What now? Reconciliation?

I know I wasn’t planning on writing much about US politics, but I can’t really resist after the past couple of days. Also, I got called out by Jim as a slacker. I’d challenge him to a duel, but I’m not too good of a shot these days. So I’ll write something.

As well all know, for 2009 the Democrats had a huge majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate. Towards the end of last year, Ted Kennedy died, which meant that a temporary senator was appointed for Massachusetts, with a special election scheduled for Tuesday gone. As Massachusetts is a very liberal state, it was widely expected that the Democratic candidate, Attorney General Martha Coakley, would win. And then, in a massive upset but moderate surprise, Republican Scott Brown won the sea, thus ensuring that the Democrats lost their 60th seat, and supermajority, in the Senate.

And while the Democrats have a huge 18 seat majority still, they won’t get anything of substance through both chambers (they will still have their majority in the House until the midterms – after which it is up in the air at the moment) through regular proceedings. Then again, even with their supermajority they have very little to show for it. The supermajority, during the health care reform debate, only empowered a self-serving Democrat, Ben Nelson (D-NE), and a vindictive Independent, Joe Liebermann (I-CT), as well gave free reign for a Democrat committee chairman, Max Baucus (D-MT), to stuff around trying to get a single Republican, Olympia Snowe (R-ME) (who won’t even vote for the bill), all the while Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) got an excuse as to why stuff all was happening (he had to wrangle 60 votes, and no less).

As an aside, I would put the blame for no health care reform on Max Baucus (for dragging the whole thing on for longer than it needed), first, and then Harry Reid (for not being as hard as he needed to be) second. If you’ve kept up with the debate, you’ll know why. Maybe I’ll get to writing about it.

The Democrats weren’t prepared to play hardball, and they didn’t seem to have the leadership to apply pressure in the right spots. And now they have to, because they won’t get anything through. There are enough cantankerous and decrepit Republicans in the Senate (I’m looking at you Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mitch McConnell (R-KY)) that are prepared to start up a filibuster anything and everything that will give the Democrats even a slight boost for the November midterms. This means they can try (and likely fail) to get one/a couple of Republican votes to break a filibuster and then vote on any proposed bills or they can go something called the ‘Reconciliation Process’. The reconciliation process requires Harry Reid and the Democratic leadership in the Senate to man-up a little though.

There are two alternative methods – attaching the bill to the budget when it comes around (unlikely) or the ‘nuclear option’. The ‘nuclear option’ deserves a post on its own, but suffice to say it has a very slim chance of being used. Mainly because, and it keeps coming back to him, Harry Reid isn’t hard enough to employ it.

So the reconciliation process reads like this: In 1974, to avoid (cue the irony) filibusters, Robert Byrd (D-WV) introduced a measure for budget items to pass through with an up-and-down vote (51 to pass/ 50 and the VP to pass) and restricted to 20 hours of debate and no amendments can be attached to it. This was to reduce the deficit. The bills being passed this way had to be inspected by an ‘independent’ figure – in this case the Parliamentarian of the US Senate. He, Alan Frumin, acts as the official advisor to the Senate for standing rules and procedures. All in all, it is to speed up the process and stop important budgetary bills from getting bogged down in lengthy debates/delay tactics/filibusters.

Therefore, to go through this process, every line of the bill, really, has to have something to do with spending the government’s money or taxing citizens. So the process hinges on, first, Alan Frumin agreeing that the bill (in this case the health care bill in whatever form it ends up taking) or specific lines of the bill is a budgetary concern. Opponents of specific lines in the bill (see: Republicans) can (see: will) raise a ‘budget point of order’for the parliamentarian to rule on. A point of order could be raised if a line in the bill has nothing to do with spending, or if it is ‘merely incidental’ in its effect on the budget – in which case the line gets struck out. If Frumin agrees that a line doesn’t have a budgetary focus, then the unlikely thing is that the line can be deleted from the bill by the parliamentarian without consultation with the Senate. Though, as said, this is unlikely.

The more likely route is that Mr. Alan Frumin would be looking through the local DC papers for a new job and Mr. Joe Bloggs, loyal and die-hard Democrat, will be the new parliamentarian and will clearly see that the whole health care bill is a budget bill. The Senate Majority Leader can fire him the parliamentarian at a whim, and appoint a a new one just as easy. It happened with the last one (Robert Dove) when the then-Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) pushed him out, hard, because he made a handful of ruling Republicans weren’t happy about and he wouldn’t let the Bush tax cuts get through on reconciliation. Democrats, if they want to play as hard as Republicans, could do the exact same thing.

You can overrule the parliamentarian without canning his ass. The senator who raised the point of order can call for a vote, and if they manage to get 60 votes, then the ruling is overruled. Of course, that will never happen: Republicans need 19, and there’s no enough Democrats looking to end their career; Democrats need 1, but going this route will infuriate every Republican than none will break ranks (and any that might break rank would have made up the 60, not needing the reconciliation process anyway).

At the end of the process, the remaining bill only requires a 51 vote majority (50 with the VP to break the deadlock), and therefore passing the whole 60 vote supermajority (in a sense). The process has also been used some 20 times, to great effect (even passing things you wouldn’t think would get past), so there is obviously a group of people who know how to word things perfectly to get things through. The committee that writes the bill can even get an unofficial early read from the parliamentarian’s office to see if what will get through and what won’t and can then adjust accordingly to the point the thing will get through when it comes to the official reading. It’s no fool-proof (the persons raising points of order might find a part that the unofficial look the parliamentarian gave it missed).

The biggest, and only, reason every bill doesn’t go this route is that in 4 years time the bill lapses and need to be crafted and voted on again. Therefore, even if Obama wins reelection and the Democrats retain control of the Senate in 2014, by 2018 the whole health care debate will restart and, if Democrats don’t have control of the Senate, it all rescinds and there’s a massive black-hole in terms of healthcare. Republicans would almost be forced to craft their own bill, and they might just get something through on a floor vote that is permanent and worse.

Because the Democratic leadership seems to be, these days, a bunch of teenagers playing an adults’ game, they have only trotted out the reconciliation process as a last resort. They are getting to that point now. They have a window of opportunity to vote through the health care bill through both chambers before Scott Brown takes his seat and kills the supermajority. Get it through by early February and that’s that. But all indications are that they won’t do this: the temporary Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA) who will be replaced by Scott Brown has said he will stand down as soon as possible; Harry Reid (probably after talking to Kirk and realising he wasn’t good for a vote) then said that they will wait for Brown before a vote. But you never know in politics.

It would seem that the reconciliation process, while the last resort, will be the most viable alternative for the Democrats. What they will most likely do, if they go down Reconciliation Lane, is to split the bill in two – one that easily passes the parliamentarian inquisition – and another that will go to debate and (eventually, to break the filibusters that will result) require 60 votes to pass. But at least something gets through. And, with this option, a serious amount of good (good that wouldn’t be passed with the current version of the Senate bill) could get passed. The Democrats need something serious to go through for the midterms, and this might just be the best way to do that.

The Democrats need to show that they stand for something, and this is a way to do it.

Part two (of sorts) of this post appears here.

Thomas.

Super Tuesday IX – Some fallout

So what happened? Who were the winners and who were the losers? There’s only one clear winner today, and that’s John McCain. The man has all but stitched up the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney is the only clear loser today. As one man on CNN (who provided, by far, the best coverage of the day) put it “The only thing Mitt Romney can spin about today is that he’s got good hair.” That’s about all that Romney won. Mike Huckabee also came out ahead – streets further than I would have put him at – but it wasn’t enough to challenge the nomination. And, of course, Ron Paul plain old sucked. Really, I want to know where all those Internet people (also known as nerds) got off thinking that Paul had any real chance. While I said that he would be the best Republican candidate, I never for a moment thought he’d win the nomination.

The only murkiness that remains surrounds the Democrats. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have come out of this with any significant lead. Granted, the Obama campaign was never expecting to come out with a significant lead, but I can remember even a month ago that Clinton supporters were claiming she’d have the nomination in the bag by this hour. It must be disappointing for their campaign that she now finds herself in a rather tight race.

What the Clinton campaign will take hope from is the staying power of their candidate. As you read here, there was a late surge by Obama in polls everywhere. In places where Clinton wasn’t campaigning hard, that can be understood. But in places where she was supposed to win, that’s something that’s pretty rare. I had been saying for the past few days that if Super Tuesday actually was Super Friday, Obama would have won hands down. The momentum that he had over the last days of campaigning was huge, and as a results, if there was even two extra days, those surging poll numbers would have translated into actual votes.

Unfortunately, Obama didn’t pick up enough of the crucial states to make a real impact on Clinton. He needed any combination of two of these:

• Win/split the New York delegates;
• Win/split the Californian delegates;
• Win/split the Massachusetts delegates;
• Win/split the New Jersey delegates;
• Win/split the Connecticut delegates

Some of those, going by the polling numbers that were coming in, were very much on the cards. He pulled off a win in Connecticut, which was very welcome, but he needed another North-East state to show that it wasn’t a fluke. I’d be very disappointed in the Massachusetts Democrats – a state where he was endorsed by both Senators (Kennedy and Kerry) and the Governor, and he couldn’t get more than % of the vote. Splitting the vote here should have been an outcome. And California. And New Jersey. The polls pointed towards that as an outcome.

I wonder if the polls were premature or if they scared more Clinton supporters out to the streets. New Hampshire was like that – the Obama win in Iowa actually brought more Clinton supporters to the booths. It’s exactly the same as what will happen if she runs as the Democratic nominee – her presence scares Republicans out to the polls in droves. Either way, it looks like it happened in the pro-Clinton states this time around.

What is good is that Obama won more states than Clinton. This will feed the fires of electability. The argument has been raging, but has received less attention than the who race/sex debate on T.V. so far. The primaries should really be who is more electable. And, if that’s the judge, then from today’s performance, you’d say Obama, and give him the nomination. He won more mid-West states, has won as many Southern states in the whole race (and will likely win more than Clinton), he has snagged a couple of North-East states too. All-in-all, he has delivered in all the different parts of the U.S. at a better rate than Clinton.

However, the biggest disappointment, and probably the only legitimate one, is how he fared in California. I suspect the campaign was expecting a really tight race there so that he split the delegate count. If he had won it, then it would have been a whole new race. But that was never on the cards until the last polls came out. What was always expected was a close race. Closer than what was the outcome – 10% between the two (52% to 42%). A 5% or less difference would have been ideal; a win a dream. But it didn’t fall that way.

Obama’s big percentage wins in Alaska (75% to 25%), Utah (57% to 39%), Colorado (67% to 32%), Idaho (79% to 17%), Minnesota (67% to 32%), Kansas (74% to 26%), North Dakota (61% to 37%), Illinois (65% to 33%), and Georgia (67% to 31%) are what kept the big loss down. Obama has won significantly more delegates than Clinton across all of these, especially Illinois. These states kept his losses in the ‘big’ states to a reduced impact. Those ‘big’ states that Clinton won – California, New Jersey by 10%, Massachusetts by 15%, New York by 17%, Tennessee by 13% – might have hurt a lot more if those large percentage wins in the rest of the smaller states wasn’t so high or frequent. Similarly, those states where the two have split the vote (Connecticut, New Mexico, Missouri) have helped Obama stop any more of a lead that Clinton might establish. And finally, by picking up states that could have, had Clinton won them, created momentum for the opposition (Delaware, Alabama, New Mexico, Missouri), he has created momentum for himself, gained more delegates, and come out with an advantage.

So, to wrap this up. A week ago, if someone had shown me these results, and the end numbers, I would have been quite happy. I guess that when the polls started to suggest something miraculous, I should have been more wary. The day wasn’t an Obama sweep in terms of delegates. But thankfully, neither was it a sweep for Clinton either. And with more delegates to be factored in, though a current delegate count of 825 to Clinton and 732 to Obama (93 difference), I’d say that it was a very good day for Obama. Then remember that he won 13 states, possibly 14, and it turns into a fantastic day for him. Momentum and news cycles going into the next phase of the race. And that phase is in 3 days time, where Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana vote for the Democrats. For the Republicans, it’s the same day, but Louisiana and Kansas. But John McCai, I suspect, won’t be worried. Though Clinton may very well be. The next few states are all favourable for Obama in terms of location, demographics, and delegates. The primary race for the Democrats is far from over. And it’s going to start up again tomorrow.

Thomas.

Super Tuesday VIII – The spin

I’ve been watching the results come in all day. I haven’t missed a minute. Is this the greatest outcome for Barack Obama? No. But it’s a fantastic result for his campaign nonetheless. He has won 12 states (as of this writing) out of the 22 that were available, stands a chance at winning 14, and has proven that he is remarkably electable. He has played in all the demographics (other than the senior vote) in at least a handful of states. He bridged the sex, race, and age (almost) divide all around. Obama proved, with Super Tuesday, that he is more electable than Hillary Clinton.

Ok, that’s one side of the argument that you’re going to hear. The next is that Hillary won big. She has won more delegates. California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts are all delegate rich, and winning by comfortable majorities in those states has, in fact, pushed Clinton closer to the nomination that she will (not) win. This is all that counts, delegates, and winning more delegates is all that counts.

What do you believe? Do you take sides with the electability debate that the Obama campaign will cite as the reason they won the day? Or will you take part in the Clinton campaign’s push of the delegate count. Of course, at the end of the day, Obama won’t be behind by any ridiculous amount (70-ish at the moment, but that doesn’t have hardly any figured in. I suspect it will get to 110 or so), or by any amount that couldn’t be reduced significantly by a good number of superdelegates coming out and endorsing Obama in the wake of winning 12+ states, and gaining more momentum.

The spin is one of the biggest players in the race, without a doubt. The way it is used by each side is an art And the campaign that wins the ‘spin wars’ can thank the media – because they are the ones who decide which ‘story’ is better to tell. And, a lot of the time, the ‘underdog’ story is more popular. That’s Obama this time around – the man who came from no where to the fore, who stands on the edge of destiny, and there is only one thing standing in his way. Granted, that thing is a Clinton, but it’s not something the popular story telling and superdelegates can’t move.

I thoroughly enjoy the spin that plays out. It’s almost as entertaining as the electioneering that happens. Almost, but not quite. The politics of it all is far more interesting – like West Virginia. There, the caucus meeting resulted in no majority for the Republicans. It was split between John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee. After the first round, as I said, there was no majority. So what happened? McCain’s henchmen pulled those people voting for McCain in the meeting aside and told them to vote for Huckabee, break the deadlock and give a man who has no real chance at winning the nomination the state’s delegates. The second round of voting came, McCain’s supporters voted for Huckabee, and all of West Virginia’s delegates went to Huckabee.

Speaking of Huckabee, it looks as though he will be the number 1 name for V.P. come John McCain getting the nomination. He was won more states than I would have ever pegged him for – and they are in the South. And in the states that he didn’t win, he was getting the conservative vote. Huckabee is now a name to be reckoned with. Not for the nomination this year, but for the V.P. spot. I’ll expand on this idea in a later post.

The results are still being released, and this was really a progress post. With no locked-in delegate count, states still being decided, and a whole lot of prospects on the horizon, I’ll be doing a recap post come tomorrow. But for now, it’s been a great day to watch the race finally come to its biggest event. It could have been a little better with even one state changing sides, but things don’t always go the best way in politics. By the end of the day though, there will have only been one clear answer delivered: This primary race will be going on for a while.

Thomas.

Super Tuesday II – Democratic polls

There is more political news to catch up with from the past day. Most important, and fantastic and exciting and stupendous, are the latest rounds of polls that have been released. Rasmussen released their latest on California, the biggest state in terms of delegates. To win this state would be huge for anyone, but more for Barack Obama. The latest poll suggests that that just might be an option. Hillary Clinton sits on 43%, Obama on 40%. This is, for all intents and purposes, a tie between the two, with a 17% uncommitted (whatever Edwards polled is now included in that since he dropped out). Not only was this state a sure thing for Clinton, but Obama was never close until recently, His Iowa win brought him to within 10%, and then South Carolina came, and he stands a chance of winning it. If he did, and even if it was only by 3%-5%, it would say more than the split delegates say. The media would go crazy with this fact. California is the state everyone will be looking at come Super Tuesday, and while there are many others that are up for grabs then, California is the one that people will be making a fuss about.

The best bit to come out of these polls it that Obama is beating Clinton among the white voters. The racial divide that dominated the South Carolina vote doesn’t seem to have spread outside of the South. If Obama is winning the ‘white’ vote in California, and splitting it in Massachusetts and Connecticut (I’m getting to these two states), then it’s a promising sign, not just for Obama but, for the Democratic party and the country.

It’s surprising to see that Obama has made up so much ground in such a short amount of time. It goes to show just what momentum does for you, as well as how tight of a race this is when it isn’t left to name recognition alone. When policies and politics comes into it, it shows that the people are ready to hear an alternative, and to believe in someone else once they hear them. Everyone who wrote Clinton down as the lock win for the nomination just brought into the hype as much as others. Now that actual substance comes into it, it’s a real race.

Rasmussen also released a poll on Massachusetts, in which I had expected another ridiculous amount of figures (after denouncing that the data was wrong in a previous post). Well, I was right. The latest poll has Clinton up by a very small lead of 6% to Obama – 43% to 37%. I was on to something here. The polls the were previously taken were inaccurate, last week with Clinton having a 37% lead, and in the wake of the John Kerry and the Kennedy family’s endorsements, Obama’s figures have gone up, while Clinton’s have fallen. Upward momentum for Obama here – and it is only going to continue in this also Super Tuesday state.

Again, Massachusetts has been regarded as a sure thing for Clinton. The tactics that I and other pundits had put forward was for Obama to stay within 10-15% of Clinton in her ‘lock’ states, hope to get a good share of the delegates, and then evaluate positions come February 6th. Obviously, the 10-15% approach is null-and-void. If Obama can actually go and win states that he wasn’t ‘supposed to’, and split delegates in Clinton fortress-states, then the news cycles would be plastered with Obama, and Super Tuesday would be his.

And where’s a Clinton fortress you ask? There’s 3, really. New York and New Jersey are two. The 3rd is Connecticut, and guess what the latest Rasmussen poll says about that state? Obama is in a dead-heat with Clinton! A 40%/40% split between them. A 20% uncommitted is high too, which lends hope to the Obama campaign of picking up a whole extra heap of votes, and then a whole heap of delegates. How will his numbers go up? Teddy Kennedy’s endorsement, while a Massachusetts Senator, is popular through the whole North-East. The poll for Connecticut was taken before the endorsement. With the endorsement in his pocket, and a lot of campaigning up there, since this and the Massachusetts polls suggest victories are at hand, these states that weren’t even up for grabs weeks ago are now tilted to Obama’s side.

And just a slice of Republican news: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has endorsed John McCain. He said that his endorsement came because Giuliani dropped out. I’m guessing this means that he was tossing up between the two? If you care about what he said: here. It’s a whole heap of hollow praise and waffle. Similar to a Schwarzenegger film actually. Just less killing … of people. Of braincells, it’s about the same.

Thomas.

Super Tuesday I – Democrats

Here comes the first post of mine concerning Super Tuesday. I’m sure, as a bazillion polls are released over the next week, that I’ll be blogging more about the monumental day in the primary race, but for now, I wanted to get the ball rolling. For two reasons mainly – to document where we are at now, a little under a week out from the 5th; and to show how the polls change and move around, sort of evidence of political evolution.

There is one thing in the schedule that has the ability to change the polls some. Florida. Yes, it won’t count, but the voting will still happen there for the Democrats. Why? Well, maybe they hope that the D.N.C. will change their mind. Maybe they think that their vote is still important anyway. Whatever happens, the vote will make for some interesting news. Hillary Clinton still polls first among the Democrats, a 20 point lead over Barack Obama, 49% to 29%, in the latest SurveyUSA poll. That number is pretty stable across polls, perhaps a little high, but consistent with the state’s trends over the past months. It has always been a Clinton state by the polls, and for some reason, Obama-fever never really caught on there. But the figure could be inflated, so you never know how close a race it could be there.

I will now turn my attention to report now, after the fallout from the South Carolina vote, and in the wake of the Kennedy endorsements, on the polls for a dozen (or so) states that fall into the Super Tuesday basket.

And first up, the grand-daddy of them all: California. It’s the biggest state that’s up for grabs in the primary. 441 delegates up for grabs in total, with 370 tied to the primary vote, and without the ‘winner takes all’ system, each candidate is likely to get a slice of the action. The latest poll, SurveyUSA, from this state have Clinton up by 11% against Obama, 49% to 38%. Coming in 3rd is John Edwards at 9%, leaving a 4% uncommitted. Since the start of the New Year, this state has received much polling attention – before, it had little. So these figures, and averages, are probably reasonably accurate. Speaking of the average, it’s Clinton at 44.2%, Obama at 32.2%, and Edwards at 11%. The polls in California have been showing Clinton firming as favourite since the 14th of January (Rasmussen), where Obama was only 5% away from her, 38% to 33%. Steadily she had gained up to a 17% lead, though since South Carolina, and all the antics leading up to it, that lead has dropped to 11% in recent polls. I expect this to be a very tight race, with both finishing in the 40′s. Obama 44%, Clinton 48%.

The next biggest state on the 5th is New York, and by all accounts and pundit’s predictions, a Clinton win. Though, again (and I don’t want to harp on about it), without the ‘winner takes all’ system, Obama can still pick up a sizable amount of delegates here. the state has 281 delegates available. Though Clinton’s “home state” (only because the Democratic Party dropped her into an extremely safe Senate seat), she polls at, in the latest poll (USA Today/Gallup) at 56%, while Obama pulls in 2nd at 28%, and Edwards at 10%. This is an extreme jump from previous polling data from the state. Having been taken over the days leading up to South Carolina, it may, in fact, be inflated. Previous polls, had her at 51% (Quinnipiac – Obama 25%, Edwards 11%; and Rasmussen – Obama 30%, Edwards 10%), 48% (WNBC/Marist – Obama32%, Edwards 9%; and Siena – Obama 23%, Edwards 10%), and 47% (Zogby – Obama 26%, Edwards 9%). These all bring the average lead for Clinton to 22.9% – her 50.2% to Obama’s 27.3% and Edwards’ 9.8%. I feel that the state may have some polls to bring this to an average lead of less than 20% by the end of Super Tuesday, though I still expect Clinton to get 52-54% of the vote there. Thus, while she will recieve half the delegates (in theory), Obama will receive a third of them, maybe as high as two-fifths if things go well (38% I predict) – not too bad in her home state.

Moving to the next most delegate-rich state, and we find ourselves in a real home state – Obama’s. Illinois has 185 delegates, and while significantly less than the previous two, still important in that it’s one of the many Great Lake states that will vote on the day. The problem (well, not a real problem) with Illinois is that it has been ruled such a pro-Obama state that there has only been 3 polls taken there since July ’07. The first poll, American Research Group, taken last July, had only a 4% lead to Obama against Clinton, 37% to 33%. Edwards pulled in 3rd at 10%. The next poll, by the Chicago Tribune in early December ’07, had Obama 25% up on Clinton – 50% to 25%. Edwards again came in 3rd at 7%. Finally, the latest poll from Illinois by Research 2000 has Obama up again against Clinton by 29% – 51% to 22%. Edwards pulls up third once again with a much improved 15%. This is how a home state should be won – with a 30% lead. Not something less than 20% like New York. Obama will be looking to take a big majority of the delegates here, while Edwards might be hoping for a 2nd place finish. There’s a chance Edwards could get that with the way the Clinton camp has attacked the state’s own. If the voters are motivated, and take it as an attack on themselves, and factor in a few more slip-ups by the Clintons as well as minimal campaigning there, then Edwards could pick up a nice 2nd place finish. But either way, it’s an Obama win this state. I expect a 34% margin win here after the South Carolina showing.

New Jersey comes in as the next most delegate-rich state at 127, though with only 107 delegates up for grabs with the primary vote. This, much like New York, has been a Clinton favourite state. January came, and the pollsters dropped into N.J., like California and New York. The latest poll out of the state, Quinnipiac, gives Clinton a 17% lead over Obama – 49% to 32%. Edwards in at 3rd on 10%. This data was gathered before the South Carolina fiasco (on the part of the Clinton’s) so I would expect Obama’s numbers to come up a bit from the 9% uncommitted. Rasmussen conducted their research on the 15th of January only, one of the days that Quinnipiac did their 7 day collection, and managed to get 866 respondents – 402 more than Quinnipiac. Their data had Clinton at an 18% lead on Obama, though different numbers – 45% to 27%. Edwards was at 11%. This meant that the uncommitted was around 17% – a very high number for a state that is generally regarded as Clinton’s, and expected to follow New York. The averages are probably to be trusted for when the data was gathered (the 9th of January through to the 22nd), as the two other polls contributing are the highest lead for Clinton (25% by Research 2000 – 48% Clinton, 23% Obama, 11% Edwards) and the lowest lead for her (12% – 42% Clinton, 30% Obama, 9% Edwards). The averages are 46% for Clinton, 28% for Obama, and 10.3% for Edwards. This still leaves a huge 16% uncommitted. Since South Carolina and the Kennedy’s endorsements, and with the hope of some more good fortune, Obama stands a good chance at gobbling this up and pegging this to a single-figure win for Clinton. If that were to happen (the single-figure win for Clinton) then Obama would split the delegates (getting more than he was bargaining for) with her (presumably), and penetrate one of the strongholds the Clinton camp thought they had.

Massachusetts is the next state with the most delegates. It’s a state that, with recent endorsements by John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, and Caroline Kennedy, Obama stands a chance of winning a majority in. It has 121 delegates up for grabs with the vote. I’ll make it known now: I reject all the polling data available for the state at the moment. Three polls, conducted through January (between the 9th and the 23rd), with two of them coming from the same company with extremely similar sample data. The first poll to come out the state is from State House News, and that has Clinton with a lead of 12% over Obama – 37% to 25% – with Edwards coming in 3rd on 14%. The next two polls are from SurveyUSA – the first has Clinton with a 33% lead to Obama, 56% to 23%. Edwards comes in 3rd on 14% again. The second poll has Clinton with a 37% lead on Obama, 59% to 22%, while Edwards pulls up 3rd on 11%. There isn’t much I can say about Massachusetts if I don’t believe the whole three polls available, other than with the endorsements previously mentioned, more campaigning, and some good campaigning by Edwards (because this is a state he should poll better in), Clinton’s lead could narrow to something not so ridiculous as 37%. Seriously, if she isn’t even getting that big of a lead in her own “home state”, how can she get it from Massachusetts? Anyway, anything I say is a stab in the dark here – Obama with 34%?

Georgia is a bigger state than it is given credit. It’s the biggest Southern state up for grabs on Super Tuesday. 103 delegates are up for grabs, and the proportion of the ‘black’ vote in the state is similar to that of South Carolina. This, my friends, will also be an Obama state. The latest Rasmussen poll suggest so to, and while taken on the 22nd of January, and a 571 sample rate, it still gave Obama a 6% lead over Clinton – 41% to 35%. Edwards came in 3rd at 13%. I really do expect Obama’s figure to go up past 10% in the next rounds of polls from this state (if there is any?). He won South Carolina, the first Southern state. He has romped in the ‘black’ vote each time. He has gained serious traction, and it should be a state he gets good numbers in. The 41% number, I believe, was accurate for the time, as the polls had been turning for some time, while always being a competitive state. Back in April ’07, Strategic Vision (R) had Clinton up by just 3% on Obama – 25% to 22% – and Edwards at a whopping 20% (note the large amount of undecided). Strategic Vision was the only company to poll the state, and in October polled Clinton with her highest lead of 13% to Obama – 40% to 27%. By now Edwards’ 3rd place was back to a regular 11%. Come December, her lead was 7% (34% to 27% to 12%). Then, in a Mason-Dixon poll, Obama was leading by 3% to Clinton – 36% to 33% – Edwards at 14%. Then came the previously mentioned Rasmussen poll. What is interesting to note here is the large amount of uncommitted, and the higher numbers that Edwards has polled – the 20% he got, the 12% – 14% in recent polls. While he isn’t in a good enough position to snag 2nd place from Clinton, he is in a good position to keep delegates away from her as he eats up bits of the vote. Some favourable turns for Edwards and he could get up to one-fifth of the delegates with a 20% vote. And if Obama could manage over 50% of the vote, then half are his alone. Anyway, I predict a 48% vote for Obama here.

And those are the ‘Big 6′ from Super Tuesday. They are the only states that have more than 100 delegates up for grabs. The next highest are Minnesota and Missouri, both with 88 delegates. But that, and the next few states, are for another post. I expect people have skimmed most of this post, if not just clicking to the very end to see if I have anything exciting to say. Alas, I do not. It’s too early. Come closer, I’ll reevaluate my predictions, tell you them, then tell you how many delegates that will get each candidate. Hopefully it doesn’t make me look the fool.

Thomas.

I couldn’t resist

The primaries aren’t a glint on the horizon anymore. They are just a few months away, and the chance to get onto primary tickets if starting to shrink. The Iowa and New Hampshire polling has quickly become more important than national polling, and those key, early states are getting a work over from the candidates of both parties. And the media is certainly getting a work over. And everything has got so routine that a lot of the steam that candidates had early on, in terms of popularity and ‘spark’ of the current candidates has worn down on the people.

How many debates, with the same questions just restructured, have gone on for both sides? How many times has Hillary had to bluff her way through having to to defend her vote to go into Iraq? How many times has Obama had to carve out an answer on why he should be president with little experience? And how many more points in the polls is Edwards going to have to slip?

I love it all, the politicking of America, but I do hope that every day I will find out that a boulder will have been dropped into the lake and a wave of excitement will be rolling around again. And in three days, I won’t have to hope the boulder will come, because it will have happened in two or not at all.

You see, the Nobel Peace Prize is handed out tomorrow (Friday), and a hot contender is everyone’s favourite Al Gore. I know, I know. I’ve already written him off. But I’d be more than happy to retract that statement. He is a hot favourite to win the award, and the rumblings were that if he was going to announce it would be there and then, or in the immediate aftermath. And the rumblings of the rumblings were that there is a chance.

Must I run through the resume that will see him elected if nominated? V.P. to Clinton, long time senator, a ‘southern’ man (Tennessee), massive public exposure over the past years, a film to his name, an Emmy, an Oscar, a Nobel Peace Prize, a best seller, pools of money that he can tap into, and not an extremist. And let’s not forget that he probably did win the election in 2000. Oh, and he was very much against the Iraq invasion. And he sort of is the face of the global warming movement.

And he’s a fresh face to the whole routine that is the Democratic primaries race. He can afford to miss the debates that have gone because: a) everyone knows his policies, and; b) the debates lost great interest a month of two ago. And he’s done all this before – the primary race (and won), and the presidential race (and won, twice … sort of). And the word experience is definitely going to come up on more than one occasion in the presidential race. Whether it be against Obama, Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson. Heck, there is only one who will be immune to it (McCain) and Clinton may have enough clout to fend off any attack on that front. But Gore would be un-attackable on experience. Sure, his policies and voting record and actions during the experience will come up, but that only solidifies him in the mind of the public as experienced.

And while this is a half-way sewn up presidency for the Democratic party already, in the odd chance that something bad happened and the Republicans made a showing of themselves, would would you rather running? A man who has run, and lost, and has had seven years to think about the mistakes and popularise himself, or a woman/man who can be attacked an a whole lot of fronts, and while popular among the party, could lose those key swing voters?

And let’s face it – we all could use an honest politician. Obama is (for my mind) the only one going at the moment. From both parties. Gore has openly called himself a “lousy politician”, has given a bit of lip-service to stupid questions from the press, has openly and consistently criticised the Iraq War from the get-go (like Obama, though Gore has had more free reign) and ventured so far as to offer ways to get out, has campaigned about the next most important issue this world faces: climate change (and has never flip-flopped on the issue).

And does he really need to worry about financing his shorter campaign? He learned the lesson from the 2000 election – ridiculously high-priced consultants don’t win elections. He has a monsterous base that could donate $500 per person (on average), and raise a quick $40 million. More I suspect, meaning he could have free rallies, free concerts, give free speeches, and still have cash left over come the final vote.

I mean seriously! Look at the polls: In July, when the last polls that Gore’s name was featured on were taken, in New Hampshire if he entered the race he would win. That’s a key, early state that Clinton was solid in. Nationally, the polls said that if he entered he would win. He tipped 17% back in June. Now, nationally, polling put him at 10 – 12% (Gallup – Ipsos) in October, 8% – 16% (Cook Political Report – USA Today) in September, and 10 – 16.5% (Cook Political Report – USA Today) in August. That’s unannounced and not campaigning, and having done international ‘tours’ of late that has decreased his exposure to the American voters and people being polled, especially through September. If he were to enter the race on October 15, next Monday he would still have a solid four months of campaigning, and that would be enough to get the registered Democrats out onto the streets to get his name onto the tickets, first for the primaries then for the presidential.

Some recent polls have re-added him to the list because they have heard the rumblings too. 8% in Alabama, 36% in Michigan where he leads Clinton who is on 32%. That’s in the past month. At the middle of the year, where, as I said, Gore’s name was featuring in the polling, and where 29% of registered Democrats would switch from other candidates to Gore if he announced, he stood to be on par with Clinton in quite a few states. The last available data for the following states indicates this:

Alabama - 8% (September)
Arizona - 18% (September)
California – 19% (June) (he currently leads Clinton as preferred President in Bay Area at 51%)
Connecticut – 13% (May)
Florida – 12% (September) (if they are even going to be counted)
Georgia - 11% (January)
Idaho - 31% (July)
Massachusetts – 13% (April)
Michigan – 36% (August)
Nevada – 8% (August) (momentum)
New Hampshire – 5% (September) (momentum)
New Jersey - 6% (September)
New York – 10% (September)
Ohio - 8% (September)
Oklahoma – 9% (January)
Oregon - 4% (March)
Pennsylvania – 12.5% (August)
South Carolina – 8% (August) (momentum)
Texas - 10% (July)

In the Southern states, in September, Gore averaged 10%, the Western states 18%, in existing Red states 12.3%, and in existing Blue states 7.4%. And that’s from the states that have polling data, and not all of them do. Now there is no guarantee that he will win any of them, but there is a good chance he could sweep all of them. It’s worth reminding you that those figures are with Gore unannounced, not campaigning, out of the United States for the recent weeks, and without the swing from other candidates to Gore if he did put his name in the hat. Isn’t it at least worth a stab? If we concede that Obama needs some very favourable voting, otherwise he loses, and Edwards has lost already, do we just give Clinton an undivided free pass, where she isn’t forced to present herself in the light of competition?

By October 15 he needs to declare. It gives him the best chance. In New York, they’ll need 5,000 signatures between October 30 and December 1. Michigan needs 12,396 by October 23, and Gore to sign an affidavit as well. That’s just two cases, and it’s a similar picture for others.

So, if October 15 is D-Day, we will soon know. The Nobel Peace Prize gets handed out Friday in Norway, and that’s the 12th. Three days wait, at the longest, and the we will know whether America will have Gore as their next president, or either Clinton or Obama. Three days left of torturous suffering, but for a reason, or unnecessary anguish. Three days left …

Thomas.