My husband is voting for Obama this November -- the first time in 37 years of voting he's ever voted for a democratic candidate for president. Why? He's a fiscal conservative. All our lives in the business world we had both voted for a lot of Republicans, because they were the party "for small business and fiscal responsibility."

In 2000 we cancelled each other out: my husband voted for Bush and I for Gore. It was kind of a joke in our house that year. I told my husband I just couldn't vote for someone that stupid.

By 2004 I had become very politically aware for the first time in my life because of 9/11. I was passionately for Kerry and my husband once again voted for Bush because 1) he just "didn't trust" Kerry, and 2) he wanted to give Bush a chance to clean up his mess. It was a difficult atmosphere in our house that fall.

After Kerry lost, I started what I called my drip, drip campaign. I figured my husband had just bought into the propaganda spewed during 2004, so I started my own info war. Everytime something occurred that went unnoticed in the M$M, I would make sure I mentioned it and send him a link. By this past year he was pretty disgusted with the GOP. Then this past summer he read two books that I think clinched his break with the GOP -- Eisenhower's bio by Ambrose and Jack Danforth's book about religion and politics. I think reading Eisenhower's bio gave him a jolt showing him how far the Republican party has drifted, and Danforth's book showed him how much the party had been taken over by fundies. Danforth, a respected Missouri statesman and Episcopalian minister, condemned this religious infiltration.

He was already leaning towards Obama when McCain chose Palin. That choice cemented my husband's first-time-ever vote for a democrat. We are 100% for Obama in our house.

I lived in northeastern Missouri for 23 years before moving up to Illinois last year (I'm now in Hastert's old district which elected democratic Bill Foster last March.) This past weekend I decided to visit my old stomping grounds and do some canvassing and I am FIRED UP AND READY TO GO!

The Obama campaign sent me to Bowling Green in Pike County. I wasn't sure what to expect, but assumed I'd get at least a good clump of McCain supporters (When I canvassed for McCaskill in 2006, I got several who were supporting her Republican opponent.) BUT -- of the 75 houses I went to, there were only two -- TWO -- who were supporting McCain,and only one of them said so out loud. The other one told me they had decided who to vote for but didn't wish to tell me, so I'm assuming McCain on that one.

I talked to lots of people who were still "undecided," many of whom had absolutely no knowledge of anything on either candidate but were planning on voting in November because "we need change." They knew that much. They were ALL receptive to me. I told them why I was supporting Obama and just gave them basic info that we all have at our fingertips, and many of them ended up saying that they thought they might be leaning toward Obama and thanked me for stopping by. It was just AWESOME. Now I know some here think Obama has done overkill on the "McCain is third term of Bush" meme, but it is definitely working. Many of these folks who don't follow politics like we do told me they didn't like McCain because he would just be another one like Bush -- and that was the extent of their knowledge of the election.

One thing that I think helped me with these undecided is that I'm a 55 year old white woman, and I think most people there had the impression that only college kids and African Americans are for Obama, so they were surprised to see me and consequently curious about why I was supporting him.

Some stories:

One house there was a little old lady in her 70's, very sweet looking, who started out saying, "Well now, I don't have anything against black folks..." (and I thought, "Here we go"), and then continued, "I like that Obama fellow. He seems like a nice young man with a nice wife and family. And we need someone different than that GODDAM Bush." I picked up my jaw as she then went on a rant about how "that Bush" had just ruined this country, and McCain was just like him and too old to be running for president. It was a thing of beauty.

Another house the couple was sitting outside and the wife was on the list but not the husband. She said she was voting for Obama, but the husband belligerently told me he was voting for McCain so there. Then he started quizzing me about stuff that "proved" Obama was a slippery character, which I was able to counter and then give him the scoop on McCain's "slipperiness," always remaining polite. After about a five minute back and forth he suddenly began smiling and said, "You know, I'm actually voting for Obama. I just wanted to see if you knew your stuff. Where do I go to volunteer?"

It was just a fantastic experience. I'm going back in two weeks to do some more.

that will come in handy, I think. I was reading another blog earlier, and a RWer sneeringly said that this act passed 90-8 in the senate, and that Biden voted for it and McCain did not vote. He then directed to this:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?v...

which seemed to confirm what he said. But then you posted this:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?v...

which shows the bill passing 54-44, with Biden voting against it and McCain voting for it. Both bills are labelled the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

It wasn't until I clicked on primary source that I saw what was going on. Here are those two links:

May 1999: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...

Nov 1999: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...

The second vote involved a question on a conference report on the Act, not the Act itself.

Now I need to see if I can remember where I saw the RWer's post so I can go back and eddicate him.

1) If the DNC wants to prevent another state jumping in front of the line in 2012, they will need to impose sanctions on FL and MI this Saturday. My initial thought was to split the pledged delegate vote in half and strip all the super delegates of their vote. On further consideration, it would be difficult to do the latter, because not all of the super delegates may have been involved, so I would (generously) leave the super delegates with a half vote each.

Doing the above would alter the candidates' goals as follows:

Total PD's would go from 3253 to 3409.5
Majority of PD's would go from 1627 to 1705

Total pledged and super delegates would go from 4049 to 4233
Majority to win nomination would go from 2025 to 2117


2)It is reasonable to assume that a certain portion of the Uncommitted vote in MI was for Obama and another portion for Edwards. Clinton received about 57% of the vote in both states. Since a revote was never done, the most equitable solution in MI would be to divide the uncommitted vote in the same proportion as the vote in FL.

According to TGP: of the 185 PD's in FL, Clinton would get 105, Obama 69, and Edwards 11. Using the same proportions in MI: of the 128 PD's, Clinton would get 73, Obama 48, and Edwards 7. These votes would then be cut in half.

According to DCW, there are currently 15 SD's in MI and FL for Clinton and 10 SD's in both states for Obama. These votes would be cut in half.

So

New totals with my (idea of fair) rulings:
Obama 1660.5 + 58.5 = 1719 PD's to date (14 over majority needed)
Clinton 1499.5 + 89 = 1588.5 PD's to date
Obama 318.5 + 5 = 323.5 SD's to date
Clinton 280.5 + 7.5 = 288 SD's to date

Obama total to date = 2042.5 (74.5 needed to win nomination)
Clinton total to date = 1876.5

Here's the super delegate tracking history since January from DCW

..........HC....BO......HC Lead..HC%
1/13...165....69..........96......71%
1/20...171....77..........94......69%
1/27...184....88..........96......68%
2/3....198...105..........93......65%
2/10...224...127..........97......64%
2/17...238...160.5.......77.5....60%
2/24...238...174..........64......58%
3/2.....240...193..........47......55%
3/9.....244...205..........39......54%
3/16...244...208..........36......54%
3/23...246...210..........36......54%
3/30...246...212..........34......54%
4/6.....245...221..........24......53%
4/13...249...223..........26......53%
4/20...255...230..........25......53%
4/27...257...235..........22......52%
5/4.....269...248..........21......52%


Here are today's totals:
5/6....269.5...254..........15.5...51%

Making all thier delegates super delegates would not only reward them, it would COMPLETELY discount the voters in both states.

My solution:

1) Make each pledged delegate worth half a vote
2) Give uncommitted delegates to Obama in MI
3) Super delegates from both states receive NO vote, as they are the ones responsible for the whole mess

MI pulled this very same crap back in 2004, and after some blustering, McAuliffe had them seated at the convention with no penalty. This year, MI and FL BOTH pulled this crap. Why not? There was no penalty for MI in 2004. If they don't penalize them both, even more states will jump on the ME FIRST bandwagon in 2012.

Early in April I theorized that the SD's would start endorsing Obama by one's and two's -- staying under the radar as the focus stayed on the primary races. I predicted that by Oregon/Kentucky, or by Montana/South Dakota at the latest, he will have enough super delegates in his column so that it is a primary race that is seen to put him over the top, and not the super delegates. Here's what's been happening with super delegates since January:

..........HC....BO......HC Lead..HC%
1/13...165....69..........96......71%
1/20...171....77..........94......69%
1/27...184....88..........96......68%
2/3....198...105..........93......65%
2/10...224...127..........97......64%
2/17...238...160.5.......77.5....60%
2/24...238...174..........64......58%
3/2.....240...193..........47......55%
3/9.....244...205..........39......54%
3/16...244...208..........36......54%
3/23...246...210..........36......54%
3/30...246...212..........34......54%
4/6.....245...221..........24......53%
4/13...249...223..........26......53%
4/20...255...230..........25......53%
4/27...257...235..........22......52%

There are only 302 undeclared super delegates left. If another 100 endorse for Obama between now and the end of May, he's over the top.

Then add to the mix the fundraising arrangement the Obama camp made with the DNC earlier this week. Do you think the DNC would rather hitch their wagon to the guy whose donors send money with no strings attached and who has only one or two fundraisers scheduled between now and June, or with the gal with 17 fundraisers scheduled whose big money donors tell Pelosi how it's gonna be if she wants their money or whose big donors demand their money back because FL and MI votes haven't counted? I'd guess we'll start seeing more DNC people weighing in soon.

They're just proceeding, quietly and under the radar, to shut Ms. Hillary down -- one and two at a time.

In fact, the only math thread put up by a Clinton supporter was soundly debunked as flummery.

There is nothing fuzzy about the reality of 408 PD's in the remaining contests.

There is nothing fuzzy about the reality of 1627 being the majority of the total 3253 PD's.

There is nothing fuzzy about the reality of Obama needing just 136 more -- that's 33% of 408 -- to win the majority of PD's.

There is nothing fuzzy about the reality of Clinton needing 291 more -- that's 71% of 408 -- to win the majority of PD's.

The only faulty assumption would be that she has a snowball's chance in hell of getting 71% in the rest of the races.

If the more likely scenario of a rough 50-50 split occurs in the remaining races, Obama will need only one third of the remaining super delegates to hit 2025. As of this morning Clinton has 256 to Obama's 234, with 304 still undeclared. Do you really think that he will have any trouble getting 100 of these to declare for him? Because that is the only assumption that Obama supporters make.

Anyone been wondering how it all began with the super delegates back in January? Here's the weekly tracking record from DemConWatch. I added today's totals at the bottom, just FYI. In a little over 3 months, Hillary has added 91 to her total and Obama has added 165. There are only 304 undeclared super delegates left.

..........HC....BO......HC Lead..HC%
1/13...165....69..........96......71%
1/20...171....77..........94......69%
1/27...184....88..........96......68%
2/3....198...105..........93......65%
2/10...224...127..........97......64%
2/17...238...160.5.......77.5....60%
2/24...238...174..........64......58%
3/2.....240...193..........47......55%
3/9.....244...205..........39......54%
3/16...244...208..........36......54%
3/23...246...210..........36......54%
3/30...246...212..........34......54%
4/6.....245...221..........24......53%
4/13...249...223..........26......53%
4/20...255...230..........25......53%
4/24...256...234..........22......52%

Six for Clinton
4-16-08 - Aleita Huguenin (CA)
4-17-08 - Add-on Jim Florio (NJ)#
4-17-08 - Add-on Brendan Byrne (NJ)#
4-18-08 - Rep. Betty Sutton (OH)
4-19-08 - Rep. Tim Ryan (OH)
4-20-08 - DNC Moretta Bosley (KY)

Eight for Obama
4-16-08 - Rep. Andre Carson (IN)
4-16-08 - Rep. Mel Watt (NC)
4-16-08 - Rep. David Price (NC)
4-17-08 - Add-on Reggie Whitten (OK)
4-17-08 - Add-on Harry Thomas Jr.(DC)#
4-18-08 - DNC Janice Griffin (MD)
4-19-08 - DNC Steven Achelpohl (NE)
4-21-08 - DNC Enid Goubeaux (OH)

Currently, that's 231 for Obama and 255 for Clinton; 308 undeclared

Puerto Rico has 55 delegates in play on June 1.

According to various sources at DemConWatch, Obama's lead over Clinton in pledged delegates is anywhere form 163 to 168.

Assuming an apportionment of delegates that parallels popular vote (more on that below), here is her net delegate gain if she maintains the following percentages in the remaining contests:

Clinton 50% Obama 50% net gain 0
Clinton 55% Obama 45% net gain +56
Clinton 60% Obama 40% net gain +114
Clinton 65% Obama 35% net gain +170

It is only by achieving 65% or more in all the remaining contests that Clinton has a chance of bypassing Obama in his current lead of @165 pledged delegates.

Now the above is assuming that the primaries will end up apportioning delegates according to popular vote. Because of the quirky little laws each state has for apportionment, it ain't necessarily so. I had a thread some time back that pointed out some of the inconsistent apportionments that have occurred -- mainly in reply to threads bemoaning the "unfairness" of caucuses. I would guess that because of the quirkiness in apportionment, Hillary will actually have to do better than 65% in popular vote to actually attain 65% of the available delegates.

Five for Clinton
4-12-08 - DNC Taling Taitano
4-16-08 - Aleita Huguenin (CA)
4-17-08 - Add-on Jim Florio (NJ)#
4-17-08 - Add-on Brendan Byrne (NJ)#
4-18-08 - Rep. Betty Sutton (OH)

Seven for Obama
4-13-08 - DNC Nancy Larson (MN)
4-16-08 - Rep. Andre Carson (IN)
4-16-08 - Rep. Mel Watt (NC)
4-16-08 - Rep. David Price (NC)
4-17-08 - Add-on Reggie Whitten (OK)
4-17-08 - Add-on Harry Thomas Jr.(DC)#
4-18-08 - DNC Janice Griffin (MD)

It now stands at 229 for Obama; 253 for Clinton; 312 undeclared

Obama's quote:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This is a surprise? What are the issues that RW politicians have used to GOTV?

gay marriage amendment
illegal immigrants
gun bans -- real or alleged
abortion

All celebrated wedge issues guaranteed to get knee-jerk reactions from their base.

What doesn't get addressed when wedge issues are the only parameter are the more prosaic but also more vital concerns, like the economy.

So this week we see "Bittergate" spun as the "elitist" comments from that "uppity" black fella. Now he hasn't said anything different than a brazillion talking heads on TV or other candidates in analyzing the electorate (including Bill Clinton), but somehow the fact that he deigned to comment on what moves voters is described as "elitist."

Meanwhile, once again economic concerns are being sidelined. Hillary Clinton's campaign strategist and husband have been shown to have strong ties to the Colombian free trade agreement with its negative consequences for American workers, but "antipathy to those who are not like them" -- read "elitist" Obama -- is being shoved down PA voters' throats.

The question remains, will the PA voters buy this crap, or will they join millions of their fellow Americans and say, "Not this time."

It's been interesting to note the parallels in history. For those who speak of Obama as an empty suit who happens to be good with words, here's some widely held public opinion on Lincoln's candidacy on the first page of "Team of Rivals:"

"The conduct of the republican party in this nomination is a remarkable indication of small intellect, growing smaller. They pass over...statesmen and able men, and they take up a fourth rate lecturer, who cannot speak good grammar."

--The New York Herald (May 19,1860), commenting on Abraham Lincoln's nomination for president at the Republican National Convention.

In that presidential race, Seward was considered the inevitable candidate, and Lincoln was the dark horse. Seward was so convinced that the candidacy was his, he travelled to Europe rather than spend any time securing his nomination. Lincoln spent the same time travelling the states impressing all with his speeches, and when the convention in Chicago met on May 20th of that year, he had spent a considerable amount of time doing the delegate math and insuring it favored him.

Seward was Lincoln's main rival that year, and one paragraph from Goodwin's book (p.255) that contrasted Seward to Lincoln could just as well have been an analysis of the contest we see now between Obama and Clinton. Posting the paragraph and leaving the names out is very telling, I think:

In his years of travel on the circuit through central Illinois, engaging people in taverns, on street corners, and in shops, _____ had developed a keen sense of what people felt, needed, and wanted. _____, too, had an instinctive feeling for people, but too many years in Washington had dulled those instincts.

Right now the whole country is concerned about the super delegates "deciding" the nominee, so look what they're doing. They're trickling in one or two at a time -- not enough to make headlines anywhere except at websites like DU. If they came in en masse, it'd be all over the news that they'd decided for Clinton or Obama over the people's choice (by the parameter du jour). Meanwhile, no one seems to be too concerned that 466 of the 794 super delegates have already weighed in on one side or the other (C = 245; O = 221). So what's a few more then, here and there?

If you look at predictions for the last ten contests, Obama as of today only needs around 106 more super delegates to seal the deal. If they keep trickling in by ones and twos daily they stay under the radar, and then a late primary win can be what puts him over the top, rather than a huge bloc of super delegates.

That's my theory, anywho.