My email to David Broder

This Thursday David Broder's column addressed the divisions in the Democratic Party and how they might make governing difficult for Senator Obama if he is elected President.  Using an old interview from the recently deceased Hamilton Jordan, he draws an analogy between Senator Obama and Jimmy Carter, who also rose out of obscurity to win the nomination of a divided party.  He concludes:

Because Carter ran against the Washington establishment, he had no claim on their loyalty -- and they easily spurned him, Jordan told his interviewers. Because he sought to appease them by giving the vice presidency to one of their own, Walter Mondale, they scorned him. And because he tried to flatter them by giving key places in his administration to some of them, he faced continual rebellions within his own White House and Cabinet.

This is the cautionary tale Obama and his brain trust could find in Jordan's interview. Obama, too, has profited from fragmentation in the Democratic Party that has allowed a long shot, once again, to capture its greatest prize. But if he is elected, he will have to solve the problems of fragmentation that doomed Jimmy Carter.

While Broder makes some good comparisons, especially about Carter's and Obama's outsider status, there are major differences between Carter's situation and Obama's.  Broder says:  "In the two previous elections, the Democratic Party was riven by strife over the Vietnam War, social policy and civil rights."  I don't see such deep disagreement over policy in the party today.  Also, the parties have become used to outsider candidates as both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush ran as outsiders, even though Bush had insider support due to his father.  I addressed my thoughts to Broder in this email:

Mr. Broder,

I've just read your column, "The Enemy Within." While you make some good arguments, and think it is appropriate that we remember the important contributions of Hamilton Jordan, I'm not sure that I agree with your conclusions.

The division between Senators Clinton and Obama seems to be more of style over substance. The only domestic policy differences to surface during the campaign are the minor variations in their health care plans and Senator Clinton's gas tax relief proposal. The two Senators have some substantive differences on how to handle foreign policy, specifically Iran, but that debate won't feature much Congressional involvement. This unity is not exclusive to just Senators Clinton and Obama, the only Democratic contenders to seriously disagree with the party line were Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

As the campaign has moved forward the personality divisions have deepened. Clinton supporters are resentful that the first serious female candidate has been robbed of her chance. Obama supporters decry the methods Senator Clinton has used to stave off her inevitable defeat. This leads me to believe that the main difficulty for Obama will be unifying the party to get elected, not governing. I just don't think Congressional Democrats are going to implode debating whether we should have a health care mandate or not.

The wildcard, as you mention, are the new Democrats that will get elected to Congress during this cycle. Integrating so many new members into the Democratic caucus would be a difficult challenge for any President, but it will have to be faced no matter who is the nominee. The political debate so far has shown that this is a year of uncommon political unity within the party. Senator Obama, with his new voters and new money, should be able to seize the governing initiative and accomplish some of his goals.

Sincerely,
Matt C.

Sadly, Broder hasn't replied to my message.  Hopefully I'll have better luck next time.

Superdelegate Contact Update

I've updated the Superdelegate Contact Spreadsheet to include information for 27 superdelegates who are not US Representatives, Governors or US Senators.  They are on the "Non-Elected" tab.  All of these superdelegates are from states where Senator Obama won the vote.  Please be polite and responsible when contacting these superdelegates.  Only contact a superdelegate if he/she is from your state, or in the case of US representatives, your Congressional District.

Contacting Undecided Superdelegates

Reports indicate that the Clinton campaign is planning street protests at Saturday's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in Washington.  Meanwhile, Senator Clinton and her husband have continued their rhetoric featuring selective popular vote counts and non-existent evidence that Senator Obama can't win in November.  It is clear that Senator Clinton will not exit the race unless she is pushed, and only the superdelegates can provide that motivation.  

Senator Obama has already won a majority of pledged delegates excluding Michigan and Florida.  After June 3rd, he will have a majority of the pledged delegates including any possible division of Michigan and Florida delegates.  It is time for the superdelegates to end this process to the party can unify for the general election.  Still, it is difficult for many superdelegates to choose between their two colleagues.  By contacting superdelegates, we can let them know how much we want them to express the will of primary and caucus voters. 

This spreadsheet contains the phone numbers and contact forms for the 30 elected officials whose constituents voted for Senator Obama, but who have not declared their endorsement.  Next to each superdelegate is the percentage by which Senator Obama won his/her state or Congressional District.  This list is not for spamming the superdelegates.  Please contact a superdelegate only if he/she is your Representative, Senator or Governor.

There are another 56 undeclared superdelegates from areas won by Senator Obama, but they are not elected officials.  I will try to find contact information for as many of them as I can, but I expect that many do not want to be found.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to thank Andy Romano at Stumper for highlighting my comment on his Mitt Romney VP analysis.  He didn't agree with my points, but he felt they were good enough to mention.  You can see the post here, my comments are highlighted under "update."

Guess who's going to the convention.....

After months of reassurances to the contrary, Senator Clinton yesterday held out the option that she may take the nomination battle to the August convention if the votes from Michigan and Florida are not counted.  This came after spending the day in Florida comparing her fight to get the delegates seated to the challenges faced by civil rights activists, suffragists and our nation's founders.

Many journalists (including Chris Cilliza at The Fix) thought that Senator Clinton was just answering a question during the interview and was really trying to find a compromise on the delegates.  Sadly, today brought more evidence that Senator Clinton intends to take this squabble to the convention.  First, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes said that the Michigan and Florida delegations should be seated in their entirety, and that the uncommitted delegates from Michigan should not be given to Senator Obama even though they declined to support Senator Clinton when Obama was not on the ballot.  Later, Senator Clinton added to yesterday's bombast by saying while in Florida:

You learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner, Clinton told supporters in Florida.

The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal-clear: if any votes aren't counted, the will of the people is not realized and our democracy is diminished.

Ironically, Senator Clinton does not appear to have learned the true lesson of the Florida recount, which is that you should fight for what is just, not what is politically expedient.  When Vice President Gore challenged the vote in Florida he did not call for a recount of votes statewide, instead he wanted the votes from just the precincts which voted for him to be counted with the most permissive standards possible.  The Supreme Court denied his request by saying that this would treat voters from separate parts of Florida differently in violation of the equal protection clause.  When the Associated Press conducted its comprehensive vote study it found that the limited recounts Gore requested would not have changed the outcome of the election, but a complete statewide recount would have.  If Gore had asked for the right thing he still may not have won as the Supreme Court may have found another reason to deny him, but at least he and the Democratic party wouldn't have looked so bad while losing.

So ask yourself:  does it really make sense to count 328,309 votes from Michigan where Senator Clinton and Dennis Kucinich were the only candidates on the ballot, but not count the 238,168 voters who clearly said they'd take anyone other than the two of them?  If Senator Clinton is as resolute as she sounds to take this preposterous argument to the convention, then only the superdelegates have the power to prevent another Florida 2000 type fiasco from unfolding.  Over the next week, I'll start covering movements to pressure superdelegates from the Obama states and districts to put an end to this process before that happens.

Vote Counting, Superdelegate Odds and Ends

Slate Trailhead has an excellent post on how the Clinton campaign is counting when they say that they are "winning the popular vote."

The caveats the Clintons apply to their count are:

1. The votes from the Florida primary, where no one campaigned are counted as-is, netting Senator Clinton 294,772 votes.
2. The 328,309 people who voted for Senator Clinton in Michigan, where she was the only major candidate on the ballot, are counted.
3. The 238,168 people in Michigan who voted "Uncommitted" are not counted.

The author, Christopher Beam, believes that the fairest way to count the votes is to count Florida and Michigan but give the uncommitted voters to Obama.  To support this, Beam gives us Clinton spokesman Harold Wolfson's statement that he would be willing to give Obama the uncommitted delegates to get the rest of the delegates counted.  Giving the uncommitted votes to Obama, Beam concludes that Obama leads by about 57,000 votes.

However, Beam's 57,000 number does not include the estimates of people who caucused in Iowa, Maine, Washington and Nevada.  The AP includes estimates for these caucuses since they do not report popular vote numbers, but they have been omitted from the Clinton campaign's count.  If you count these estimates, Obama gains another 110,000 votes, putting his advantage at about 167,000.  Clinton may still find a way to take the popular vote lead, but she will need a lopsided victory in Puerto Rico to do it.

The Superdelegate Roundup Spreadsheet has been updated with the primary results from Kentucky and Oregon as well as superdelgate endorsements through today.  The percentage breakdowns remain the same as Monday, so I won't publish the numbers again here.  Only 3 superdelegates endorsed today (2 for Obama, 1 for Clinton), which is a slowdown from the pace we've seen for the past two weeks.

Huffington Post has reported that four independent sources from the Young Democrats of America (YDA) say that Haim Saban, a billionaire entertainment magnet and Clinton supporter, offered the group $1 million in exchange for the endorsements of their two uncommitted superdelegates.  Saban denied the report.  YDA says they declined the offer.  One of their superdelegates has endorsed Senator Obama while the other remains uncommitted.

Superdelegate Roundup Update - Obama Leads All Categories

Senator Obama continued to get the lion's share of superdelegates over the last week, taking 25 since last Monday compared to only 6 for Senator Clinton.  Obama now has an absolute lead of 26 superdelegates.  He has also taken the lead in each of our Superdelegate Roundup Spreadsheet categories; he has a slightly greater percentage of affirmers, he has captured 3% more defectors than Clinton has, and he has 7% more support from superdelegates in areas which still haven't voted.  The numbers are below, we'll see if Senator Obama's lead grows after tomorrow's Kentucky and Oregon primaries.

Clinton Area Superdelegates:  335

Clinton Affirmers:  177 (52.8%)

Clinton Defectors:  88 (26.3%)

Clinton Undeciders:  70 (20.9%)

Obama Area Superdelgates:  373

Obama Affirmers:  198.5  (53.2%)

Obama Defectors:  87.5 (23.5%)

Obama Undeciders:  87 (23.3%)

Pre-Vote Area Superdelegates:  51

Early Clinton Commiters:  12 (23.5%)

Early Obama Commiters:  16 (31.4%)

Early Undeciders:  23 (45.1%)

Total Obama Superdelegates:  302.5 (39.9%)

Total Clinton Superdelegates:  276.5 (36.4%)

Total Undecided Superdelegates:  180 (23.7%)

Who's the Candidate of Hamas?

For weeks, Senator McCain has been drawing attention to remarks made by a Hamas spokesman in support of Senator Obama.  On several occasions, McCain has called Obama the "candidate of Hamas," while tying  Obama's support from the terrorist group to his expressed willingness to speak to Cuba, Iran and other traditional enemies of the United States.  The scuffle came to a head this week when President Bush raised the specter of appeasement to terrorists during a speech at the Israeli Knesset.  Yesterday, Obama condemned Bush's comments as a "false political attack."

I think it's worth taking a moment to consider Hama's motivation for making its comments.  The 2004 Presidential election was influenced by Osama bin Laden's "October surprise" video, which he released just 4 days before the election.  CIA analysis now indicates that the release of the tape was calculated to aid the reelection of President Bush.  Could Hamas be playing the same game with their statement?  During the Bush administration, Hamas has seen their power within the Palestinian territories increase.  They took control of the government by winning elections in 2006.  In 2007, they seized total control of the Gaza Strip during an armed conflict with their rivals, Fatah.

Hamas is not the only terrorist organization to see it's influence expand during the Bush administration.  Just last week, Hezbollah militias in Lebanon took control of western Beirut causing a major setback for the US supported government.  This follows the 2006 July war between Hezbollah and Israel where Hezbollah was able to hold Israel to a stalemate.  The Iraq war has allowed Iran to promote terrorism within Iraq, and has fanned the flames of Islamic radicalism outside Iraq.  Even Al Qaeda has been rebuilding it's capabilities in Afghanistan since it concluded a cease fire with Pakistan last year.

It is reasonable to infer that Islamic terrorists are pleased with our current policy towards the middle east.  Electing Senator McCain would help to continue that policy.  Al Qaeda has shown in the past that they are willing to use words and actions to coerce voters to choose the outcome they desire.   If we are going to make the choice that is best for us, we must do so without the fear that terrorists spread.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

For a little weekend fun on this very serious topic, here's a clip of Chris Matthews interviewing conservative talk-show host Kevin James on Hardball.  The two get into an argument over what appeasement means as James and other conservatives are trying to compare Obama to Neville Chamberlain.  The fun part begins at the 4 minute mark.  I question the wisdom of McCain supporters evoking the ghosts of World War II during this campaign.  Unlike Obama (and President Bush), Senator McCain was actually alive when Neville Chamberlain promised "peace in our time" in 1938. The last thing McCain needs to do is highlight his age in this debate, especially while getting the history wrong.

The Pyrrhic Victory

Yesterday, Senator Clinton won her second most lop-sided primary victory of the entire campaign, clobbering Senator Obama in West Virginia 67% to 27%.  Not only was the magnitude of her victory stunning, but exit polls raised doubts about Obama's ability to transcend race and win the support of working class white voters in November.  Senator Clinton pressed her case with the superdelegates and did interviews for all the evening news programs to convince voters that her candidacy was still alive.  By these accounts, this should have been a very good day for her, but events showed why she has hit her stride too late.

First, NARAL Pro-Choice America, a million-member non-profit which promotes abortion rights endorsed Senator Obama, citing the need to unify the party to elect a pro-choice candidate in November.  Then, Senator Obama announced the support of another 4 superdelegates (roundup spreadsheet updated) compared to only 1 which came out for Clinton.  This continues the pace of superdelegates that emerged after last week's North Carolina primary.  Finally, former Senator and Presidential candidate John Edwards gave his endorsement to Senator Obama during a speech in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  The endorsement bounced all coverage of the West Virginia primary from cable news, meaning that Clinton did not get even one full favorable press cycle out of her victory.

Edwards's endorsement raises two questions:  why did he endorse now instead of earlier and what will the effect of the endorsement be?  I believe he endorsed now because this was his last chance to be a kingmaker.  Senator Obama is poised to claim a majority of the pledged delegates in next week's Oregon primary.  That, combined with the continued flow of superdelegates may make Obama the presumptive nominee soon.  By endorsing now, Edwards can put a period on this race before the final numbers come in.  He also has a chance to help Obama improve his standing with working class white voters in the Kentucky primary next week.  Senator Edwards may cause these Kentucky voters to take a second look at Senator Obama.  Obama will still have to win them over himself, however, as the 2004 Democratic ticket which featured Edwards as VP only carried 41% of the white vote.  

Hillary's Fundraiser

I received a fundraising letter from Senator Clinton today.  I've never contributed to her before, so I'm guessing she got my name off the DNC list.  Blazing across the envelope is the statement "We're going all the way."  The letter itself seems a bit outdated.  The second paragraph begins with "This month we face critical tests in Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky and Oregon."  Sadly, the tests in Indiana and North Carolina occurred last week.  The best part is at the end where she says; "Matthew, I promise you that as long as I have your support, as long as you are fighting by my side, I will work as hard as I can to win."  I've been supporting Senator Obama for months and she hasn't stopped trying to win, so I don't think she's going to stop now.

Superdelegate Roundup Update - Obama Takes the Lead

Over the past week, the trickle of superdelegates toward Senator Obama has turned into a stream.  According to Democratic Convention Watch, Obama has netted 25 superdelegates since last week's North Carolina primary, compared to a net of 1 for Senator Clinton.  By their count, he now has 279 superdelegates to her 270.5.  Obama has also taken the lead in the "defector" category of the Superdelegate Roundup Spreadsheet.  Obama has convinced 24.5 of superdelegates from Senator Clinton's areas to support him, while she is only covincing 23.6% of superdelegates from his areas to support her.  Obama can thank 4 California superdelegates who announced their endorsements this week for the boost to Clinton's defector percentage.  It is interesting to note that more superdelegates have now defected from areas where Senator Clinton won the vote than remain undecided.  

Finally, Senator Obama has taken the lead in endorsements from superdelegates whose areas have not yet voted (18 vs 15), although this is now the smallest piece of the pie with only 61 superdelegates.  We'll see how the trends go for the next couple of weeks, though I doubt there will be a major shift until this Kentucky/Oregon primaries on May 20th.  

The total numbers now stand as follows:

Clinton area superdelegates:  318

Clinton Affirmers:  168 (52.8%)

Clinton Defectors:  78 (24.5%)

Clinton Undeciders:  72 (22.6%)

Obama area superdelegates:  370

Obama Affirmers:  183 (49.5%)

Obama Defectors:  87.5 (23.6%)

Obama Undeciders:  99.5 (26.9%)

Pre-Vote area superdelegates:  61

Early Clinton Commiters:  15 (24.6%)

Early Obama Commiters:  18 (29.5%)

Early Undeciders:  28 (45.9%)

Superdelegate Roundup Update

It's been awhile since I posted an update on the superdelegate roundup spreadsheet, although I have been making updates to it regularly.  Senator Clinton still leads in all superdelegate categories, although the size of her leads has declined sharply.  The numbers now stand at:

Clinton area superdelegates:  309

Clinton affirmers:  163 (52.8%)

Clinton defectors:  69 (22.3%)

Clinton undeciders:  77 (24.9%)

Obama area superdelegates:  369

Obama affirmers:  171 (46.3%)

Obama defectors:  87.5 (23.7%)

Obama undeciders:  110.5 (29.9%)

Pre-Vote area superdelegates:  67

Early Clinton committers:  20 (29.9%)

Early Obama committers:  18 (26.9%)

Early Undeciders:  29 (43.3%)

Senator Clinton is still retaining a greater percentage of superdelegates from areas which voted for her (52.8% vs 46.3%), as well as getting a greater percentage of superdelegates from areas which voted for Senator Obama to defect to her (23.7% vs 22.3%).  

This advantage may not last long, however.  Since the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Senator Obama has received commitments from 6 superdelegates, compared to only 1 for Senator Clinton.  One of Senator Obama's new supporters, Jennifer McClellan from Virginia, is a former Clinton supporter, meaning Senator Clinton has netted zero superdelegates since the last round of primaries.  We'll see if this trend continues into next week.

What Obama meant about his grandmother

Senator Obama's landmark speech on race relations has dominated the news cycle for the past couple of days. There have been many reactions, a good summary of them from Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post is here. I found it amazing how Senator Obama was able to so eloquently blend his own life story with the rest of the American racial experience in a way that both caused reflection and hope. This morning, however, Senator Obama made remarks during a Philadelphia radio interview that were much more controversial than anything he said during the speech. When asked about the comments he made about his grandmother during the speech, Obama said:

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know - there's a reaction in her that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it. What makes me optimistic is you see each generation feeling less like that. And that's pretty powerful stuff

The statement has already received bad press from different corners of the media, and deservedly so. No Caucasian likes being called a "typical white person."  This is the kind of unforced error that Senator Obama cannot afford to make as he closes in on the Democratic nomination.

As impolitic as the comment was, Senator Obama does have a point when it comes to the instantaneous reactions people have to African Americans. These reactions are illustrated by Harvard University's Implicit Association Test, which tries to compare how people associate Caucasians and African Americans with things that are good or bad.  You can take the test yourself by clicking on the link, selecting demonstrations and choosing the Race IAT.  Results from Harvard's study show that 88% of white people have a pro-white or anti-black implicit bias.  The influence of the image blacks that is bred into our society is so strong the even 48% of blacks showed the same pro-white or anti-black bias.

Senator Obama has an important role in discussing race in America.  Let's hope that in the future he chooses his words on the radio as carefully as he chose them during his March 18th speech.

Phil Bredesen's Superdelegate Solution

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen wrote an op-ed for the New York Times this morning suggesting a solution for the Democrats' superdelegate dilemma.  He proposes holding a "superdelegate primary" immediately after all the primaries are completed on June 3rd.  The superdelegates' votes would then be bound to the results of the primary, guaranteeing the nomination to one of the candidates before the convention in August.  This way, he hopes to allow the Democratic party to use the summer months to focus on the general election, rather than determining the nominee:

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could each still believe that the nomination could be his or hers at the national convention in Denver in August.

In that situation, we would then face a long summer of brutal and unnecessary warfare. We would face a summer of growing polarization. And we would face a summer of lost opportunities — lost opportunities to heal the wounds of the primaries, to fill the party’s coffers, to offer unified Democratic ideas for America’s challenges.

Governor Bredesen's proposal makes much sense.  As he points out, the superdelegates will have all the information they need to make their selection once the primaries are completed.  While some have suggested that the superdelegates should reserve their votes in case one of the candidates becomes unelectable between, I view this as a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy.  If making the other candidate unelectable is the only way Senators Clinton and Obama can obtain the nomination, they are certain to spend the summer months trying to make the other appear unelectable.  We have already seen the results of their in-fighting:  Senator McCain now leads them both in national polls.

The "superdelegate primary" would allow the superdelegates to be scrutinized as a group among themselves, outside of the politicking that will occur at the convention.  It will give the Democrats the time they desperately need to bring the party back together.  While I would prefer an agreement by the superdelegates to follow their local election results, I believe Governor Bredesen has proposed the next best solution.

Republican Veepstakes

With the Republican nomination well settled, I think it's an appropriate time to start guessing who John McCain may select as his running mate.  To help educate my guesses, I've tried to pull together data on which states are most likely to flip from the party they voted for in 2004.  Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post put together this list last week of states he thinks are most likely.  I've also used electoral maps from SurveyUSA which were constructed from poll data in each state.  Here is the map if Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee.  Senator Clinton's map is here.  The maps illustrate differences in the strengths and weaknesses between the Democratic candidates which should guide Senator McCain's Vice Presidential selection.

Senator Obama's strength is in the mid-west and south-west.  He has a much greater chance of flipping Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada than Senator Clinton does.  I also believe he has a realistic chance of flipping Virginia.  Senator Obama's weaker in some of the more moderate Democratic states; his nomination could put Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New Hampshire at risk for the Democrats.  I also believe he has a reduced chance of winning Ohio.  While Senator Clinton is strong in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida and Ohio, I believe her chances of flipping any other states are much less than Senator Obama's.  She is also at greater risk of losing Minnesota and Wisconsin, both of which voted for Senator Kerry very narrowly in 2004.  SurveyUSA also has her losing Michigan.

Against Senator Clinton, McCain would probably view Pennsylvania and New Jersey as lost causes.  He would also face a greater risk of losing Ohio and Florida.  Furthermore, I don't believe he'd feel as much pressure to select a social conservative for VP, as facing Senator Clinton would automatically energize southern social conservatives.  Therefore, I believe he would try to make up for the potential losses Ohio and Florida by selecting Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty as his running mate.  Pawlenty would almost certainly deliver Minnesota for the Republicans (his approval is 59% there), and he may help in western Wisconsin enough to flip that state as well.  Together, those two states would probably be enough to seal victory for the Republicans.

Senator Obama would pose a different challenge for McCain.  He has done well in red state primaries and conservatives don't have the same distaste for him that they have for Senator Clinton.  He also did very well in the Wisconsin primary, making it less likely that McCain could win there, even with Governor Pawlenty on the ticket.  I believe the most effective running mate for Senator McCain against Senator Obama would be, as much as I don't like the guy, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.  While Santorum probably wouldn't be able to deliver Pennsylvania against Senator Clinton, I believe he could do so against Senator Obama.  He would energize the social conservative base of the party in a way that few swing state Republicans could.  In addition to carrying Pennsylvania, I think Santorum could help McCain hold Virginia and Ohio.  Santorum would hurt McCain in New Jersey and California, but I don't think he would end up winning those states anyway.

So those are my best guesses, I'm not going to dignify them by using the term "predictions."  If you have any other ideas or want to remark on my reasoning, hit the comment button below.

Let's be Fair to Tucker

Next week Tucker Carlson's nightly show on MSNBC will be replaced by a show hosted by David Gregory.  I've encountered several stories both on television and print announcing the cancellation of the "bow-tied" host, often with glee.  All of them either mentioned the "bow-tie" in the first sentence, or pictured him with it, even though he stopped wearing the bow-tie over a year ago.  Here is a sample:

MSNBC.com (the website of his own network!)

New York Times 

Washington Post

The Money Times

The Colbert Report

I have no problem deriding what Tucker was, his bow-tied attire caused me to chuckle almost nightly when he was on Crossfire.  Jon Stewart had this great television moment when he pointed out how ridiculous Tucker's role on that show was.  However, we should recognize people when they improve themselves.  Carlson's show on MSNBC was much less strident than his appearances on CNN.  While he still provided a conservative slant to the news, he did so in a less divisive setting.  Whether he was interviewing Democrats, Republicans or talking with a balanced panel, he asked insightful questions and allowed all views to be aired.  Tucker should be congratulated for showing us how journalists can reinvent themselves in a good way.  Hopefully, he will be given another outlet so he can continue to do so.

Mississippi Republican Votes

I've been puzzled by the Mississippi exit polls which indicate that Republicans made up 13% of all the votes in the Democratic primary there, and 76% of them voted for Senator Clinton.  This is a sharp reversal from most previous states, where Senator Obama captured the majority of Republican voters.  

Andrew Romano at Newsweek made this post trying to explain the vote.  It shows that the Republican voters who voted for Senator Clinton tended to like her less then they liked Senator McCain - but they disliked Senator Obama even more.  Of all Clinton Republican voters in Mississippi 94% said Obama did not inspire them, 89% said they would be dissatisfied if he were the nominee and 86% said that Obama was not trustworthy.   The same numbers for Senator Clinton are 61%, 41% and 72% respectively.

It appears that Republicans who are voting for Clinton are not doing so just because Rush Limbaugh tells them too.  They are doing so because they have a genuine dislike of Senator Obama that outweighs their dislike for Senator Clinton.  It would be interesting to see the numbers for those Republicans who voted for Senator Obama, to see if they voted because they like him, or because they dislike Senator Clinton more.  This would give us a better indication of whether or not Senator Obama can pull any Republican voters away during the general election.

Superdelegate Roundup Update - Mississippi Results

The Superdelegate Roundup Spreadsheet has been updated with the Mississippi election results and other endorsement updates.  Most of the numbers remain unchanged, although Senator Clinton's affirmer percentage has slipped a little bit more due to the resignation of Governor Spitzer in New York.

The Democratic Divide

We are well into the Democratic primary race and the results are looking eerily similar to those predicted by a leaked Obama campaign memo from early February.  The memo outlines which states the Obama campaign expects to win and which ones it expects to lose.  The fact that the predictions have been so accurate implies that voters are making decisions based on factors that are easy to identify and hard to change.  During election night coverage, the pundits pour over exit-poll data to find which are voting for which candidates.  The voter profiles you hear over and over again on the networks are:

• Women vote for Clinton, men vote for Obama
• African-Americans vote for Obama, Latinos vote for Clinton
• People with college degrees vote for Obama, those without them vote for Clinton
• Young voters vote for Obama, older voters vote for Clinton

I decided to take a closer look at it myself.  I dumped the exit poll data from CNN's Election Center into a Google spreadsheet and checked each state for each profile.  Places where a profile is broken are highlighted in red.

The only states where all of the profiles held were Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Texas.  The most rigid profiles are the racial ones.  Senator Clinton has not won the African-American vote anywhere, not even in her home state of New York.  Senator Obama has only one the Latino vote in his home state of Illinois, and Virginia, both by slim margins.

Out of 27 states for which I have exit poll data, Senator Clinton has lost the female vote 12 times, while she has won the male vote 5 times.  Senator Obama lost the college educated vote six times, while he won the non-college educated vote 7 times.  Finally, Senator Clinton won voters under 60 9 times, while she lost voters over 60 5 times.

Where the profiles have been broken, they have been definitive.  Senator Obama won every state where won the female, over 60, non-college educated or Latino vote.  Similarly, Senator Clinton won every state where she won the male, under 60 or college educated vote.

So the voter profiles have been powerful in this election, but they are not all-powerful.  Each candidate has shown an ability to reach into the other's bases to get the voters they need for critical wins.  They will have to continue to do so if one of them is going to break the delegate deadlock before the Democratic National Convention.

Superdelegate Roundup Update - Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont

I've plugged in the complete results from the March 4th primaries, plus the latest updates from Democratic Convention Watch.  The numbers now stand as follows:

Clinton Area Superdeleages:  263

Clinton Affirmers:  125 (47.5%)

Clinton Defectors:  46 (17.5%)

Clinton Undeciders:  92 (35%)

Obama Area Superdelegates:  321

Obama Affirmers:  123 (38.3%)

Obama Defectors:  82 (25.6%)

Obama Undeciders:  116 (36.1%)

Pre-Vote Area Superdelegates:  136

Early Clinton Committers:  34 (25%)

Early Obama Committers:  26 (19.1%)

Early Undeciders:  76 (55.9%)

The only percentage that has seen a drastic change from a week ago is Obama's affirmer percentage, which has increased 4.7%.  This reflects both Senator Obama's good week in recruiting superdelegates from areas he'd already won (like Georgia and Alabama) as well as his victory in Vermont, where most of the superdelegates had already decided to support him.  Senator Clinton's affirmer percentage went down 2.5%, mostly because many superdelegates in Texas and Ohio, which she won, have not yet decided who to support.  I expect her affirmer percentage to bounce back once superdelegates from these states contemplate her victories.

You know it's time to vote when....

The candidates debate healthcare for 16 minutes and don't cover any new ground.

Saturday Night Live has already run out of funny sketches about the debates.

You get really upset when 15 minutes go by and there's no update from Slate Trailhead, MSNBC First Read or even Washington Post's The Fix.

No one says anything new during 2 whole hours of Tim Russert Sunday programming.

You realize that you watched 2 whole hours of Tim Russert programming hoping that someone would say something new.

There have been so many campaign commercials, the candidates have to use the same film in their attack and response ads.

Even Jack Nicholson is recycling his old movies.

No one thinks of the Texas Two Step as a dance anymore.

You volunteer to call a hundred people in Ohio for the Obama campaign.  Half the numbers have either been disconnected, or have new owners.

Those voters you do reach think the "kitchen sink strategy" means that they get to throw their  kitchen sink at YOU.

Even election officials are hinting at results before Election Day. (Are we still going to have to wait for voting to close before we hear the exit polls?)

Six months before the Democratic National Convention, some superdelegates are already wishing they weren't superdelegates.  (Here, here, here and here)

You actually watch a clip of the Canadian Parliament to see how they feel about the whole NAFTA memo leak.  (Who cares how they feel???? - Fareed Zakaria apparently...)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good luck to voters in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont - We're all waiting to hear from you.