home

Is the Election Really Over?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:38:39 PM EST
Tags: New Hampshire 08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

If Markos of Daily Kos, a very astute observer without a dog in this fight is correct, it's a tsunami.

That means those of us voting in the 47 states other than Iowa, NH and SC won't have an impact in determining who our nominee will be.

What a silly system. I haven't even decided whether I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton or John Edwards on February 5 -- 9 months before the election -- and it's already too late for my vote to matter.

What's even sillier is that the decision as to who gets the Democratic nomination is being made more by Independents than by registered Democrats, since these early states allow Independents to vote in the Democratic primary and they are turning out in droves.

< Playing the JFK and MLK, Jr. Cards | Late Night: Paradise by the Dashboard Lights >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Is the Election Really Over? | 52 comments (52 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    come on!! blog-o-topia turning into (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by seabos84 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:48:22 PM EST
    gas-bag-o-topia!

    I expect the a$$wipes of t.v. news to tell me things are over when 300,000 of 200,000,000 voters have voted, but ... c'mon!

    all that has happened is that, just like 8 Presidential elections ago when I was 20 and every election since, the sold out media has its annointed ones, AND

    the 10 buck questions are:

    what % of hte little people banging on doors,
    and what % of the money bag men,

    are gonna obey what the sold out media are telling them to do?

    IT is over

    IF enough idiots listen to the sold out media telling 'em what to do and do what they're being told to do -

    THAT is the story !

    Here's the lede --

    CHUMPS CHEW CUD.

    rmm.

     

    thank you!@! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:51:00 PM EST
    really,  hilarious, and to the point.

     

    Parent

    by the way (none / 0) (#23)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:42:27 AM EST
    I just saw a big business shot over the bow in the LA Times - if a candidate bashes big business they will use all combined national resources to bring them down. had you already seen this?

    Quite a blantant threat.

    and a wonderful article by Gloria Steinem in the NY Times op-ed section re Sexism.  The taboo word.

    cheers!

    Parent

    That LAT article is good (none / 0) (#29)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:31:44 AM EST
    link

    WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business...

    The chamber [of Commerce] has become a significant force in state and national politics under Donohue's decade of leadership. Once a notably bipartisan trade association with a limited budget and limited influence, it has hugely increased its political fundraising and developed new ways to spend money on behalf of pro-business candidates.

    Under Donohue, the organization has also frequently aligned itself with GOP priorities.

    Since he took over the chamber, contributions by businesses have soared, often to pay for political advertising known as "issue ads," which are exempt from many of the Federal Election Commission limits.

    Under a system Donohue pioneered, corporations contribute money to the chamber, which then finances attack ads targeting individual candidates without revealing the name of the businesses involved in the ads...

    There has been pressure from lawsuits and government activist groups to require the chamber to reveal the source of its political funds and more details on its spending.

    Donohue is not inclined to do so...

    Fun times ahead for the GOP - the CoC is threatening to go after Huckabee too.

    Parent

    It is called democracy (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 07:05:06 AM EST
    Why do you think it bad that business as a group asserts what it sees as its self interest??

    Can you think of any other groups that do such things??

    Parent

    Didnt say it was bad (none / 0) (#37)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:48:11 AM EST
    where did I say it was bad?
    you went and made youself an assumption.


    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#36)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:47:27 AM EST
    I loved it!

    Parent
    ummm ...declaring it publicly is new? (none / 0) (#33)
    by seabos84 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:18:00 AM EST
    they've fought against edwards, as they fought agaisnt Dean, by using the media oligopoly to freeze them outta press coverage, OR

    whatever coverage they got was the DC scum telling all us in the dark peee-ons how edwards / dean couldn't win cuz they aren't 'electable' or they're too 'angry' ...

    even out here in super smart super sophisticaed Seattle people will tell me they like Edwards (Dean) but ... 'he's not electable cuz he's too angry' and I think

    chaulk 1 up for the sold out media!

    rmm.

    Parent

    well, I never saw (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:49:02 AM EST
    the hd of the US chamber of commerce say so quite like that.  woof.

    Parent
    It's a matter of degree though (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:40:34 PM EST
    I vote in Pennsylvania, and our Primary is in late April. There was never any chance that my vote would matter.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#2)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:48:21 PM EST
    it is early days.

    Keep working at what you think is right and see how it all plays out.  

    Couldn't agree more. (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:55:25 PM EST


    It ain't over till it's over. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Aaron on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:13:03 PM EST
    Jeralyn perhaps you'll consider voting for Barack Obama, after all you've seen.  :-)

    I have always said (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:23:12 PM EST
    I'd vote for Obama if he's the Democratic nominee. I'm referring here only to the vote for choice of the nominee. I don't make my decisions by jumping on bandwagons or listening to campaign promises. I make them based on who I think is best qualified and most equipped for the Presidency -- as evidenced by their record.

    Parent
    And if the national race is now tied (none / 0) (#5)
    by Aaron on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:15:34 PM EST
    How does that equal your vote not counting?

    because if Markos is correct (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:25:13 PM EST
    there's already a tsunami and NH and SC votes aren't even in yet. If they go, as predicted, overwhelmingly for Obama, it may make the 20 or 21 states voting on Feb. 5 irrelevant.

    Parent
    Not if Hillary supporters really believe in her (none / 0) (#19)
    by Aaron on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:23:52 PM EST
    And we are talking about the same Markos who didn't predict and couldn't believe the rise of Obama, even when the polls told them so.

    This is the same Markos who's so concerned with the Democratic Party acquiring power that he sees Obama as a threat right?

    Markos obviously lost touch with what the American people want, because he was way behind the curve on this one, and he was behind the curve because his vision has been clouded by partisan politics.

    He's another one who seems more concerned with the party and political ideology then he is concerned with the American people and what's best for them.

    If you were reading his comments during Iowa, then you noticed he was having a little meltdown of his own, all his dreams of partisan conquest evaporating before his eyes.

    It's too bad he doesn't go on national TV and spout the crap I saw him writing on his blog a few days ago, because it wasn't very pretty, and I don't think the American people would be very impressed with that particular brand of progressive liberalism.

    Markos is playing catch-up, I imagine he'll come around at some point, but he's shown himself to be anything but infallible.

    Parent

    It's over (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:25:12 PM EST
    I told you so. But hey, they'll count the votes tomorrow.

    We should also (none / 0) (#9)
    by SFHawkguy on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:25:55 PM EST
    get rid of the anti-democratic super delegate votes that give establishment candidates like Hillary an unfair advantage.

    Hillary has a huge lead with these establishment super delegates.

    I'm leaning towards thinking (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:45:12 PM EST
    we should have a national primary where everyone votes for the nominee on the same day and only registered party members, be it Dems, Republicans and third party, can vote for that party's nominee.

    No delegates, just a popular vote total.

    Or maybe it should be like a reality show, they are all on the first ballot and every week for four or five weeks we all go to the polls and vote one out until only one from each party is left. (/sarcasm)


    Parent

    A national primary (4.00 / 1) (#16)
    by illissius on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:10:40 PM EST
    would tremendously favor the establishment candidate. If the problem with the current bandwagon effect is that by Feb 5+, no one's votes matter because everyone else is voting for the winner, with a national primary, it would be the same thing. Obama and Edwards would have had no chance at all against Hillary in a national primary. Just futile.

    On the other hand, Iowa deciding it sucks too. I have no idea how to reconcile to the two -- giving everyone a vote that matters, and every candidate a chance to win. Rotating which states go first is the least terrible solution I can think of, but it ain't much. Maybe the reality show thing....

    Parent

    I had the same idea. (none / 0) (#13)
    by JayR70 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:53:45 PM EST
    A few states shouldn't have such undue influence.

    Though it might advantage the well-heeled as they have to campaign all over the country upfront we're already there anyway.

    On the other hand I guess that could mean the small states would lose most of their influence and that wouldn't be fair either.

    Parent

    a-frigging-men (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:43:42 AM EST
    I am still supporting Obama however, I find it ridiculous and very undemocratic that the losers in Iowa are forced to give concession speeches which the media will take a tiny snippet of it (usually something less than flattering) and the winner gets to look and sound victorious in their speech that gets played and replayed a gazillion times.  

    It is not that people are agreeing with Iowans, they watch the news and see three sullen candidates and one confident smiling candidate and it pushes the momentum unfairly so toward the winners.

    I would argue based on what i saw on Fox last night and the complete joy Hannity and Dick Morris were having with Hillary's loss and her "breakdown" which Dick Morris has seen on "many occasions".  The voters who had changed to Obama recently gave the most ridiculous answers as to why they are supporting him. Or at least they were ridiculous to me as not ONE person mentioned ANY of the issues....

    It is not the outcome so much that changes things but the press coverage that outrages me...

    Parent

    This time around (none / 0) (#14)
    by RalphB on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:00:35 PM EST
    around it's been more like a season of American Idol than a primary election.

    Really disgusting.

    American Idol is far more entertaining (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:30:07 AM EST
    and at least you have different people to watch, if I hear about Edwards' father one more friggin time my head is going to explode.  Same messages in every debate because people are not watching them.  they tune in and catch one and make their decision on how the candidates performed that night?

    (edwards is my second).  I would like to see a debate, not a platform for dispensing soundbytes.  

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#15)
    by jarober on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:06:14 PM EST
    Since 1976, the "machine" candidate for the Democratic side has always gotten the nomination.  I really don't think the process is over yet.  With how many states vote on super Tuesday, things could still end up (for both parties) with a confused muddle.

    Since when? (none / 0) (#17)
    by tanishacampbell on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:12:48 PM EST
    Jeralyn: feel better knowing your vote wouldn't have made a difference even if your state went before Iowa and New Hampshire.

    Think about it.

    I live in New York city.  Let's say for a moment that NY held it's primary on Jan 1 (ahead of IA and NH).  My hope was to vote for Hillary Clinton.

    But from all the looks of it, Barack Obama will take my state's nominees--and by a healthy margin too.

    So what earthly difference would my one vote make?  None.

    I know you arent speaking to me - (none / 0) (#18)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:23:17 PM EST
    ut I say vote anyway. Show you care about your right to do so. It is of itself a wonderful thing to do. And ya never know what can happen.

    If you have already decided to fail, you will.
     

    Parent

    Michigan (none / 0) (#20)
    by andreww on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:27:52 PM EST
    If Obama win NH I would say it's over too - but I think something funky is going to happen with Michigan's 156 delegates.  Supposedly they are stripped, but I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton tries to use this as a springboard into February 5th.  Somehow, I don't know how, Michigan is going to play a roll in all of this.

    Obama withdrew from the Michigan ballot (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:46:22 AM EST
    but if they don't seat the delegates in Denver, will  their votes count?

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#30)
    by Maggie Mae on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:25:03 AM EST
    Jeralyn, read this Will all votes count in Michigan's Primary

    What's more interesting is that the only candidate left who will be on the ticket is Hillary.  Obama and Edwards withdrew their names, after the DNC penalized Michigan for moving up it's primary date.

    Florida was also penalized.  I'm not sure who is on the ballot there.

    Parent

    OOPS! (none / 0) (#31)
    by Maggie Mae on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:26:57 AM EST
    I take that back.  Kucinich and Gravel are also still on the ballot.  

    Parent
    Markos is right... (none / 0) (#21)
    by JHFarr on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:47:34 PM EST
    ... but not for reasons of national politics. Hate it, argue with it, blog about it, but something bigger is going on. Obama will ride the lift. For the first time in many years and for no good reason, I suddenly feel like everything is going to be just fine. Extremely chaotic, but all right in the end.

    What an amazing time we live in.

    Obama Support in a Nutshell (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 10:18:24 AM EST
    For the first time in many years and for no good reason, I suddenly feel like everything is going to be just fine. Extremely chaotic, but all right in the end.

    That's pretty representative of what you get when you ask people why they are supporting this guy.  It's all about how he makes them feel.

    Another popular line of reasoning: "You just have to listen to him speak."

    Blech.  What an amazing time we live in, indeed.  

    Parent

    hey (none / 0) (#45)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:42:34 AM EST
    that has been the case as long as there has been politics - it is nothing new for people to want the feel-good candidate.

    Parent
    That is true (none / 0) (#46)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:24:34 PM EST
    Still it's bizarre.

    Parent
    Obama supporters do NOT think it will be (none / 0) (#22)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:26:36 AM EST
    over tomorrow.

    I'm hoping (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:49:11 AM EST
    some blogger will do the numbers, with links so I can verify the info, and write about it.  Statistics and math were never my strong suits.

    Parent
    There's no math that can help. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:27:52 AM EST
    Because we're in new territory.  To wit:

    1.  What happens with Nevada?  Presumably, Wednesday a.m. Obama gets the Culinary and NV SEIU endorsements if he wins NH.  So, he'd have to be favored there, I guess, but I don't know.

    2. Will Clinton even contest South Carolina?  Right now, it's looking like it could be a 20-30 point blowout there.  Does she pull up stakes and fugheddaboutit?

    3.  What about the beauty contests in Michigan and Florida?

    4.  How loyal will voters in NY, NJ, and CT be to Clinton?  

    5.  What kind of money problems will she have?  Presumably, Obama is going to have all the money he could hope to spend, plus field offices in 17 of 22 February 5 states.  How will Clinton counter?

    6.  Will Clinton adopt a "win at all costs" mentality?  Mark Penn, Wolfson, and Carville are probably urging her to go nuclear.  Would it be worth it?


    Parent
    Actuallly you could (none / 0) (#26)
    by katiekat489 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:10:57 AM EST
    go to openleft.com and take the time to read the post about how Obama's vote came from the Dem's and the liberal and progressive ones at that.it is posted by chris bowers and there are other polls that state the same thing.Of course that would not fit in the maligning of him here- just thought it would be a little fyi if you would be at all interested in being slightly informed about what you continue to write about.

    Open Left's post (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 08:42:23 AM EST
    is absurd.

    Obama was virtually tied among Dems with Hillary 32-31.

    If THAT had been the result, there would have been no Iowa bounce.

    Parent

    virtually tied? (none / 0) (#41)
    by commissar on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:20:04 AM EST
    Nixon was virtually tied with Kennedy in 1960.

    You can argue for a "smaller" bounce, but "no bounce" is not really sensible.

    Obama won among Dems in Iowa. If he wins AMONG Dems in NH & SC & NV, will you and Jeralyn accept that as evidence that he is winning among Dems?

    Parent

    No bounce (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:45:25 PM EST
    A three way tie  in Iowea would have produced NO bounce.

    I do not know if Obama won among Dems in Iowa and your saying he did does not make it so.

    Or do you believe an Entrance poll is perfect?

    As for NH, IF he wins convincingly amng Dems in NH AND S. Ca and Nevada, his argument becomes much stronger.

    Why don't we wait to see if he does?

    But what happened in Iowa skewed all results after.

    As I predicted it would.

    Iowa ALWAYS was everything in this race.

    Parent

    I don't care who (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:29:30 AM EST
    undeclared voters in Iowa voted for in the Democratic primary, or whether they are progressives. I care about the Democratic nomination being decided by members of that party and that the voters in the states after Iowa, NH and SC have the same opportunity to have their votes matter as those in the early states.

    Parent
    Changing Party Affiliations (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by commissar on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:26:18 AM EST
    I've been a registerd Republican for 30 years, and changed my party affiliation so I can vote for Obama  in the NY primary.

    I assume that you welcome me with open arms, and will accept my vote in that contest as 'authentic Dem.'

    All the voters who participated in the Iowa Dem caucus did the same thing. They changed their party registration. I sent a postcard; they did so on-site.  So, why are you antipathetic to their votes?  They count; they are members of YOUR party.

    Do you generally favor more restrictive and cumbersome processes for the people to participate in the entire electoral process?

    Parent

    In New Hampshire they can change back (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:20:39 PM EST
    on their way out of the voting place. Don't assume they all will vote Democratic in the election or they will stay Democrats. See Par. 2 under Presidential Primary.

    Undeclared voters may declare a party and vote at any primary. The law allows an undeclared voter to declare a party at the polls, vote the ballot of that party, and then change their party affiliation back to undeclared simply by completing the form available from the Supervisors of the Checklist at the polling place.


    Parent
    You changed already? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:46:02 PM EST
    Good, no same day changes is the point I think.

    Parent
    You talking to me? (none / 0) (#51)
    by commissar on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 02:59:42 PM EST
    BTD,

    I sent the form in a few weeks ago.

    There are no words to describe the level of my appreciation for Jeralyn's response.

    Parent

    Everyone will hang in until February 5 (none / 0) (#39)
    by bordenl on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:09:07 AM EST
    Jeralyn will be able to vote for whoever she wants to.

    After reading this post I realized that it may make more sense for me to vote in the Republican primary.

    I am for open primaries (none / 0) (#40)
    by bordenl on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 09:11:32 AM EST
    Open primaries allow ordinary voters to exercise a choice among all the candidates instead of being resigned to two choices picked by party members. If we had more than two parties I might be more amenable to closed primaries.

    Underestimating (none / 0) (#47)
    by hgardner on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 12:39:22 PM EST
    I think you are underestimating the depth of Hillary's machine and money.  The votes on Feb. 5 will put her over the top.  As much as I like Obama, I think the country is flirting with him, the way a fiance flirts before taking a lifetime vow.  Without Hillary and Rihcardson, the media and the voters would be all over Obama's inexperience and youth.  As it is, we can flirt and dally before settling down with a serious leader. For all the talk about independents, remember they are -- by definition -- not organized.  Hillary has an awesome organization that can produce crowds, money, and delegates when she needs them.  

    It's not over (none / 0) (#52)
    by cwolff on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 03:00:45 PM EST
    Believe me.  HRC supporters will continue to vote for her all the way through Feb 5th and onward.  Even if she is not the nominee, we are voting for Hillary.  We will not let other people make up our minds, even if we have to support another candidate as our nominee.  Our votes matter and she could win it all on Feb 5th.  There is no way we will let the talking heads on tv tell us it's over when barely any of the delegates have been won.  The only way a person's vote doesn't matter is if they don't cast it.  If you're there for HRC, go give her ten bucks on her website, let her know you matter and we're in this until the end

    Is the Election Really Over? | 52 comments (52 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment