number, to be sure, but in a race with this relative level of closeness, no delegate is unimportant. More than a few of them had already made their endorsements, so I don't think Edward's blessing was a necessity.

I think he's timed it to blunt the impact of Clinton's double-digit win in WV yesterday.Could be. Considering just how little impact Clinton's predicted win had, I don't think it likely though. Personally, I think he was too chicken**** to endorse before the North Carolina primary which was held last week. Oh well :(

I'm an Obama-ite, but seriously? How can you say that the delegates in MI and FL were not supposed to be used? Well, MI clearly violated the rules, so I don't think they should be allowed to flaunt guidelines without having to face the consequences.

They made mistakes there, sure. But IMHO it is not in this country's best interests to completely remove two states from the process.Is it in the Democratic party's best interest to set a precedent that the rules can be ignored without having to worry about the clearly-stated repercussions being enforced? It's not as though the states are being kicked out the union or invited not to participate in the general election.

I found John edwards speech today be quite inspiring. I only hope that Obama lives up to what he says. If not... I'll be sorely disappointed. It sounds very much like it is meant truthfully, but, sadly, being a sceptic somewhat, I have to realize that it may all be just said to get people to vote... I won't know until after the oath of office is taken. And if Mccaine wins due to electoral college I would expect a huge protest to ensue... Who's really better? I don't know. I'd say I'm pretty one-sided about being against Mccaine, and Hillary I simply don't trust- just an instinct that she doesn't really mean what she's saying, that 'little voice in my head' telling me there's something not right about her... But.. Barack... I hope he lives up to his words and the words of his endorsers. Or else my sig change will have been in vain...

More than a few of them had already made their endorsements, so I don't think Edward's blessing was a necessity.Maybe not an absolute necessity, no, but certainly not unimportant.

Could be. Considering just how little impact Clinton's predicted win had, I don't think it likely though. Personally, I think he was too chicken**** to endorse before the North Carolina primary which was held last week. Oh well :(I thought I saw him at a Clinton rally before the NC primary, too, though that could have been old footage. He gives me the impression of being a 'go the way the political winds blow' kind of guy. He also could be maneuvering for a VP spot. Who knows.

Well, MI clearly violated the rules, so I don't think they should be allowed to flaunt guidelines without having to face the consequences.I agree. All the Democrat candidates knew the rules ahead of time, all of them initially agreed to abide by the party leaders' decision on MI and FL.

If the Dems are going to let MI get away with it, I'm going to petition the WI Dem party to move up the primary date so we can have more of a say in the primary decisions. It's annoying to have a primary after super-Tuesday because my vote usually makes no difference other than letting the presumptive winner know how I feel about him/her.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/15/johnmccain.uselections2008)

McCain is planning to declare victory and withdraw in 2013. Meh. So all the candinates (even the Libertaraian President candinate, Mr. Bob) is calling for withdrawal from Iraq. So much for change.

Maybe not an absolute necessity, no, but certainly not unimportant. You're right, Jae. It would appear that Edwards' endorsement is having some impact (Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_edwards)). I have to admit that I'm a little shocked. I really did think his endorsement was just about useless at this point.

Useless in the perspective the experienced politician, inspiring and encouraging in the perpective of the average voter...

Well, regardless of who ends up winning the primary, there's still the general election. Have to wonder how disaffection with the end choice will play in November. Given that a sig % of potential voters in the primary have indicated that they'd vote for McCain rather than the other candidate, it'll be interesting to see if they maintain that position or just opt out of voting altogether. Of course, there's always the democrat penchant for rigging elections (illegals, animals, mulitple vote casting, etc...) to offset that problem down the road. ;)

Useless in the perspective the experienced politician, inspiring and encouraging in the perpective of the average voter...Perhaps, but again I doubt it. Edwards' captured a very small percentage of the vote before he dropped out, so where would his endorsement carry the most weight? His home state of North Carolina. Therefore proclaiming that he would not endorse, period, and then turning around and endorsing after his home state voted...:rolleyes:

He lost a lot of credibility with me when he ran on a platform of challenging the status quo then failed to endorse Obama after dropping out the race himself. Perhaps if he had not spent so much time attacking Hillary for representing the status quo, I could cut him some slack, but IMO he simply revealed himself as a typical opportunistic politician.

15 May: They're all pretty much opportunistic, the only question is 'how opportunistic are they'. The only ones who I ever met/studied who weren't like that (at least to the usual degree) were Bill Proxmire and Paul Simon.


31 May:

DNC meeting news (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/dean-calls-for-party-healing-at-dnc-meeting/)

The DNC has agreed to allow FL delegates to each have half a vote per the agreement at the by-laws meeting today. At this time, they're still arguing about what to do with the MI delegates--Obama wasn't even on the ballot in that state so the situation is not quite so clear there.

So pretty much it's still at an impasse.

_EW_

Yes and no. Hillary got the sweeter deal out of FL but not the exact scenario that she wanted. Re: Michigan, I think the most equitable options won't favor either of them (which kinda sorta ends up favoring Obama since he doesn't gain anything but doesn't lose anything either).

At this point, I think that, assuming that Michigan won't be recounted, Florida's delegates are borderline-worthless. If I'm correct, there are one hundred fifty delegates in Florida. Now, for Hillary Clinton, I think that seventy-five delegates would help, but it wouldn't assure her a win at all.

I might be completely wrong, but, at this point, it seems that Obama will be the Democratic Presidential Candidate.

Obama only needs about 40 more delegates before this meeting, while Clinton needs 200 or so to win. Even if she gets a lot of those votes and he only gets a few, he doesn't need that many more to secure the nomination.

I might be completely wrong, but, at this point, it seems that Obama will be the Democratic Presidential Candidate.Pretty much.

Hillary knows that no matter what she won't be able to catch up to Obama on the delegate count. Her goal was to get the FL and MI "wins" validated so that she could use the bump in popular votes to improve her case with the remaining superdelegates.

Right, wrong, or indifferent the democratic nominating process is determined by the number of delegates. This is something that Hillary has acknowledged (quite forcefully at times) when it was convenient for her to do so. Now that this metric isn't working to her favor, she's changed her focus to popular votes.

EDIT: Based on the new numbers, if Obama averages 50% in the 3 remaining contests, he'll only need 20 superdelegates to secure the nomination.

I hesistant to put too much into this until I actually hear a fat lady singing, but this might finally be the end.

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-summons-top-donor_n_104715.html)
Snippet:Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her New York speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama.

No f***ing way!

After all this talk about her taking it to convention, that's what she better do. Keep your word, HRC.

_EW_

Does this mean she got something in return? VP?:xp::(

I hesistant to put too much into this until I actually hear a fat lady singing, but this might finally be the end.

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-summons-top-donor_n_104715.html)
Snippet:

Wow. That's amazing, despite the fact that it should have happened weeks ago. Perhaps we should have a thread dedicated to the possibilities of a Vice President for Barack Obama?

Anyways, I wonder what she'll get (or what she thinks she'll get) in return...

Normally, the VP slot is used to boost the credentials for an incumbent run. Since Hillary doesn't need this and there are more powerful positions that she would be a good fit for, I don't see why she would even want the Vice Presidency. I think we'd see some place in the Cabinet or maybe a position of higher authority in the Senate before we saw this but I'm not taking any wagers :)

Personally, I think if Obama puts Hillary anywhere in his cabinet, it should involve working on healthcare because that has been one of the issues she really has pushed for.

Normally, the VP slot is used to boost the credentials for an incumbent run. Since Hillary doesn't need this and there are more powerful positions that she would be a good fit for, I don't see why she would even want the Vice Presidency. I think we'd see some place in the Cabinet or maybe a position of higher authority in the Senate before we saw this but I'm not taking any wagers :)
Yes, but those postions are not one beat of the heart from the office of President. The VP is.

I think the last thing Hillary needs after her three references to RFK's assassination is for anything to happen to Obama while he's in the Oval Office.

The people behind the Vince Foster (et cetera) stuff would lose their flippin' minds.

The people behind the Vince Foster (et cetera) stuff would lose their flippin' minds.
First you caused food to get all over my monitor at home, now I have Dr. Pepper all over my monitor at work. Either I'm going to have to stop reading your post or I need a monitor shield.