This is going to be an action packed weekend in DC and around the nation. On Friday, there will be protests of Yoo. On Saturday, there will be a massive antiwar demonstration (there will also be demonstrations in Philly, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and South Dakota, among other places). On Sunday, there will be a large march for immigration reform. And there will be other related events around the country, along with the small protests and events that happen all the time.
So join me below the fold to see how you can effect change this weekend.
A while ago, while perusing the election results, I happened upon South Dakota. South Dakota is one of those states which everybody writes off as inevitably Republican. Yet nobody has a really good explanation for why Democrats can't win it; it's kind of like Indiana that way. Few people know this, but Bill Clinton twice came within four percent in the state.
Barack Obama lost South Dakota by 8.41%, a substantial but not overwhelming margin (I bet he could win it).
There is an extremely strong correlation between Indian reservations and Obama's share of the vote in South Dakota.
There is a lot of discussion right now about how Senators from small states hold too much power compared to the percent of population they represent. There's a lot of truth to this. Alex MacGillis of The Washington Post wrote in an analysis column in their Sunday Outlook section, and David Sirota and Nathan Newman have done good pieces on the topic as well. The simple facts are that the key gang of six negotiating health care in the Senate Finance Committee represent less than 3% of the nation's population; that the 10 largest states are home to over half the country's population but represent only 20% of the Senate; the 21 smallest states together have less total population than California does.
It's good that people are raising these issues, and pointing out this unfairness. The plain fact of the matter, though, is that absent a constitutional convention suddenly being held, there is no changing this particular injustice. It would take 2/3 of the Senate, after all, to pass a constitutional amendment to restructure the Senate, and virtually all of the Senators from small states would vote against it. So we are stuck for now.
What we ought to be focused on instead are strategies that might work.
Iowa: Obama 51%-41% McCain
Four poll average: Obama 46.8%--40.5% McCain
Minnesota: Obama 54%--37% McCain
Four poll average: Obama 50.8%--38.0% McCain
South Dakota: McCain 47%--43% Obama
Average: McCain 48.3%--39.5%
Minnesota was a swing state in 2000 and 2004, but it clearly safe blue in 2008. Iowa was one of the uber-swing states in both 2000 an 2004, but this year John McCain is barely competitive. Obama also looks good in Colorado, and surprisingly respectable (but not really competitive yet) in South Dakota.
Obama's drop in national polls has yet to be coorobarated in state polls. All four of these results are better for Obama than other recent polls in these states. It remains possible that his national "drop" is really just based on recent Newsweek and Rasmussen results that are outlying from other results. Perhaps we are all getting worked up over nothing at all.
Tomorrow's presidential forecast update will incorporate these and other polls.
Entering tonight's voting, according to my tabulations, Barack Obama held a 357 vote lead in the national popular vote, with a 24,000 vote margin of error.
Add it altogether, and Obama is headed for a victory in the national popular vote. While it remains to be seen if he will move beyond the "margin of error" in my tabulations, I also freely admit that there are numerous other possible tabulations other than my own. For example, Poblano has a popular vote counter with at least 972 possible totals. So, there probably won't ever be a final, consensus total on this matter. Overall, most of the totals favor Obama.
No matter what you think of the popular vote totals, and no matter which popular vote total you subscribe to, I think we can all agree that the nomination process requires significant reform. If you had absolute power over the nomination process, what changes would you make?
New Jersey Senate, 89% reporting
Lautenberg: 62%
Andrews: 32%
Cresitello: 6%
Update 13--Boswell wins IA-03: Leonard Boswell is finally declared the winner in the IA-03 Democratic primary. Looks like he will win by about 20%. While that isn't a total disaster, it also isn't the single-digit loss I was hoping for. He felt pressure, but will it be enough? Either way, progressives need to keep challenging.
Update 12--Wave of Superdelegates Endorses Obama: 26.5 superdelegates just endorsed Obama. He has now passed the magic number, even with Michigan and Florida given full voting rights, and even with her four delegates given back in Michigan. Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
Update 11 [from Matt]: Boswell is up by 12 points, it looks like he'll take it. That's an extremely tight margin for a primary.
Update 10--Obama wins Montana and national popular vote: In one positive development tonight, Barack Obama wins Montana big. The exit poll indicates it will be a huge victory, too: 55.7%--38.2%, according to the gender crosstabs. So, Obama will win the popular vote. Will he reach the 24,000 threshold that moves him outside the margin of error? Hopefully.
Update 9--Clinton doesn't conceede: Well, Clinton clearly didn't conceede in her speech. Hell, before her speech, McAuliffe introduced her as "the next President of hte United States of America." Then, in case the point hadn't been driven home, she said "I'm not deciding anything tonight." A lot of denail happening, but no concession or suspension. Perhaps one would have come if Obama had tried harder in South Dakota, and actually won the state. Then again, considering the way the Clinton campaign has acted for the last three months, probably not.
Update 8--Hey Obama, a 50-state strategy means campaign in all 50 states: I'm actually kind of angry at Obama for not campaigning harder in Montana and South Dakota. He could have won South if he made a bigger play for it. Also, even if he still lost, these are both important states for Democrats. If Obama had made a bigger push in Montana, he could have put the state in play in the general, and helped the local party solidfy its many recent gains downticket. If he campaigned harder in South Dakota, he could have helped build the party for 2010, when we can take down Thune. Pretty friggin' lame that he didn't campaign harder in those two states. Even though he won the nomination tonight, I'm not very happy with him right now. We need to campaign everywhere in order to build the party everywhere. Obama didn't do that in Montana and South Dakota.
Update 7--Clinton wins South Dakota: Hillary Clinton has won South Dakota. It is really, really important for Obama to win Montana now. Winning the nomination on a night of a double loss would be terrible, especially since he has only won Guam, Oregon, and North Carolina since March. If Obama doesn't win Montana by more than Clinton won South Dakota, Clinton can still win the popular vote, too. It would really suck to have a nominee who didn't win the popular vote.
Update 6--McCain at only 65% in South Dakota: Wow--McCain is only at 65% in South Dakota. That is pretty friggin' heinous. He hasn't had an opponent for three months.
Update 5--Exit poll indicates Clinton South Dakota victory: The South Dakota exit poll shows Clinton ahead 53.8%--46.2%, according to the gender crosstabs. Hopefully, Obama will win Montana by more than Clinton wins South Dakota. Not exactly the sort of result I would have hoped for the night Obama clinches.
Updte 4--Lautenberg crushes Andrews in New Jersey Senate primary: Frank Lautenberg comfortably defeats corproate challenger Rob Andrews in the New Jersey Seenate primary. With 17% reporting, Lautenberg leads by a 2-1 margin. Good. This result will now be moved to the bottom, and updates will be infrequent.
Update 3--Explaining my delegate math: Obama now has 360.5 superdelegates according to their last email on Bob Brady (the campaign just hasn't updated its results website yet). Democratic Convention Watch shows Obama at 1749.5 pledged delegates. Exit polls indicate at least exactly 7 delegates for Obama in South Dakota. With a magic number of 2,117 (not 2,118), Obama is now 0.0 delegates from the nomination. Or, at least he will be, when South Dakota polls close.
Update 2--Obama to win Democratic nomination at 9 p.m.: Rep. Bob Brady endroses Barack Obama, putting Obama over the top in my count. Preliminary exit polls from South Dakota indicate Clinton will receive less than 60% of the vote, meaning that Obama will win at least 7 delegates in the state. As such, Barack Obama will become the Democratic nominee when South Dakota polls close at 9 p.m..
Update--Obama's Victory Speech? Drudge has supposedly obtained a copy of Obama's victory speech. You can read it here.
Update: Obama receives ten Edwards pledged delegates, and is now only 15 delegates from the nomination. Obama will win the nomination when polls close in Montana tonight at 10 p.m.
The AP reported earlier today that Obama has clinched the nomination. However, a closer look at the piece reveals that the AP was simply reporting what many of us have known for months: Obama has not yet, but will eventually reach the magic number of delegates. This is because the AP is counting private endorsements of Obama, along with a minimum of 14 delegates from tonight's primaries, in their totals.
Since I am something of a minor media figure when it comes to delegate counting, what the AP story revealed to me is that there will be a race among all media outlets to be the first to declare that Obama has reached the magic number of delegates. So, I'll join in the fray myself, using this post as a countdown thread. By my reckoning, Obama has 26.525.015.08.5 9.0 delegates to go.
For this count, I am using the Green Papers pledged delegate count, which has been the most up to date and accurate pledged delegate count during the entire campaign. For the superdelegates, I am using the Obama campaign count. My reasoning is that no one probably has a more up to date count of the superdelegates than the two campaigns themselves, but only the Obama campaign has a publicly available number. For the magic number, I am using Democratic Convention Watch which has been the authoritative source for overall delegate counting this entire campaign season.
Obama reach the magic number tonight at ether 10.01 p.m. when polls close in Montana, or at 9:01 p.m. when polls close in South Dakota. I'll update this thread as more superdelegate endorsements come in, and start live-blogging returns tonight at 8 p.m., eastern.
Several elections tonight. In the Iowa 3rd, we have Bush Dog incumbent Boswell vs. progressive challenger Ed Fallon. In New Jersey, we have Incumbent, machine-bakced, but generally progressive Frank Lautenberg vs. corporate challenger Andrews. And, of course, we have the final presidential primaries in Montana and South Dakota. I will begin live-blogging returns here at Open Left at 8 p.m., when the first polls close in South Dakota and all polls close in New Jersey. All polls close in Montana and South Dakota at 9 p.m. eastern. Polls close in the Iowa 3rd at 10 p.m., eastern.
What Is At Stake Tonight
Momentum. Currently, Barack Obama is precisely tied with John McCain in national polls, and effectively tied with McCain at the state, electoral college level. The ideal scenario for Obama to pick up momentum this week is to win both primaries tonight, reach the magic number tomorrow, and for Clinton to give her "acknowledging reality" speech on Thursday. That would give Obama three consecutive positive days of press coverage, and allow the nomination campaign to end on a positive note for the nominee.
The nightmare scenario for Obama is if he actually loses one of the two primaries tonight. As unlikely as it seems, this is actually possible. Poblano predicts Obama to win South Dakota by only 5%, and ARG predicts Obama to only win Montana by 4%. (Granted, Poblano predicts a Montana blowout while ARG predicts a South Dakota blowout.) Given that the Clinton's have been campaigning in the two states much harder than the Obama's, it is not out of the realm of the possible for Clinton to sneak out a victory tonight. This would be terrible for Obama, since wrapping up the nomination after a loss is exactly the sort of "stumbling across the line" scenario that has hurt Democrats, such as Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter, in the past. So, a double victory for Obama tonight, while not important in terms of winning the nomination, is important in terms of positioning for the general election.
More of what is at stake, along with my personal predictions, tonight in the extended entry.
As Matt noted below, Obama is going to get crushed in West Virginia tonight. In fact, crushing victories look par for the course the rest of the way out:
Current polling projects that Obama only needs 42.5 superdelegate endorsements between now and June 3rd in order to clinch the nomination on June 4th, at least according to his campaign's count.
'
The Clinton campaign count doesn't help her that much, as Obama only needs 35.8% of the remaining superdelegates, Edwards delegates, and Michigan delegates in order to secure the nomination. It buys her time, but really only until June 15th, and does not change the outcome. Don't expect superdelegates to accept what will be a clearlybogus argument on the popular vote, either. And, as a final problem, one of her pledged delegates switched to Obama today.
Ah, I'll miss the nomination at a glance series. What are your predictions for tonight?
Back on Friday evening, I argued, in a fashion that would have made Michel Foucault proud, that there is no objective, "true," delegate count, but instead only the power each campaign possessed to make its delegate count a reality. In other words, the truth of delegate counts and the power over the selection and credentialing of, not to mention rule making for, delegates are interchangeable concepts. As such, my new goal in delegate counting is not to determine the "true" delegate count, but instead to accurately determine the delegate count being argued for, and kept by, both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. From that point, we will see who has enough power over the process in order to make their delegate count a reality.
Which leads to the following, dueling projections:
Democratic Nomination Delegate Projection
Type
Obama
Clinton
Edwards
Remaining
50% + 1
Obama Count
2,155
2,013
18
230
2,208
Clinton Count
2,070
1,999
37
310
2,208
The disparity in the "remaining" column in the two counts comes from the argument over Florida and Michigan. The Clinton campaign count currently leaves 45 Michigan pledged delegates (all PLEO and at-large), 21 Michigan superdelegates, and 14 Florida superdelegates in the undetermined column. The 45 Michigan pledged delegates will be determined at the state party convention on May 17th, and will allow Clinton to gain some ground in her count. The rest of the "remaining" column in both counts are non-add-on superdelegates from outside Florida and Michigan.
Since it is one of the few times I have been able to apply Michel Foucault to something outside of academia, I am enjoying this new post-modern delegate counting that eschews a belief in an objective delegate reality. Even so, I do actually have a personal preference on how Michigan and Florida should be decided. If I were in charge, I would seat Florida's pledged delegates as is, and seat the pledged delegates from Michigan Clinton 73-55 Obama. From that point, I would strip both states of their superdelegates. This way, the voters of the two states are not punished, but the superdelegates who are responsible putting both states in this mess are. I actually think that this should become the standard punishment for states that flout the primary calendar: keep the pledged delegates, but strip the superdelegates with no possibility of reinstatement. I also really like the idea of superdelegates whining that they should be seated at the convention. That would be an hilarious press conference.
With Clinton + Edwards coming within four delegates of Obama, the possibility of a convention fight looms. In order to avoid fights at the credentials committee, rules committee, or floor of the convention, it is important for Obama to secure the as many of the 28 remaining uncommitted delegates from Michigan as possible, and to improve on the delegate projections for states and territories yet to hold nominating contests. It is also important that the remaining superdelegates commit to a candidate, just as almost every primary voter or caucus goer has already had to commit to a candidate. I still don't see a way for Clinton to pass Obama, short of Edwards moving his delegates to her in a block. Remarkable that Edwards still has an important role to play in the campaign, even at this late date.
"To me, it's a very clear view of the Republican agenda, said former [Department of Justice Civil Rights Division] Voting Section Chief, Joe Rich. "The GOP agenda is to make it harder to vote. You purge voters. You don't register voters. This is ripe for partisan decision making. You pick the states where you go after Democrats."
LoisC and Katherine wrote profiles of John Salazar (CO-03) and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL). Both are worth reading. I found the profile of Herseth Sandlin fascinating, and felt that I really got a sense of the Congresswoman. She's part of a local political dynasty who has shuttled between DC and South Dakota since college, and has trained for the job of Blue Dog politician her whole life. She was also one of the first netroots candidates, a special election challenger in 2004 who won.
I found this fascinating as well.
The special election in June 2004 also established the outlines of Herseth's fiscal base. In each of her two elections in 2004 - special and regular - individual contributions exceeded PAC contributions by about 2 to 1. Of the PAC contributions, 40% was from "Ideological/Single Issue" organizations, which I took to be us. Of the PAC "ideological" total, three-fourths was from four feminist/pro-abortion organizations and one-fourth was from Democratic Party PAC's. EMILY's List generated contributions of $121,583, the largest single source. The 2nd-largest contribution was $30,850. About one-third of the June 2004 PAC contributions were from labor, and one-fourth from business, mostly law firms. MoveOn.org gave her campaign $5,000.
Sadly, Herseth's 2006 contribution profile is very different: PAC contributions 62%, individual contributions 37%. Of the PAC contributions, Business PAC's gave 50%, Labor 27%, Ideological/Single Issue 23%. EMILY's List, however, has sent another $196,718 Herseth's way since the 2004 elections. (Source of financial figures is Center for Responsive Politics.)
Despite the contributions from EMILY's List, here's Herseth Sandlin on the South Dakota abortion ban last year.
Finally, there is reproductive freedom. EMILY's List supported her heavily in both of her 2004 campaigns, along with Planned Parenthood, NOW and NARAL. Herseth missed the "partial-birth" abortion vote of 2003, but the following year she was described in the local press as supporting the ban. She is rated "100% pro-choice" because she voted for embryonic stem-cell research twice and against a smaller bill to restrict interstate transport of minors to get abortions. That was not good enough for local and out-of-state feminists, but was evidently too much for South Dakota Republicans. In 2006 the SD legislature passed a no-exceptions ban on all abortions, and SD citizens organized a successful initiative to rescind it. South Dakota was Ground Zero for abortion rights in 2006, and Stephanie Herseth was silent. The word "abortion" did not appear on her Congressional or campaign websites. Her position was reputed in the SD press to be that, although she opposes abortion personally, she favors abortion rights in principle. Hours of googling did not reveal a documented citation of that or any other sentiment on abortion. In 2006 there was no public word from her on the issue most fundamental to contemporary women's rights.
This is an awesome campaign so far, with just under 10,000 result when you google for "Bush Dog Democrats".
There are only nine more Bush Dogs to be profiled, so grab one if you can and profile him.
IN-02: Joe Donnelly
IN-08: Brad Ellsworth
IN-09: Baron Hill
KY-06: Ben Chandler
NC-02: Bob Etheridge
ND-AL: Earl Pomeroy
TX-17: Chet Edwards
TX-22: Nick Lampson
TX-28: Henry Cuellar
The Indiana folks are all freshmen and part of Rahm Emanuel's strategy, so they are fascinating. And Ben Chandler is probably going to run for higher office in Kentucky, either Governor or Senator, and he's way too conservative for his district. He was also the first netroots candidate, garnering a bunch of cash from the blogosphere during his special election in 2004. And Texas is Texas.
STATE BLOGS
