Hillary and Obama Campaign in Puerto Rico

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:19:01 PM EST
Tags: Puerto Rico '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

(larger and clearer version here.)

Update: On Hillary's speech in Aguadilla Sat. night:

Clinton spoke at an evening rally in Aguadilla, where she reminded the crowd of her ties to Puerto Rico as a first lady and then as senator from New York, which has approximately 1 million Puerto Rican residents. "My commitment to Puerto Rico did not start last month or last year," she said. "I will always be your voice as president." Through her speech, Clinton drew applause by insisting Puerto Ricans should get the same tax breaks, health care and economic opportunity afforded mainland U.S. citizens. "You deserve a president who will give Puerto Rico's issues as much attention as the president gives to any state," she said.

****

The Democratic candidates today are in Puerto Rico. Hillary will be in Aguadilla tonight, on the northwest tip of the island.

There are 3.9 million people in Puerto Rico and 2.5 million registered voters. The major parties are the Popular Democratic Party (PDP) and the New Progressive Party (NPP). In 2004, 2 million people voted. [More...]

Stats from 2004 elections:
Registered Voters : 2,440,131
Voter Turnout: 1,994,269 81.7%

Here's how they voted.

Here is the delegate selection plan (pdf.) There are 55 pledged delegates and 8 unpledged:

District-Level Delegates 36
At-Large 12
Party Ldrs/Elec'd Officials 7
Unpledged Delegates 8
Total: 63

(Unpledged delegates include the add-on unpledged delegate(s), the state's Democratic National Committee members, and Democratic Members of Congress, the Democratic Governor, and certain former Party leaders, if any, who automatically serve as delegates.)

I'll leave the island political analysis to our resident expert Big Tent Democrat. While I spent every law school vacation there (my parents lived in the Mayaguez section then) and many high school and college vacations with friends in San Juan, I didn't get into the politics.

Puerto Ricans don't get to vote in November, but their votes count in the primary. A big win for Hillary could boost her popular vote even higher.

If on June 3, we find Obama ahead in delegate totals and Hillary ahead in the popular vote, counting MI, FL and caucus states, the remaining issue in my mind is electabilty in November. That goes to the swing states, particularly PA, OH and FL. Hillary outshines Obama there.

< Obama Labels Hugo Chavez A Dangerous Demagogue | Media Darling >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Hillary and Obama Campaign in Puerto Rico | 90 comments (90 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

My head hurts (5.00 / 6) (#1)
by coolit on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:23:10 PM EST

I keep going back and forth from possible

to not possible

to possible

and back to not possible.

I'm one of those who just wants it to end. But not quite as much as I want her to win the nomination. Keep up the good fight everyone.

Thanks Jeralyn and BTD

With Hillary, all things are possible...just look (5.00 / 7) (#9)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:48:12 PM EST

at all her years of achievement, and no matter how much she gets beat down, she gets right back up and delivers a powerful blow to obama....DO NOT
GIVE UP....

GO HILLARY...


: No open thread - FULL context of Hillary remarks (none / 0) (#107)
by andrys on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:27:56 PM EST

Yes, she can do anything IF she gets the chance to do it.
Huffpost is filled (by Arianna) with headlines from NYT and other papers excoriating Clinton for what she said, which CAN have an impact on current polling and, most of all, remaining Uncommitted Superdelegates. There are also egregiously bad featured columns there that enjoy distorting Clinton's words. We can ignore this and let those be the defining tale of the RFK remarks. Or more people can use the Full RFK remarks at a Truthdig link as a balance WHEN media manipulators are filling cyber-media with these willful misreadings.
Some had asked WHY didn't she mention the other years when the Democrats went all the way to the Convention. Turns out she did, but that was left out of the videos being circulated.
So, again, please see that this one is offered in the threads that already exist and which are bent on misrepresenting what she said. This is being done at all major media outlets, so they should be countered. Silence won't do it. The victors write 'history'...

I am dying to see BTD's take (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by ghost2 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:15:42 PM EST

on Puerto Rico.

Get to it, Big Tent!!!


Remember: If this was over, Obama wouldn't be (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Exeter on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:00:38 PM EST

in Puerto Rico.


Actually, he probably would. (none / 0) (#56)
by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:03:19 PM EST

He likes to kick back and relax and I hear the beaches there are phenomenal. ;)


I get no comfort from that (none / 0) (#57)
by ajain on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:04:02 PM EST

If he competes and wins I would be pissed off.


Yes, she needs a big margin there to (none / 0) (#108)
by andrys on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:36:22 PM EST

...to claim popular vote victory in most types of tallies.

And Obama knows that, and he is there. To be frank, he looks Puerto Rican, which may be a "He's one of us!" moment for residents. And I see videos of him relaxed and getting good reactions from the crowds already.

It's clear he knows it's important to the SDs what happens here and he's just doing what he should do. Because it isn't "over" until that total delegate-number-requirement is met. So let's hope HRC will do what she needs to do there.

I was amazed to see Anderson Cooper once again not up with facts on the primaries. He 'corrected' Clinton's statement yesterday re Bill wrapping the vote up in 1992 in June, saying that he had actually well wrapped it up in April.

NO, Anderson. It's not "wrapped" up until the TOTAL-Delegate-Number is reached. His own hopes seem to interfere with facts. He was also hoping last week that if Obama was able to get 2025 before May 31 that then the committee wouldn't meet on May 31 because the nomination would have been 'won.' John King corrected him on that.


sotonightthatimightsee (none / 0) (#118)
by sotonightthatimightsee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:43:43 AM EST

"To be frank, he looks Puerto Rican, which may be a "He's one of us!"

With all due respect- I must disagree with you wholeheartedly!! The fact that Obama may look like "some" Latinos has done NOTHING for him! Puerto Ricans, like most Latinos, have very fond memories of the Clinton years and are very grateful to Bill for everything he did for Latinos all around the Americas!!

Take it from this Puerto Rican living in Pennsylvania..Hillary will win Puerto Rico and she will win it big. How big? I don't really know..but anything above 20% is big. A Kentucky margin would be nice because it will put her over the top in the popular vote. This is why the Obama Media and all his moronic supporters want her to drop out. for her to win the popular vote would not only give her the argument she needs to make to the super delegates, but it would be an embarrassment to him and his supporters and THEY KNOW IT!

The democratic party may still go with Obama in order to appease the AA community- even if they risk losing in November. But I believe Hillary may consider running as an independent based on her "popular vote" victory. God, wouldn't that be nice if she did?!?!


: In what sense? (none / 0) (#119)
by Y Knot on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:36:13 AM EST

"God, wouldn't that be nice if she did?!?! "
In what sense would it be "nice?" Nice in the sense that it would tear apart the democratic party and install John McCain into the White House for at least the next four years?
"Nice" in the sense that we could count a few thousand more dead soldiers, tens of thousands of wounded and god knows how many dead Iraqis?
"Nice" in the sense of global warming accelerating past the point where it's too lat to do anything by the time the next election comes around?
"Nice" in the sense of a deepening recession, more assaults on our civil liberties, no improvements in health coverage, women losing freedom of choice, gays losing their (still nascent) freedom to make lasting commitments to each other, ever increasing gas prices with no plan to research alternative fuels and an ever more unstable and insecure world hurtling towards more and bigger wars?
No. In short order one of these two candidates will drop out of the race and would be able to make the case (as will many of their followers) that they 'should' have won. If either of them decided to make an independent run, it would ensure the destruction of both. In no way, shape, or form, would I consider that "nice."

: Your encouraging words about Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#123)
by andrys on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:50:24 AM EST

Thanks for that info!
(And, Hillary is a Dem through and through...)

Obama just said in Puerto Rico (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by ajain on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:33:09 PM EST

That if he won Puerto Rico he would announce that he has won the nomination.

Which makes sense. If he wins in Puerto Rico there is no way Clinton could overtake him in either pop. vote/delegates. But the fact that he would announce that with such an air of confidence seems odd to me. Maybe we are over-estimating Hillary's support in Puerto Rico.

"such an air" (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by LHinSeattle on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:40:55 PM EST

of confidence. Heh, he's a con man IMO.

Remember "Indiana is the tie-breaker"? and wasn't he going to announce his self-nomineeism after Oregon (and Kentucky, ooops).

Just all part of the uniting with the divisive candidate language.


and he said he was going to claim victory as (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:51:31 PM EST

the nominee last Tuesday....probably just says these things to get Hillary supporter's undies in a bunch. Frankly, I don't believe he is going to win PR.


Ok (5.00 / 0) (#20)
by lilburro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:11:54 PM EST

unless I'm missing some revelatory PR polling, he isn't going to win. So why would he say that?

Considering he called Indiana their tiebreaker, which he subsequently lost, I'm going to take this statement with a lot of water, because it's just too salty ;P


I've only seen one poll (none / 0) (#22)
by ajain on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:14:31 PM EST

I saw one poll which showed her at an advantage: 50-33.
That was smaller than I thought at the time and now its been over a month since I have seen any other polling. But who knows. Maybe I just have no idea.


: poll in mid-April was 50-37, 13 undecided (5.00 / 0) (#70)
by Josey on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:25:57 PM EST

Gives him (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:39:51 PM EST

an out if he doesn't make it? I mean he's been declaring himself the winner for months now. How is this different?


This is a no brainer (none / 0) (#120)
by Y Knot on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:48:09 AM EST

If he wins Puerto Rico, he'd be within spitting distance of the delegate count (or above it depending on how many more supers he gets before then), and be virtually uncatchable in the popular vote. So, he'd be able to make the claim.

Why say it then, if the polls show him behind? Well... I think that's obvious. He's essentially telling the Puerto Ricans, "If you vote for me, the whole world will know that you MADE me the nominee something no one else in this process will be able to say."

He's giving them the opportunity to be seen as making a difference. Maybe some people there will think that's a reason to vote for him, maybe not. By his calculations, if he wins Puerto Rico he declares there, if he loses, he declares in SD. It's pretty safe promise to make. Either way, he's not saying Puerto Rico is make or break. Just that if he wins it, he's the nominee. Seems like a pretty harmless promise to me.


What's Also Important To Remember (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by The Maven on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:40:04 PM EST

This is an open primary;
Since the PDP and NPP don't really correspond to the Democratic and Republican Parties in the rest of the U.S., it's hard to know what exactly can be gleaned from the 2004 election figures; and
With a high turnout, it's entirely possible that with a big win in PR, Clinton could overtake Obama in the popular vote count even if Michigan's numbers are left out of the equation.

Clearly, the candidates are both well aware of all this, which is why they're spending some serious time there campaigning.

: The turnout in Puerto Rico will not evn come close (5.00 / 2) (#112)
by TomLincoln on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:01:02 AM EST

to the high turnouts we have in general elections here. This is just a guess, but I would put it at about a maximum of 500,000 to 600,000, and that will be viewed as a good turnout for a national party primary. I'll get to vote for Hillary on June 1st, but really find little interest in most people here. Obama may be gaining momentum, so I really have no idea who will win this here. The PDP, which officially supports Obama is divided among its members on whether they should even be voting in national primaries. The PNP leadership is also divided among both candidates. But, the PDP is putting institutional resources behind Obama, which the PNP is not doing for either Obama or Clinton. The number of polling places is less than usual, but it is not like you will have to go real far to find your new designated polling place. In my case, I usually vote at a private Catholic school near home, but this time I have been informed I will be voting at a public school about one block away. I truly hope Hillary can win big here, but I am completely uncertain as to whether she will even win, and if so, by how large a margin.

electability in Nov (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by LHinSeattle on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:54:14 PM EST

If on June 3, we find Obama ahead in delegate totals and Hillary ahead in the popular vote, counting MI, FL and caucus states, the remaining issue in my mind is electabilty in November.

is on my mind regardless! BTW I got a call from the DNC last night. I said "Oh good, I've been wanting to tell you something." and launched into why I was no longer a Dem until (1) they count the people's votes and (2) make the stupid primary/caucus process something that makes sense for winning the GE. I think that poor DNC rep doing the phone banking had heard a lot of mad voters telling her the same thing! And no, I was nice and didn't swear at her.

LOL (5.00 / 5) (#60)
by Jane in CA on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:09:13 PM EST

I got a survey from the DNC. One of the questions was whether I agreed with the 50 state strategy. I crossed out 50 and wrote in 58 over it, then launched into a blistering attack on the DNC's tolerance of misogyny, bigotry,diviseness and its efforts to sideline a strong and viable candidate for the White House.

I told them that these things, along with the incredible general incompetence that allows red state caucuses to be gamed to win the nom and lose the election, and the idea that excluding states like Michigan and Florida is a good thing for the party is why I believe I will no longer be a Democrat once the nominatee is selected.

I added that this third generation, yellow dawg Democrat is going Independent, so they might as well stop asking me for money. Then (I got the idea here, thank you), I scribbled in black marker on the "donations please" back page, "Seat FL and MI NOW!"

It felt a bit juvenile but was strangely cathartic :)


: I hope (5.00 / 1) (#104)
by OldCoastie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:44:48 PM EST

you remembered to throw 2 pennies in the envelope (that's 2 cents of satisfaction you won't find elsewhere!)

: OMG!! (5.00 / 2) (#111)
by sickofhypocrisy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 10:54:57 PM EST

I got the same survey! I almost threw it away without opening it, but once I figured out what it was I couldn't stop grinning.
In the section where you could give the nominee advice, I wrote that there wasn't enough ink in the world to list the reasons why I'm disgusted with the party. I ended up enclosing a two-page letter explaining exactly what I think of the party, the DNC (and Donna Brazile). I also made it perfectly clear that I was swithing to Indy and never looking back.
Cathatic, indeed! It felt like a bag of bricks had been lifted off my chest!

anyone know of any recent polling data?? N/T (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by athyrio on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:54:22 PM EST

Went looking today for some (5.00 / 0) (#77)
by Valhalla on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:40:52 PM EST

but all I could find was that one April poll mentioned above showing 53-37 in Clinton's favor and 13% undecided.


there have been some rumors (none / 0) (#87)
by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:53:36 PM EST

we don't talk about here that might be bad for Obama. You can google around to find them. It was on their equivalent of Oprah. Speaking of TV, I can't imagine twits on the Obama News Network making fun of PR like it doesn't count will help matters. Plus, Chelsea has been campaigning there like crazy, as has WJC.

I know that Catholics tend to overwhelmingly favor Obama, and PR is predominantly Catholic.


Catholics favor Obama? (none / 0) (#90)
by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:56:51 PM EST

You sure that isn't the other way around?


Uhm...yeah, it was a test! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:10:03 PM EST

hahaha--my mistake. I meant Clinton, of course.


: Kathy...you scared me there...thot you had gone (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:27:53 PM EST

off the deep end....whew

Huh... (5.00 / 4) (#16)
by AmyinSC on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:04:21 PM EST

I'm sure Puerto Ricans will be delighted to hear that, is my first response...

My second is, wow - PR - just like FL and MI! :-)

Puerto Ricans there and here . . . (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by nycstray on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:35:57 PM EST

: If they decide obama doesn't care about them (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:42:26 PM EST

it is going to be a huge loss for him....
"There are now close to four million Puerto Ricans living stateside, with reports that this number exceeds the number of Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico for the first time in 2003. Despite the new demographic trends, New York City continues to be the home of the largest Puerto Rican community outside Puerto Rico, but Puerto Ricans live in all 50 US states and territories, including large numbers in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Chicago, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Houston, with the presence of Puerto Ricans in Hawaii, Arizona and California, whose grandparents came as farm laborers in the early 20th century."
OMG...there are PR's in Chicago, MA, FL, PA...they are even in Hawaii and AZ....

I deleted the comment (none / 0) (#105)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:07:41 PM EST

you are replying to.


so, you will give back their taxes (5.00 / 6) (#17)
by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:04:54 PM EST

and release their citizens who fight for our shared freedoms in the military?

Your attitude is despicable. These are human beings, citizens of your own country. That you would turn your back on their rights because it does not suit your narrative shows some very ugly things about your character.

: I deleted the comment (none / 0) (#106)
by Jeralyn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 09:09:41 PM EST

as I just noted above that said P.R. doesn't matter. It was false and by a new poster, Myopinions, who needs to read the rules here or he's gone.

How is that logically different (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by andgarden on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:06:34 PM EST

from me saying that Utah and Idao should never count, because they will never vote for a Democrat in the General election?

: Andgarden, what is your prediction (none / 0) (#113)
by oculus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:03:00 AM EST

re Puerto Rico, or is there no recent polling on which to base a prediction?

Puerto Rico matters (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by barryluda on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:10:35 PM EST

While I continue to support Obama, this thing isn't over until it's over. Counting the votes in FL and MI matters too. A big win in Puerto Rico and winning the popular vote is, I think, necessary but not sufficient.

The real question is what needs to happen to change the momentum among Super Delegates to switch to Clinton.

Something big needs to change. The argument that Clinton is more electable has not changed the dynamic. It apparently is not enough. To change the momentum something needs to change minds so the Super Delegates think that not only is Clinton more electable but Obama is actually NOT electable.

Okay (none / 0) (#35)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:37:59 PM EST

thanks for letting us know ahead of time that Obama will be making the George W. Bush case for his nomination.

Super D's can change anytime.


: Claiming that (5.00 / 2) (#74)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:30:05 PM EST

delegates are more important than the votes of people and disenfranchising voters.

Please don't admit to being an Obama supporter (5.00 / 5) (#25)
by barryluda on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:16:19 PM EST

and then post such stupid comments.

Or are you really supporting McCain?

: How exactly... (none / 0) (#121)
by Y Knot on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:00:05 AM EST

was his comments are "stupid?"
Hillary has been making the argument that she's more electable for some time now, and yet more and more super delegates turn towards Obama every day.
And yes, we know they can switch at any time. Clinton just lost one this weekend in fact, who switched to Obama. Clearly, if Clinton is going to win, something in the dynamic needs to change to swing the momentum the other way.
Maybe you're right, and her repeating the idea that she's more electable is what will sway them... but given that she's been trying it and it's not working... what makes it "stupid" to suggest she might have to try something else?

Hey myopinions... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:41:30 PM EST

keep your opinions to yourself

Sounds like it (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by blogtopus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:59:15 PM EST

I wouldn't waste any good commentary on myopinions... it's likely to be deepsixed sooner or later for some heinous commentary.

This is the guy BTD had (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by zfran on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:08:25 PM EST

a thread about yesterday. He gave the dumbest reason for switching. I just wonder, tho', how much it costs to bring these SD's over. I really don't believe they are for this guy!!!

old news....and the guy was buffoonlike in (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:10:46 PM EST

his reasoning.

Talk Radio last night (KGO) (5.00 / 3) (#65)
by catfish on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:14:17 PM EST

was going pretty well. Lots of callers saying they saw the video for themselves because they don't trust the media, and said she meant nothing by it.

Also many callers saying the racism charge has flown far to freely and it's getting very old.

Well, Utah will never vote for a Democrat (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by goldberry on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:42:23 PM EST

Can we get rid of those useless delegates too? How anout Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska and Kansas?

Too little. (5.00 / 0) (#81)
by pie on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:46:26 PM EST

I believe whoever the candidate is will campaign in these places vigorously-just like I believe in the 50-state strategy.

Too late.

50 State Strategy (5.00 / 2) (#95)
by txpolitico67 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:07:50 PM EST

would include FLORIDA and MICHIGAN.

Please pass that information to Obama. AND let him know that the other 8 states are awaiting identification.

ur so wrong... :), yet you are sooooo right! (none / 0) (#99)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:10:52 PM EST

apparently, PR not one of the 58 (none / 0) (#100)
by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:11:28 PM EST

Guam just squeaked by...by about seven votes.


: How's That Recount Going in Guam.... (none / 0) (#103)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:31:20 PM EST

speaking of Recount, I have to set my DVR

Tell me what the PNP machine is going to do (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:22:55 PM EST

and I can tell you what is going to happen.

Right now it seems split.

The significance of that split (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by andgarden on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:24:18 PM EST

to a potential result is. . .?


Closer than expected (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:39:55 PM EST

: Gotcha (none / 0) (#42)
by andgarden on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:42:12 PM EST

If it gets us to the end on June 1st, I'm ok with that.

How is (none / 0) (#41)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:41:43 PM EST

that?


I just think... (none / 0) (#46)
by ajain on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:46:23 PM EST

We have been overstating and over-expecting from Clinton.

Lets hope that isnt true because it is her last hope.


Well if it is (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:52:10 PM EST

it is. And when she leaves the party so do I. Might be nice to be an independent. Don't know what I'll do with my screen Id though.


: hmmm maybe GA#1Indy (5.00 / 0) (#58)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:06:03 PM EST

Seem to be sitting this one out (none / 0) (#83)
by rafaelh on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:48:52 PM EST

I've heard from Senator McClintock in the news but haven't seen Ramon Luis or Santini doing anything for Hillary. Rossello has no party machine now to help her. Pierluisi and Norma Burgos being on Obama's campaign might mean that the PNP assume Obama will win and they want to be on the winning side.

The PPD, on the other hand, seems to be moving strong for Obama. Acevedo Vila wants something to show he still has support.


: Acedevo Vila (none / 0) (#94)
by befuddled on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:06:04 PM EST

is Obama's SD who was just indicted:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/17046571.html
Seems to me he needs to direct his attention out of politics right now.

BTD, according to news today it was reported that (none / 0) (#114)
by TomLincoln on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:21:16 AM EST

the PNP is not putting any institutional resources behind either Clnton or Obama. Some, such as candidate for Resident Commissioner Pierluisis and Sen. Norma Burgos, favor Obama, but former Governor Rossello (who is not presently in the island) and former Governor Romero-Barcelo, as well as Senate President Kenneth McClintock favor Clinton. But PDP is putting institutional resources behind Obama. Bill Richardso was also here on Obama's behalf today. Heard him speak (on TV) at Paseo La Princesa to a group of people in Spanish, telling them how Obama would be so good for the U.S., the world, and Puerto Rico, and how he would always remember who helped him get the nomination. He sounds a lot more mexican when he speaks in Spanish, a heavier accent, and I'm not sure that went over all that well, but who knows.


so the DNC has no infrastructure in PR (none / 0) (#29)
by lilburro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:27:49 PM EST

or is it just not a major party? I find it hard to believe that the DNC would allocate as many delegates to PR as they do without having any institutional influence there. But I will now go wiki and see.

: It has to do with the population (none / 0) (#115)
by TomLincoln on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:26:14 AM EST

and if PR ever became a State it would have a lot more representatives in Congress than many States. No, the DNC has practically no formal presence on the island. Keep in mind that usually PR is a location that votes when it doesn't matter anymore.

Sorry to be so ignorant, but (none / 0) (#34)
by camellia on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:37:04 PM EST

I wasn't educated in this country, and what I know about the political system is what I have learned from my reading and my experience in a mid-Atlantic state. I did not know that Puerto Ricans do not have a vote in the presidential election -- how come then they can vote in the primary? Does this make sense to anyone? Or am I misunderstanding this totally?

Because they have to live with our choice? (none / 0) (#80)
by goldberry on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:44:36 PM EST

So, it only seems wise to give them a say as to who the choices are.


Hmm.. so does the rest of the world. (none / 0) (#82)
by MarkL on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:48:17 PM EST

: The rest of the world (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:55:33 PM EST

can't be drafted if the president goes to war. They can't get screwed if the president manages to privatize social security or raise the retirement age. They can't die miserably in their own age because medicare is dried up.

Puerto Rico Primary (none / 0) (#38)
by abiodun on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:40:03 PM EST

The Democratic Party nominating contest is really flawed and needs revamping for the future. Why should a territory like PR have a say in the nomination, when they do not count in the GE?

Indeed (5.00 / 6) (#40)
by andgarden on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:41:42 PM EST

and why should caucuses with 20,000 participants apportion as many delegates as a primary with millions of participants? :D


cuz they are subject to federal law? n/t (5.00 / 0) (#45)
by lilburro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:44:30 PM EST

Maybe the question should be (5.00 / 3) (#47)
by bjorn on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:46:31 PM EST

Why can't they vote in the GE?


You're right -- (none / 0) (#48)
by camellia on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM EST

but it's not only flawed. It's nuts. I simply cannot understand how people can help choose the nominee but not be able to vote for that person in the general election! Sheesh! I thought the Electoral College was bizarre!


: The USA is a colonial power with territories. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by wurman on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:20:07 PM EST

Puerto Rico is termed a "commonwealth" & granted some degree of autonomy. Here is a reference that will give you a very quick summary & perhaps some other resources: Candidato USA (link).
[The Federal gov't only recently (1960-61) allowed the capitol, Washington DC, 3 electoral votes. DC has a non-voting member of the House of Representatives.]
U.S. territories include:
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Marianas Islands
Puerto Rico
Swains Island
U.S. Virgin Islands
Typically, each territory has a non-voting member of the House & the major political parties deal with them in a somewhat haphazard fashion.
On roll call votes at the Democratic Convention, the Guam delegations, over the years, have been a remarkable group of proponents for statehood. "Where the Sun first rises on the United States."

GE (none / 0) (#50)
by abiodun on Sat May 24, 2008 at 06:57:16 PM EST

Puerto Rico(like Guam, USVI and the Mariana Islands) are federal territories where they do not pay federal taxes, but receive quite a lot of federal assistance. The constitutional set-up of these ostensible parts of the US reveal very little cultural affinity to the mainland US, but useful militarily(for which they are amptly rewarded).
The fact is they do not vote in the GE. Even though Wash DC resident participate in the GE(pay fed taxes), they do not have voting reps in the congress either.Until these districts and territories aquire statehood, they have quite less than statehood status.
The Dem Party needs to rectify this nominating process in the future.

Being generous (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by andgarden on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:00:06 PM EST

I assume that you also object to other unfair methods of delegate apportionment, right? (Seriously, prove me wrong and I won't have to assume that you're an Obama cultist).


Sorry -- are you (5.00 / 0) (#63)
by camellia on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:12:37 PM EST

talking to me? I am definitely NOT an Obama cultist, just confused by what is beginning to seem a surreal method of choosing a nominee. So, if I understand -- if I live in Guam, USVI, or Puerto Rico, I can participate in choosing a nominee For Whom I Cannot Vote? I live close to DC, so I already know about the weirdness of having a non-voting representative in Congress. I am somewhat shocked to learn that federal dollars given to territories are supposed to substitute for voting rights -- in that case, shouldn't we remove voting rights from states which receive too much federal pork?


: Now that's an idea worth exploring :-) (5.00 / 0) (#68)
by cymro on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:23:44 PM EST

... shouldn't we remove voting rights from states which receive too much federal pork?
Somehow, I don't think that bill would get very far in congress! But it's fun to think about the consequences if it were the law.

You are wrong (none / 0) (#84)
by Kathy on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:49:38 PM EST

they DO pay some federal taxes: commodity, import/export, corporation taxes, etc. They pay into medicare, social security and other payroll taxes. Because the PR per capita is much lower than that of states, it has been mutually agreed upon by Congress and the commonwealth that the IRS code regulating personal income tax does not apply and instead those particular taxes are paid to the local taxation authority.

They DO pay taxes to the federal government. They DO get called up in the draft. They DO thrive or wither at the pleasure of the US President. They DO deserve a voice.


: And we really get shafted by our local government (none / 0) (#116)
by TomLincoln on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:36:14 AM EST

on taxes, the costs of utilities, etc. One clarification is that some people must pay federal income tax, such as federal employees on the island. Also, from investments in stateside mutual funds, etc., we must pay federal capital gains taxes, taxes on dividends, etc.

: Thanks for this answer... (none / 0) (#117)
by carlosbas on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:33:58 AM EST

from somebody from PR.
BTW... Puerto Rico was invaded by the US in 1898 while being along with Cuba and the Philippines one of the last remaining colonies of Spain. Invaded. Not until 19 years later we were granted US citizenship, in 1917. That was the year the US joined the Triple Entente thus entering into the First World War. Yeah, just a coincidence. Not until 53 years later we were allowed to elect our own governor, in 1952.

Andgarden (none / 0) (#62)
by abiodun on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:11:17 PM EST

Disclosure- Voted for HRC in VA primary!

But I really do not have to "prove you wrong". Why does an Obama supporter have to be a "cultist"? Is an HRC supporter a cultist too?

I was only attempting to be objective about the nomination process. I really do not have a problem with the electoral college system, unless we want to go the way of popular vote in the GE also!
The EC is how the GE is determined, right? The methods/rules were agreed to by all the candidates before the start of the process, hence I am not a proponent of "changing the rules" late in the game-same goes for MI and FL.
I am a democrat,liberal and progressive, and am not ashmed to say that I will vote for the candidate of the Democratic Party in the GE.

Why do (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:26:49 PM EST

Obama supporters all say the same thing:

Voted for Hillary in X Primary
Talk about changing the rules
Now, say they will vote for any D candidate

The problem is that we have a screwed up nominating system and if you don't want to count Fl and MI you had better plan on having zero chance in Nov. of winning the general election.

In the gneral election, everything is a private ballot. In the dem system, we have primaries, hybrid caucuses and caucuses.


To be fair, true that it doesn't count in (none / 0) (#89)
by Cream City on Sat May 24, 2008 at 07:56:47 PM EST

the popular vote. And the Electoral College, the end-all and be-all of how to factor this campaign, were I a super-delegate. If so, I would discount PR's vote somewhat for that, certainly -- but by the same token, I would count FL and MI, for sure, no matter what Prima Donna and the DNC decide.

However, if we're going to get realistic here about which states and territories to count if we were super-delegates, I'd sure discount the overweighting of one state in Obama's popular vote count -- Illinois. It accounts for Obama's entire margin in the remaining popular vote counts (without FL and MI) in which he has an edge. And two-thirds of that Illinois tally was from Chicago.

Is it worth risking the election and Electoral College count on one state that, large as it is, is not enough to outweigh his problems in many states with far more weight in the Electoral College? I think not.

Aside from all that, giving you far more credit than your comments deserve here today -- allow me to say, as you ought to have done, that every Puerto Rican matters as much to me as every Chicagoan. Plus, one has much better beaches.

: I'm prepared to see the Super D's (5.00 / 0) (#101)
by blogtopus on Sat May 24, 2008 at 08:16:34 PM EST

hand over the keys to the next generation of the Democratic Party, ensuring another 8-16 years of GOP rule.
"Life doesn't imitate Art; Art imitates Life. Life imitates High School." - Brad Holland, Illustrator

My choice (none / 0) (#122)
by Ukelele on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:57:22 AM EST

I was born in Latin America but have been a US citizen most of my long life, serving the USA overseas for many years as a professional. This background helps me understand Obama's perceptions of our great need for change in addressing our domestic issues, as well as his preference for diplomatic over military approaches to foreign relations. It is a historic moment for our country to pursue those changes and Obama has the background to be a credible representative of our multi-racial multicultural society. He is smart enough to realize the enormous challenge that he faces, but I think that he is capable and courageous to face it. I am praying that the majority of the voters vote for him to give him and the USA the chance to get us moving in the right direction.