Survey of 577 Likely Democratic Primary Voters
February 14, 2008

Texas Democratic Primary
Hillary Clinton
54%
Barack Obama
38%
Not Sure
9%

This is the guy who was adamantly against caucuses until his website became adamantly for them. He was adamantly for full enfranchisement until his website was for disenfranchising Florida.

Presumably, Kos just doesn't mean that the state who have already voted are the only ones that matter.  Shouldn't he be encouraging this thing to continue so that other voters get a say as well?  Or is he simply afraid that those other voters might disagree with him and so let's wrap this thing up right now while Obama is ahead.

If people want to spend the summer listening to Tweety yak about whether FL & MI will be at the convention:  How Hillary only wants them 'cause she won & BO will only let them be there if they don't matter.

If people don't care about where all that chatter leads during the convention itself ("look down on the floor:  This is historic: Only 48 states"....)

It' seems obvious to me that it ALMOST isn't about what the candidates want OR what the voters of those states want -- that it's about controlling the CHATTER.

(cough)

But no, in the end, it doesn't matter. Delegates - and pledged delegates at that - are the most legitimate way to measure this race.

Can't we, instead, focus on the issues, and hope and pray, that for the sake of the Dem party, that for the sake of the entire country and those who cherish their civil liberties, that one of the two main candidates finishes ahead in both the popular vote and the delegate vote?

The trashing I've seen of Obama here, and of Hillary elsewhere, should put all good Dems to shame.  My wife and I (who support different Dem candidates) are really disgusted by what we read here about Obama, and what we read elsewhere about Hillary.

Candidates were instructed not to campaign in these states.

I think Clinton was the only big name to appear on the Michigan ballot.

These were merely straw polls not contested elections even if you try to argue that Obama "campaigned" in Florida by having ads run on national cable channels.

It is unfortunate that the voters of these two states are being left out of the process, but it is specious to contend that the results of those two straw polls reflect any kind of contested election.

If we count Florida and Michigan, let's also count the Iowa straw poll from last summer and the poll taken on CNN.com plus my son's 5th grade class Presidential preference vote.

These voters have been disenfranchised by their own state leaders and by Dean's, in my opinion, over-reaction.  By trying to get more attention for their states, they ended up with zero and, ironically, would have had more influence had they kept their original position.

What was done cannot be undone.  We don't know what the results of those two races would have been if all candidates had committed resources to the states.  Edwards could have done quite well in Michigan.  

Those elections would have changed how other elections went since limited resources would have been reallocated to those states.  It is quite possible that Clinton could be steamrolling to the nomination or at least have the numeric advantage in delegates that Obama currently enjoys.

We move forward without the input of Florida or Michigan in the process.  That sucks, but the same would have applied if Maryland or Virginia had tried to jump ahead.

Florida and Michigan should go to Hillary since she won the majority of votes there, even with Obama breaking the rules and running TV ads there.

Obama is not complaining about South Carolina breaking the rules because he won SC and the DNC has not penalized SC for breaking the same rule FL and MI broke.

While everybody and his idiot brother has been trashing Mark Penn, Penn's recent statement that Obama hasn't won the "significant" states outside of his home state is pretty fair.

Go to the Wikipedia entry listing state populations.

Of the top 8 states, Obama has won only his home state. Hillary has a very good prospect, if polls are to be believed, of winning the other 7, and mostly by very substantial margins (Of course, both MI and FL are included in this calculation -- being a believer in genuine democracy and in not disenfranchising millions of voters, I think it's fair to do so. People who have a pronounced distaste for actual democracy will no doubt beg to differ.) Taken together, those 8 states comprise 47.3% of the entire population of the US. What would it say about Obama if he can't win any of those states outside of his home state?

Moreover, if you add to the mix the 9 smaller states that Clinton has already won, and subtract out Illinois, then Clinton will have won states that, taken together, comprise 56% of the population. In terms of electoral votes represented by those states, this would give Clinton 280 to Obama's 258. If one adds possible victories in RI and West Va (which, to me, seem pretty tilted Clinton's way in demographics), the total would be about 57% of the population and, in terms of electoral votes, Clinton 289 to Obama's 249.

Now my calculations importantly assume that Clinton wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. Certainly she's been ahead in those states in the polls -- whether that holds up no one knows.