Well, we had our very brief moment in the sun on Feb. 5, but we’re back where we are used to being now: the nation’s political ATM. Tomorrow, the Big Dog makes a swing through the Bay Area for his wife, hoping to pick up a quick mil for her campaign:
Hillary Clinton may be campaigning elsewhere Monday, but her purse is in California. And her husband is carrying it. Bill Clinton will try to fill it with upward of $1 million from three private fundraisers in the Bay Area on Monday, including two at homes in Saratoga and Portola Valley, to try to keep pace with the Barack Obama money machine.
California has always been a cash cow for presidential campaigns, but until now, candidates usually have made an effort to extend a live hand. With California’s Feb. 5 primary but a memory – and the campaigns long moved on to states from Louisiana to Maine and soon on to Ohio and Texas – stand-ins will be the best Californians will get. The campaigns aren’t looking for votes at this point, though. They want money.(SJ Merc 2/17/08)
California Matters, ahem, almost as much as Ohio. Honestly, I don’t think anybody could have predicted that we would go into March, or even April, for the nomination, but here we are, back in the rearview mirror, wondering who our nominee is going to be.
The Obama campaign is hoping to bring somebody along the lines of a former Sen. Bill Bradley, or somebody like that for a fundraiser, but no specifics were given. California will always have a net ouflow of political dollars. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s just the way it’s going to be until the time comes when California is competitive again. I’m hoping that’s going to be a long time. So, man the ATM watch towers if you must, but let’s just make sure that California stays firmly in the blue column for the foreseeable future. Thanks.
This is a quickie. I’ve been checking in on the final vote totals at the Secretary of State’s website every day or so, and today was the first change I’ve noticed that actually effects delegates. In CA-53 in San Diego, additional votes have given Barack Obama a 443-vote lead in a district he trailed in. This being a 5-delegate district, he would get a 3-2 split there now if counting ended today. He’s creeping up in CA-50 as well, within 556 votes.
Also, the statewide vote is down to a 9.2% spread, with Clinton at 51.9% and Obama at 42.7%. That extrapolates to the same delegate split of 71-58, for now, but it’s inching closer to 70-59.
So by my numbers, Clinton leads 204-166 now. Ridiculously enough, that one delegate shift in CA-53 is equivalent to the recent calling of the entire state of New Mexico for Clinton.
This, of course, also makes Susan Davis’ district no longer “significant” in the eyes of the Clinton campaign.
There are still three weeks of counting left to go until the California Democratic primary is certified, and with delegate counts taking on such a significance, I thought I’d check in at the Secretary of State’s returns site to see where we’re at.
While thousands of new votes have been counted since the initial Election Day totals, the statewide vote has not moved significantly. With over 4.3 million votes in, Hillary Clinton continues to lead, 52.0%-42.4%. That extrapolates to a 71-58 lead for Clinton in the delegates that are apportioned statewide. However, the Secretary of State’s office reports that 845,000 votes have yet to be counted in the Feb. 5 primary statewide – and that doesn’t include any outstanding votes from Los Angeles County, the most populous in the state. Frank Russo estimates that maybe 1.5 million votes have yet to be counted, and we can say with some confidence that almost a million of those could be cast in the Democratic race. This has the ability to impact that statewide number, as well as several close Congressional districts where delegates could flip.
over…
The uncounted votes thus far are greatest in Sacramento, Orange and San Diego counties, with over 300,000 in those three counties alone. Orange County went pretty strong for Clinton, while Sacramento and San Diego were more of a mix. Also remember that there are around 94,000 votes uncounted due to the “double bubble trouble” in LA County. The registrar has started a hand count of 1% of those ballots, but a full count is still being demanded, so that could shift things.
Here are the districts where the delegates could flip:
CA-01: Barack Obama has a 450-vote lead in this 5-delegate district, so that could go from 3-2 Obama to 3-2 Clinton.
CA-04: unlikely that Obama can overcome a 3,000-vote lead, so 3-2 Clinton. However, there are 15,000 votes out in Placer County, so keep an eye on this one.
CA-16: Clinton is very close to getting a 3-1 split in Zoe Lofgren’s district. You need 62.5% of the head-to-head vote and she now has 62.47%. I’m not sure if they round up. This one could obviously shift.
CA-17: It’s a 2,600-vote lead for Clinton right now, but there are 30,000 votes left to count in Monterey County, so a shift is plausible.
CA-18: The current 3-1 split for Clinton could go down to 2-2 if Obama comes back a little.
CA-23: Obama’s lead is just 2,200 votes, but Santa Barbara County is not reporting any votes left to count, so this could be safe.
CA-40: Clinton’s got 61.89% of the head-to-head votes here and needs 62.5%, so it’s possible.
CA-41: Clinton has 63.6% of the head-to-head vote, enough for a 3-1 delegate split, but Obama could shrink this enough to get it back to 2-2.
CA-45: Clinton has 63.6% of the head-to-head vote, enough for a 3-1 delegate split, but Obama could shrink this enough to get it back to 2-2.
CA-50: This was a lot closer before, but Clinton now has about a 1,000-vote lead in this 5-delegate district with a lot left to count, so anything can happen.
CA-51: This one is razor-thin. Clinton needs 62.5% for a 3-1 delegate split, and she now has 62.42%.
CA-53: About 250 votes separate Obama and Clinton.
As it stands right now, by my calculations Hillary Clinton leads in delegates 205-165. That could change by +5 on the Clinton side and +7 on the Obama side. So we could see as high as a 210-160 split, or as low as a 198-172 split. And that’s not factoring in how the statewide delegates could fluctuate, which is probably as much as 3 delegates on either side, given all those votes left to count. So the best-case scenario for Clinton is a 56-delegate lead out of California, and the worst-case is a 20-delegate lead. That’s how much this can change. So nobody bank on anything just yet.
I just did a quick and dirty analysis of Decline to State voters in LA County to see what the possible effect of the Double Bubble ballot could be. My estimate is that counting all possible “Double Bubble” ballots could lead to a statewide shift to Obama of between 0.5% and 1.5%. In LA County the shift would be between 1.8% and 5%. In table form, here’s what I think the change would be to the statewide results:
Current
Probable
Hillary
52.0%
51.7%
Barack
42.3%
42.6%
Because this nomination could come down to every last single delegate, I think Debra Bowen and the LA County Department of Elections need to examine all “Decline to State” ballots and count any ballots where the voter failed to fill in the byzantine “Democratic” bubble. I wouldn’t consider this a national emergency because Hillary won Cali by 10%, but the “double bubble” ballot needs to be eliminated. See after the jump for my analysis.
Here’s our first clue that there isn’t a massive pool of potential disenfranchised: only 189,438 of the 808,126 “Decline to State” voters actually voted on Tuesday. Let’s look at the most extreme possibility that all of the Democrats and DTS voters attempted to vote in the Democratic primary:
1,328,510 Potential votes – 1,197,785 actual votes = 130,725 possible missing votes
The Exit Polls say that Barack beat Hillary by 2-1 among DTS voters. If we take a rough stab at that, we give Hillary 1/3rd of the possible missing votes and Barack 2/3rds:
130,725 * 1/3 = 43575 for Hillary
130,725 * 2/3 = 87150 for Barack
Adding it all up in LA, we get this for what the most extreme possible effect of the Double Bubble:
HILLARY CLINTON 702,512 (52.88%) a loss of 2.13%
BARACK OBAMA 583,342 (43.91%) a gain of 2.48%
A 4.61% swing to Barack in LA County.
Adding it all up in CA, we get:
HILLARY CLINTON 2,175,741 (51.39%) a loss of 0.58%
BARACK OBAMA 1,822,255 (43.04%) a gain of 0.75%
A 1.33% swing to Barack statewide. I round that up and proclaim that at most, Barack could gain 1.5% in California from fixing the Double Bubble problem.
Now the biggest error I see in this analysis is that most, but not all voters vote for president. A few will pass it up, and some will legitimately mess up their ballots. So for a comparison I looked at my local San Francisco results:
Democratic votes 179,458
Non-Partisan votes 9,776
Total potential votes 189,234
Actual votes cast in Dem Primary 177,408
Percentage who voted for prez 93.75%
Doing a similar analysis for LA finds:
Democratic votes 1,139,072
Non-Partisan votes 189,438
Total potential votes 1,328,510
Actual votes cast in Dem Primary 1,197,785
Percentage who voted for prez 90.16%
My guess is that the Double Bubble effect (how fun is that to say) is somewhere in the neighborhood of the difference between SF’s 93.75% and LA’s 90.16%, which would lead to 47,693 DTS votes being disqualified by the Double Bubble. Repeating all the calculations above for 47,693 votes instead of 130,725 leads me to my final estimate: Barack Obama would probably gain 0.5% on Hillary Clinton in California if all double bubble ballots are counted. The shift in LA County would probably be 1.8%.
In table form, here is what I think counting the double bubble ballots would do to the California results:
Current
Probable
Hillary
52.0%
51.7%
Barack
42.3%
42.6%
And to the LA County results:
Current
Probable
Hillary
55.0%
54.2%
Barack
41.4%
42.4%
That’s my ballpark guestimate. Fire away in the comments if you think I’m wildly off base. Someone with more time and knowledge than I have might be able to extrapolate possible implications on delegate count, but my bottom line is this: it looks like the Double Bubble isn’t a massive scandal. But our election results should be sacred, and these sorts of election flaws need to be taken seriously and corrected.
This is a call to all those who support the progressive platform that John Edwards pushed throughout the primary season. Even if you currently support another candidate actively, this is a call to you. And even if you are just unable to support anyone but John, this is a call to you. And even if you never actively supported John Edwards but you admired the stands he took on issues, there is something you can do.
Now, I’ve spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and more importantly through me to America, that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.
And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as President of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their Presidency. This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.
We need to help John hold them accountable and the way we can do that is use our voice, just as John has shown us, that we can speak out. Whatever issue was important to you, take that issue and contact the other two remaining candidates and demand they not only address it but that they promise to keep their pledge to John.
I’m sure this is something that goes without saying, but be kind and respectful when talking about these issues with the people you call. We are all Democrats (well many of us here) and this is not about the partisan infighting, this is about holding our party and our candidates accountable for what we believe the Democratic Party should stand for.
There will be no talking points and no script, just speak from your heart and let them know that these issues matter to you as a Democrat and as an American and that we demand that our candadites speak to all these issues.
It is a revolutionary world we live in. Governments repress their people; and millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich; and wealth is lavished on armaments.
For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked for us.
The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American society.
Robert F. Kennedy went on a poverty tour in 1968, forty years ago this month. “Kennedy’s purpose in touring eastern Kentucky was to examine the outcomes of the first wave of “war on poverty” legislation with the people it most affected.” But what people remembered most about this tour was the fact that Robert spent so much time with individuals talking about their issues and struggles. Robert make this part of his run for President and his reason for running also reminds me of John, “I do not run for the Presidency merely to oppose any man, but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have such strong feelings about what must be done, and I feel that I’m obliged to do all I can.”
Kennedy stood on a ticket of racial and economic justice, non-aggression in foreign policy, decentralization of power and social improvement. A crucial element to his campaign was an engagement with the young, whom he identified as being the future of a reinvigorated American society based on partnership and equality.
Kennedy’s policy objectives did not sit well with the business world, in which he was viewed as something of a fiscal liability, opposed to the tax increases necessary to fund such programs of social improvement. When verbally attacked at a speech he gave during his tour of the universities he was asked, “And who’s going to pay for all this, senator?”, to which Kennedy replied with typical candor, “You are.” It was this intense and frank mode of dialogue with which Kennedy was to continue to engage those whom he viewed as not being traditional allies of Democrat ideals or initiatives.
…
Kennedy made urban poverty a chief concern of his campaign, which in part led to enormous crowds that would attend his events in poor urban areas or rural parts of Appalachia.
A hatip to LaEscapee for the following piece, it draws parallels between John Edwards and Robert F. Kennedy by using their won words. It is also the reason I included John’s speech at the DNC meeting in February ’07.
Suspended not Ended: John Edwards 08
And this is a plea to all those who never supported Edwards, I ask that you too read these or listen to the clip of John’s speech and try to understand why so many of us feel that John’s voice must be kept in the debate even if he is not officially a candidate. This is not a call for votes nor a plea for anyone to change their minds. This is merely another means to inspire you to remember why you call yourself a Demcorat and that we are all in this together, that we all have to speak out for these issues even if we do not agree on how they should be solved.
The following are clips from John Edwards speech during the DNC Winter Meeting and it’s amazing, just amazing. I want you to look at these if you haven’t or even if you have so that you can see how Edwards stayed on message for an entire year and that he spoke to these issues with such passion and clarity.
We have to remember what brought us to Edwards, that he doesn’t just speak about why he needs to be President, but why we need to be the Party that we used to be. We have to push the party to remember its roots and to remember who we stand for, it’s so important and that is why these issues go beyond John Edwards, but througout the heart of this party and the Country. The only thing the last eight years have proven to us is that Republicans could give a rats ass about the everyday American. They are the party of the Corporate hand outs and the endless wars.
Highlights: John Edwards at the DNC Winter Meeting
And, the full text of this speech. Why do I think this is important? Because it was clear from the beginning that Edwards was talking about change for the Democratic Party and for our Country! I also think this speech clearly shows where John was the first candidate of “change”. He used the phrase “transformational change” in February of 2007 and he used the same phrase up to the very end his campaign was active in this race.
Washington, D.C.
February 2, 2007
Thank you.
We’re all here together – but why are we here?
Why are we here?
We are here because somewhere in America an eight-year old girl goes to sleep hungry, a little girl who ought to be drawing pictures and learning multiplication cries herself to sleep, praying that her father, who has been out of work for two years, will get a job again. It doesn’t have to be that way.
We are here because somewhere in America, a hotel housekeeper walks a picket line with her union brothers and sisters fighting for decent health care benefits during the day and works the late-shift at a diner at night so that she and her family can live a decent life and so her boy can go to college and have choices she never had. And somewhere a young man folds a college acceptance letter and puts it in his drawer because even with his part-time job and his mother’s second job, he knows he cannot afford to go. It doesn’t have to be that way.
We are here because somewhere in America a mother wipes her hand on a dishcloth to go answer a knock on her door … and opens it to find an army chaplain and an officer standing there with solemn faces and her boy’s name – her patriotic son who enlisted after September 11 – on their lips. It doesn’t have to be that way.
We are here because somewhere in the world, a 5-year old boy in a refugee camp is bending under the weight of his 2-year old sister. His family massacred, he carries his remaining sister everywhere, and sleeps with his arms wrapped tightly around her, knowing that tomorrow he will have to do the same thing, and again the next day and the day after that because she is all the family he has now. It doesn’t have to be that way.
We are here because somewhere in America a father comes home from the second shift and feels a raging fever on the brow of his sleeping daughter as he kisses her goodnight. And now, bone-weary and worried, he cradles that child in his arms at the emergency room, because there is nowhere else for him to go. It doesn’t have to be that way.
They are why we are here. Because everywhere in America, people are counting on us to stand up for them.
And so I ask you, will you stand up for that tired father forced into emergency rooms to get health care for his little girl?
Will you stand up for the brave young boy in the refugee camp?
Will you stand up for the working men and women in our labor movement who have to fight for decent working conditions and living wages?
Will you stand up for the young man who knows that education is his way out of the cycle of poverty and yet it seems beyond his grasp?
Will you stand up for that hungry eight-year old girl so she doesn’t give up on her life before it’s even begun?
Will you stand up for all the American families whose loved ones are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Will you stand up?
Will you stand up for America?
Because if we don’t stand up, who will?
If we don’t speak out, who will?
Forty years ago, speaking in protest against the war in Vietnam on the eve of its escalation, the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King said there comes a time when silence is betrayal. Silence is betrayal.
That time has come again. We cannot stand silent.
They have to hear you. Can they hear you?
I believe it is a betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war our nation is engaged in today, in Iraq.
It is a betrayal for this President to send more troops into harm’s way when we know it will not succeed in bringing stability to the region.
And it is not right by our silence to enable this President to escalate the war in Iraq. And we must not delude ourselves: our silence enables this President to escalate the war.
It is a betrayal not to stop the President’s plan when we have the responsibility, the power and the actual tools to prevent it.
Being satisfied with non-binding resolutions we know this President will ignore is a betrayal. And shutting down debate in the Senate on this issue is worse than a betrayal. It’s an outright denial of the people’s will.
And one more thing, while I’m at it.
You described yourself as “the decider.” I have news for you. The American people are the real “deciders,” Mr. President. And they are saying, “You have had your chance.”
Americans are speaking out. And our leaders must do no less.
You must stand up now against George Bush’s escalation of the war in Iraq. George Bush is counting on us not to stand up, not to fight against this escalation with everything we have. George Bush is counting on a Democratic Party that will not press for what we know is right.
Silence is betrayal.
Opposing this escalation with all the vigor and tools we have is a test of our political courage. And you’d better believe that George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are betting that we don’t have that courage.
They don’t think we have it in us. They’re counting on their opponents to be weak, and political, and careful.
This is not the time for political calculation. This is the time for political courage. Stand up.
Being honest and changing course in Iraq is the first step in restoring America’s ability to provide moral leadership throughout the world. And make no mistake: America must lead. We are the pre-eminent, stabilizing power in the world. If we don’t stand up, who will?
This is the time for political courage – not only when it comes to speaking out against Iraq, but also about the challenges we face here at home.
Because, when it comes to 37 million Americans living in poverty, silence is betrayal.
One in every five children – count them, one in every five American children – live in poverty, here on the richest nation on the planet. It doesn’t have to be that way.
The causes of poverty are complex, entrenched, and powerful. And our will to address them and restore the promises of equality and social justice must be just as strong. Are you strong enough? Will you stand up to end poverty in America? It means addressing education, jobs, health care, housing, predatory lending, and personal responsibility. The fight will be long and it will not be easy. Are you ready? Will you use your voice against poverty, or will you stand silent? Stand up. Stand up to eradicate poverty in America.
When it comes to 47 million Americans without health care, silence is betrayal.
The 47 million are silent victims of a health care system gone wrong, where policies are driven by profits not patient care. We have to stop letting the health insurance companies and the big pharmaceutical concerns decide our nation’s health care policy. We have to give the silent victims, who stand in line at free clinics and use the expired medicines of friends and neighbors, we have to give them the dignity of universal health care.
And while we’re at it, we have to stop using words like “access to health care” when we know with certainty those words mean something less than universal care. Who are you willing to leave behind without the care he needs? Which family? Which child?
We need a truly universal solution, and we need it now.
Will you stand up for universal health insurance in America?
And it’s time we stood up for an energy policy that’s not dictated by the profit margins of Big Oil — and an environmental policy that’s not promoted by or regulated by polluters. Today, not tomorrow, or in the next decade or in the next generation. Today, our planet is at risk, and here, again, silence is betrayal.
So, will you speak out? Will you stand up?
These are the great moral imperatives of our time. And by breaking the silence we are not breaking faith with our flag or our forefathers or our brave young men and women in uniform. We are keeping faith with America.
Because we are better than this. We are better than this.
We should be the bright light, the beacon for all the world.
We are not the country of the Superdome in New Orleans after Katrina;
We are not the country of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo;
We are not the country of secret surveillance and government behind closed doors.
We are Americans, and we’re better than that.
And we are Democrats, the party of action – not reaction. We are Democrats, the party of principle – not appeasement. The time for half-measures, empty promises, and sweet rhetoric is gone. Now is the time for courage, decisiveness and moral leadership.
It’s time to stand up for the promise of America again — and for the principle that every American matters, no matter where you come from, or what color your skin is, or how much money you have in your pocket.
Let’s stand up for the working people whose labor made this country great. America was built by men and women who worked with their hands. And organized labor has fought for and made better the lives of every working man and woman, by giving them a voice – labor never stands silent where wrongs need to be righted. Will you stand with them? It is time we acknowledged that it is organized labor, which has protected the American worker against mistreatment by corporate America. I am proud to stand beside organized labor? Will you stand with them, too? Will you walk with them and march with them?
We know one thing for sure: it is time to be patriotic about something other than war. It is time to do what you know is right and to speak out against what you know is wrong.
Not tomorrow. Now. Speak out now, take action now.
We don’t have to wait to see if someone keeps the promises of a 2008 campaign. In fact, the transformational change this country needs cannot wait until January 2009.
Tomorrow begins today. And our obligation to act starts right here, right now.
Because somewhere in America, because everywhere in America, people are counting on us to stand by them and to fight alongside them for what we know in our hearts is right.
So let’s stand up together. We have always been the party of promise who stood with the working man and woman, the party of hope who stood with the needy, the party of compassion who stood with the young and the old and the frail. It is who we are.
In times like these, we don’t need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party.
Thank you, God bless you and God bless this great country.
And for those who doubt that John Edwards has given us a call to arms, all you need to do is read from his speech in New Orleans, just one week ago from today and you can see that he was addressing something more than just his Presidnential Campaign, but to the very heart of this party and the fight to reclaim this Country for the right reasons.
I began my presidential campaign here (New Orleans) to remind the country that we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters. We must do better, if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much.
…
All of you who have been involved in this campaign and this movement for change and this cause, we need you. It is in our hour of need that your country needs you. Don’t turn away, because we have not just a city of New Orleans to rebuild. We have an American house to rebuild.
This work goes on. It goes on right here in Musicians’ Village. There are homes to build here, and in neighborhoods all along the Gulf. The work goes on for the students in crumbling schools just yearning for a chance to get ahead. It goes on for day care workers, for steel workers risking their lives in cities all across this country. And the work goes on for two hundred thousand men and women who wore the uniform of the United States of America, proud veterans, who go to sleep every night under bridges, or in shelters, or on grates, just as the people we saw on the way here today. Their cause is our cause.
Their struggle is our struggle. Their dreams are our dreams.
Do not turn away from these great struggles before us. Do not give up on the causes that we have fought for. Do not walk away from what’s possible, because it’s time for all of us, all of us together, to make the two Americas one.
Thank you. God bless you, and let’s go to work. Thank you all very much.
So, I ask you, what do you chose to do? I will end with this amazing quote from John that was pointed out to me by NCDemAmy. It’s from Four Trials, which I actually read last year and it’s perfect for the occassion.
I have learned two great lessons–that there will always be heartache and
struggle, and that people of strong will can make a difference. One is a
sad lesson; the other is inspiring. I choose to to be inspired.
I’m asking you, because your candidate is out of the race, are you going to chose to be sad and do nothing, or are you going to chose to be inspired? And for those of you who never supported John, are you going to continue to be angry at those who don’t support your candidate now or are you going to chose to be inspired by their passion and their ideals? Are you going to help your candidate woo them by addressing these very real issues rather than bullying and delcaring that a vote for John is a vote that is lost.
Nothing was lost by supporting John Edwards and so much was gained for this party and can still be gained for all of us who want to keep this message alive and well in 2008 and beyond.
You can be disappointed, but you can’t walk away.
John Edwards – November 2nd, Election Night, Front of Kerry supporters gathered in Boston.
The Secretary of State set up a page listing uncounted ballots from last night’s election, including provisionals, vote-by-mail, and “damaged” ballots. It’s incomplete so far, but some things jumped out:
• San Diego County has 160,000 uncounted ballots. That could absolutely affect CA-50 (where there’s a 100-vote split for Clinton right now) and CA-53 (200-vote split) and be a potential swing of two delegates.
• Overall, 356,000 ballots are uncounted, and that doesn’t even include LA County or absentees that were postmarked on time but haven’t arrived. Frank Russo sez there could be up to TWO MILLION ballots out.
• There’s really no way of knowing who these benefit; last-day deciders broke for Clinton in some exit polls, and the 100,000-plus provisionals may never be counted.
CNN’s exit poll is here. It seems to have wildly undersampled African-Americans, who didn’t make up 1% of the vote. But as you can see, Clinton was dominant. She even won young people (likely because of young Latinos). And she took women by 25 points and Latinos by more.
… thought I’d add to this by explaining some things about the Double Bubble Trouble that has led to the potential disenfranchisement of a bunch of DTS voters in LA County.
There are 700,000-some DTS voters, but they didn’t all vote in the primary. LA County registered 46% voter turnout yesterday, and my guess is that DTS voters are less likely to come to the polls. Let’s say 40% of them voted; that’d be 280,000 voters. And it’s completely unclear how many of them neglected to fill out that extra bubble that said “Democratic.”
I can say this: based on the current vote count, the most likely scenario is that it will not result in changing one single solitary delegate. Maybe if a bunch of DTS voters in CA-31 or CA-36 went for Obama it’d shift something, but it’s unlikely.
That’s not a reason not to fight for every vote, however, and there are efforts afoot to do that, and it will be done, and those votes will eventually be counted, and this will be fixed for the future, as long as we keep talking about this and keep identifying the problem.
(Xposted from www.mydesert.com, the online edition of Palm Springs’ The Desert Sun)
Well, well, well. Proud progressive Democrats and their Independent and Republican supporters in Riverside County, and especially in the Coachella Valley, repudiated The Desert Sun endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama in the California primary by giving Sen. Hillary Clinton approximately 67% of the vote. State-wide, Clinton appears to have won 54% of the vote while Obama has won about 39%. Shows how relevant The Desert Sun is to the Riverside County Democratic Party, to the California Democratic Party, and to our supporters amongst the Independents and Decline to States now.
The Democrats of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Indio, Coachella, La Quinta, and other Desert Cities gathered tonight in a Unity Rally at Dale’s Lost Highway to celebrate our common democratic and Democratic principles. Fiscal responsibility, universal healthcare, education, withdrawal from the Iraq morass and occupation, economic recovery, human rights, equal rights, and more.
The Democratic Unity Rally was sponsored by Richard Oberhaus, campaign manager of the Greg Pettis for 80th Assembly District, Greg Rodriguez, activist for the Clinton for President campaign, and Rob Simmons, Palm Springs Airport Commission and activist for the Barack Obama for President campaign. A conservative estimate of the attendance at the soiree would run about 200 given the steady to-and-fro of the enthusiastic crowd.
More below the flip…
The media took special note of the event with coverage by CBS Channel 2, Channel 3, and live coverage of NBC Channel 6 on the 11:00 News. Of interest, The Desert Sun reporters were apparently absent. Must have been a paparazzi sighting of Brittany or Brad and Angelina in the Desert that necessitated its attention.
Electeds in attendance included Ginny Foat, City Councilwoman in Palm Springs, Rick Hutcheson, City Councilman in Palm Springs, Greg Pettis, Mayor Pro-Temp of Cathedral City and Candidate for the 80th Assembly District to replace the termed out Bonnie Garcia (R-CA), and Paul Marchand, City Councilman of Cathedral City. Pettis discussed the progress of his campaign and reveled in the number of community activists in attendance. Foat discussed her admiration and support for Clinton and her pleasure at the tide of events for Clinton during the evening. Marchand focused on the excitement in Cathedral City, especially amongst the Latino community, for the Democratic candidates, especially Clinton. In fact, Rodriguez reported that Latinos appeared to be supporting Clinton over Obama by a 6:1 margin across the country!
In additon to Pettis, other Democratic candidates in attendance included Paul Clay, Candidate for the CA 45th Congressional District, and Dave Hunsicker, Candidate for the 45th Congressional District. Amalia Deaztlan, manager of the Manuel Perez for the CA 80th Assembly District campaign, also attended.
Local Democratic activists who attended the Democratic Unity Rally included George Zander, Chair of the Desert Stonewall Democratic Club (DSD), Bob Silverman, Treasurer of DSD, James Reynolds, Recording Secretary of DSD, and Donald W. Grimm, Ph.D., Jono Hildner, Bob Mahlowitz, and Bill Post, members of the Steering Committee of DSD. Silverman discussed his previous support for Rep. Dennis Kucinich for President and his present support for Clinton due to her consistent support of the LGBT community.
Zander discussed his efforts as poll watcher and some of the disarray at the Mizell Senior Center due to the overwhelming number of Democratic and Independent voters who registered their votes at the precinct(s). Seems that the several counties were ill-prepared for the numbers of voters not only in Santa Clara County but also in Los Angeles and Riverside Counties as well.
Other local party activists attending the Unity Rally included Sandy Eldridge, Co-Chair of the Palm Springs Democratic Club (PSD), Lisa Arbaelaz, co-founder of the PSD, her friend, Armando, Ruth Debra, DSD member, her friends, Tracy Turner, Vets for Peace, Deaztlan, Campaign manager for the Manuel Perez for 80th Assembly District, and many, many more. Eldridge articulated her excitement about and plans for PSD and the November general election. Her theme was re the local Democratic clubs working together in order to defeat John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney and those who support the ongoing, unending trampling of the U.S. Constitution, of the U.S. economy, of the Rights of the middle class and GLBT community, and of International Law. Kudos to Eldridge and the PSD!
Bloggers in attendance included BluePalmSpringsBoyz, Fofitti, GRodriguez, and SeekTruth from www.mydesert.com, BlueBeaumontBoyz from www.Calitics.com, and others. Observer discussed the advantages that Clinton has over Obama regarding electability and her consistent support of the Latino and LGBT communities. SeekTruth and Fofitti discussed their concerns about the protection of our Right to Vote and the potential for voter fraud in the Republican-controlled election machinery in Riverside County. (BluePalmSpringsBoyz, Fofitti, SeekTruth and BlueBeaumontBoyz have endorsed Pettis for the 80th Assembly District.)
Union representatives in attendance included Chuck McDaniel, IBEW Local 440 and co-chair of the Desert Hot Springs Democratic Club, Tony Aidukas, Executive Committee of the SEIU United Healthcare Workers, and Juan Carlos Sanchez, Regional Political Organizer, Political Department of SEIU United Healthcare Workers. McDaniel and Aidukas discussed the difficulty that they had in deciding for whom to vote following former-Senator John Edwards’ withdrawal from the race for the Democratic nomination. Aidukas reported that two days following Edwards’ withdrawal, the SEIU UHW Executive Committee endorsed Obama for President.
At least one Republican attended tonight’s Democratic Unity Rally, Roger Williams. (No, not that Roger Williams.) Williams, heretofore a Mitt Romney supporter, reported that he recently removed Romney’s bumper sticker from his car and tonight obtained a Clinton bumper sticker as a replacement.
Obama activists attending the Unity Rally included Ed Grubman and his wife, Simmons, Debra, and many more. Grubman and Simmons discussed Obama’s appeal to African-American and young voters and enjoyed each report of Obama’s successful run in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, and Utah.
Clinton activists who celebrated her wins in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, and Tennesee, included Grimm, Oberhaus, Rodriguez, Bond Shands, and many, many more. Rodriguez discussed Clinton’s appeal to women, Latinos, and the LGBT community. As in previous caucus and primary states, women and Latinos went largely and overwhelmingly, respectively, to Clinton last night. Rodriguez was particularly gratified by the surprising ease that Clinton had in such states as California, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Tennesee, states that as early as (Tuesday) morning were rated as toss-ups.
The delegate totals now appear to favor Clinton over Obama in both Pledged Delegates from the Democratic primaries and caucuses and the Super Delegates with Clinton now having 825 Delegates (632 Pledged Delegates and 193 Super Delegates) and Obama with 732 Delegates (626 Pledged, 106 Super Delegates). The Democratic National Convention in Denver, CO will have a total of 4,049 convention delegates, and 2,025 needed for the Democratic nomination.
When the results of the California primary were posted on the big screen, a massive cheer arose from the Clinton camp. Of note, those from the Obama and Clinton camp intermingled freely and provided support to each other’s members. Many talked about a possible Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket that might be unbeatable in November. Simmons discussed the possiblity of an Barack Obama-Mark Warner (D-VA), Barack Obama-Tim Kaine (D-VA), Barack Obama-Jim Webb (D-VA), or Barack Obama-Joe Biden (D-DE) ticket. Rodriquez examined the possibility of a Hillary Clinton-Bill Richardson (D-NM) or Hillary Clinton-Ted Strickland (D-OH) ticket.
In any case, Democrats rallied and celebrated tonight the victories of Clinton and Obama. Even more, Democrats and their supporters reveled in the thought that the disastrous Bush Administration is drawing to a well-deserved close, especially with Bush’s Dead-on-Arrival 2008 Budget. How many days can you hold your breath?
Last night, Barack Obama accomplished what no insurgent presidential candidate has ever done: survive Super Tuesday. The Illinois Senator did so by amassing a broad coalition of blacks, liberals and red-state Democrats – paying off dividends across the country except in California. Hillary Clinton’s ten-point win here exceeded expectations, and such baffling returns will keep progressives guessing for days what went wrong in the Golden State. Clinton won in part because she got a large share of support from white women and Latinos – her traditional base – as well as from Asian-Americans. But Obama also got slaughtered in the Central Valley and other conservative parts of the state – defying the national trend, and confining his base to San Francisco and other liberal coastal counties. The state’s electorate was also very conservative when it came to Propositions: voters approved 4 anti-labor Indian gaming compacts, sinked a measure to fund community colleges, and (while it’s good news for progressives that Prop 93 failed) kept the status quo for term limits.
“This is a rout right now,” said Calitics blogger David Dayen last night – when half the state’s returns showed Senator Obama losing by a 15-point margin. “These are Angelides-like numbers for Barack. Maybe you CAN’T run a ground campaign with precinct captains in California. Maybe it’s just too big.” While the gap has narrowed to 51-42% as more progressive precincts were counted overnight, the fact remains: Obama did well below expectations in California.
Obama won San Francisco 52-44, but he barely took progressive Bay Area counties like Alameda and Sonoma – and even lost San Mateo County by an 8-point margin. Looking at the overall statewide numbers, Obama performed about as well as a weak liberal can be expected to do in California – making the harsh analogy to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s hapless 2006 opponent all that more appropriate.
Predictably, the media has explained that Obama lost California due to a gender gap among white women, Clinton’s 2-1 lead among Latinos, and the Asian-American vote. While much of that is true, Obama’s last-minute outreach to the Latino community – including an endorsement from La Opinion in Los Angeles – succeeded in making significant progress.
It’s easy to conclude that Obama “lost” because of the Latino vote in California, but he had the very best people in that community mobilize voter turnout. With Clinton’s superior name-recognition among Latinos – along with well-known leaders Antonio Villaraigosa and Dolores Huerta stumping for the establishment – Obama’s team simply faced a daunting task with very little time. Getting to know such a large community and earning their trust can’t be turned on like a faucet, and they did the best they could.
The real shocker is how badly Obama did in the more conservative parts of California. He got creamed in Fresno, Tulare and Kern Counties – and Clinton’s advantage among Latinos certainly played a factor there. But he did equally poorly in parts of the state that are politically conservative, but are overwhelmingly white. He lost Tehama County by 20 points, Shasta County by nine points and the “Gold Country” counties of Calaveras, Placer, Amador and El Dorado.
Besides strong support among progressive Democrats, Obama has proven in this election to have crossover appeal among Republicans and independents. It explains why he’s done so well in conservative parts of the country, and why he would be more electable than Clinton. I saw this first-hand while campaigning for him in northern Nevada, and it’s why he racked up huge victories last night in Idaho, Kansas, and Northern Dakota.
So why did red-state voters in other parts of the country flock to Obama – while “red-county” voters in California go with Clinton? I’m stumped – and the only theory I could give is that the Obama camp never prioritized those parts of California. With the state’s bizarre delegate-count scheme that makes a big winning margin here practically meaningless, it was probably a wise move on their part.
It should also be considered that the California electorate this time around was actually quite conservative – despite a huge voter turnout that gave Democratic leaders bragging rights. Besides Democratic voters picking the establishment presidential candidate, the “right-wing” position in every state Proposition prevailed.
Propositions 94-97 – the four Indian gambling initiatives – all passed by healthy margins, despite organized labor’s push to defeat them. I couldn’t believe how much direct mail I got from the “Yes” side – they clearly had money to burn – and it worked like a charm on an electorate more focused on the presidential race.
Proposition 92 – the community college system’s attempt to remedy Governor Schwarzenegger’s holy crusade against them – went down to defeat. While the measure had its share of progressive critics, a “yes” vote was widely perceived as being pro-education.
I was glad to see Proposition 93 – the flawed term limits measure – go down to a narrow defeat, and my boss Randy Shaw had urged progressives to reject it. But BeyondChron was a lonely voice on the Left opposing it: the state Democratic Party made its passage a priority, and the only organized opposition came from Republicans who oppose any term limits reform whatsoever.
While Clinton’s victory in California baffled progressives who had hoped to see Obama’s surge make it to the Golden State, bear in mind that we simply had a very conservative electorate last night. It took us by surprise because California is such a blue state – and a high voter turnout usually bodes well for progressives. But often the state surprises us, leaving nothing for granted when the voters go to the polls.
EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered at the Barack Obama campaign office in San Francisco.
Obama actually had an excellent overnight. He kept contact in several districts, won enough in CA-09 for a 4-2 split, and I don’t think CA-50 and CA-53 are worth calling yet until we see where the final votes are coming from; he’s basically in the same position he was in CA-01. My approximations on delegates show that Clinton will win between 31 and 37 more delegates out of California. At one point last night it looked like 50-60.
(Those are slightly different than Caligirl’s numbers, based on late-breaking numbers for Obama.)
My initial analysis wasn’t all that off except for one key area: Clinton was able to get 3-1 splits in 8 key districts, almost all of them heavily Latino: CA-18, CA-21, CA-31 (hey, great job, Obama surrogate Xavier Becerra!), CA-32, CA-34, CA-38, CA-39 (awesome, Obama surrogate Linda Sanchez!), and CA-43. If Obama got enough votes in those districts to keep it close, and I mean a scant 35%, he would have basically been even or down by 5-7 delegates.
Those are districts that are dominated by Spanish-language media, that are in Los Angeles and Riverside and San Bernardino and Orange counties. They would be uniquely difficult to organize at the precinct level, and Clinton won based on paid media and name ID and connection to the Clinton policies of the past. Clinton’s huge Asian vote probably helped as well, at least in CA-39. I also overestimated the value of endorsers like Becerra and Linda Sanchez and Adam Schiff. Congressmen don’t necessarily have a machine to get out votes.
Hillary Clinton was up by a whole lot in this race and she ended up winning by single digits (about 9.5%). Given her early voting lead, depending on how many voted by mail she may have won by as little as 5% on Election Day. But she took the districts where she had a natural advantage strongly.
On the Republican side, John McCain won around 49 districts, Mitt Romney 4. Unbelievable.
UPDATE: Frank Russo notes something very important:
Of the 6.3 million ballots counted for Presidential candidates, 63% or over 4 million were cast in the Democratic primary and only 32% or 2.3 million and counting were cast in the Republican primary. Democrats and decline to state a party voters who participated in the Democratic primary far outperformed normal voting patterns in California. Democrats hold a 10 point margin in voter registration over Republicans in this state and decline to state voters account for 19% of registrations. There is a 31% spread between the Democratic primary vote here and the Republican primary vote.
That’s extremely impressive, and a good harbinger for November. Russo also says there are as many as a million absentee votes that have yet to be counted, so these numbers could still move, which means delegates could shift as well.
…In addition, there are tens of thousands of votes caught up in the double bubble trouble, so the margin of victory could plausibly shrink to 8 or even 7.
