Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Predictions
Obama has failed in blowing out Clinton in NC, so he won't make up Pennsylvania, but he will come out of the night with more delegates and a gain in his popular vote lead. Pollster has Clinton up by 4.4% in IN, and Obama up by 7.8% in NC. Since the NC trend has been down for Obama, and Indiana has stayed fairly steady, these might edge closer -- say 5 for Clinton in IN, and 6 for Obama in NC -- but there's no reason to think Clinton's margin in IN will be larger, percentage-wise, than Obama's in NC, since every poll has shown Clinton stronger in IN and Obama stronger in NC. Plus, once you factor in the state sizes, it's not close. IN has 72 delegates, NC has 115. 115/72=1.58, so Clinton has to win IN by something like 1.5 times Obama's margin of victory in NC -- a 4-point Obama victory in NC means Clinton needs a 6-point victory in IN just to stay even.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Fractions!
I noticed today that Demconwatch's delegate count (taken from Greenpapers) says that Obama and Clinton both have a fractional number of pledged delegates. Turns out this has been the case at least since April 12, when Democrats Abroad finished their allocation of 4.5 to Obama and 2.5 to Clinton. There are 4048 total delegates total. Usually, "50%+1" is a majority, but here, because DA split their votes fractionally, and there are still more superdelegates with fractional votes undecided, 2024.5 is a majority that either of the candidates might achieve. Currently, Obama has a fractional pledged count and a whole superdelegate count, while Clinton has fractions on both, and so a whole total.
Unfortunately, 1/2 is the smallest fractional delegate allowed for the convention -- although on the Credentials Committee, Guam has .25 of a vote.
Unfortunately, 1/2 is the smallest fractional delegate allowed for the convention -- although on the Credentials Committee, Guam has .25 of a vote.
Prosecuting racism
The Times has a piece on a Human Rights Watch report about racism in drug arrests and prison time. One implication of the statistics is interesting, because it puts the lie to conservatives who argue that police are going after drug use that leads to violence, and therefore leave suburban white kids alone, while harassing inner-city youth. That is as follows: According to the report, 35.1% of drug possession arrests are of blacks. But felony convictions for drug possession are split 50-49 between blacks and whites, according to the Bureau of Justice. That can't be due to emphasis on policing certain areas. Yet:
Some crime experts say that the disparities exist for sound reasons. For example, said Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York, blacks and Hispanics are more often involved than whites in the distribution and sale of heroin and cocaine.
Ms. MacDonald said it made sense for the police to focus more on fighting visible drug dealing in the inner city, largely involving minorities, than on hidden use in suburban homes, more often by whites, because the urban street trade is more associated with violence and other crimes and impairs the quality of life.
Don't throw sand in our eyes by talking about distribution and sale! Let's talk about simple drug possession. Of course, we need the breakdowns by drug and by prior record to really make a case, but let's not confuse the issue -- on drug possession alone, blacks are treated unfairly.
And that unfairness isn't limited to likelihood of arrest -- it extends to likelihood of conviction given arrest.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
More credentials minutiae
To throw another twist on things, the Credentials Committee has jurisdiction over the following challenges (Rules of Procedure of the Credentials Committee of the 2008 DNC, 1):
A. Any challenge brought before the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and not resolved before the 56th calendar day preceding the date of commencement of the Democratic National Convention; and,
B. Any challenge alleging:
1. Failure to implement a final order of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee; or
2. Failure to implement a plan approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, if such challenge is initiated on or after the 56th day preceding the date of commencement of the Democratic National Convention, except with regard to Rule 19.E. of the Delegate Selection Rules.
Thus, if the RBC rules against Clinton, it's not clear from this text that Clinton can appeal it to the Credentials Committee -- it won't be a challenge at all, first off, because you "challenge" the credentials of seated delegates, which is the opposite of what Clinton wants. And a challenge alleging failure to follow RBC orders won't work, because that's what she's appealing in the first place. On the other hand, if the Rules and Bylaws Committee does seat the delegates, Obama can appeal back to the RBC, and, so long as the appeal isn't resolved by June 30 (56 days before the convention starts), the Credentials Committee will hear it. Of course, I may be reading the above passage too narrowly, in which case any challenge, whenever made, will be heard, and not just ones that went through the RBC.
A. Any challenge brought before the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and not resolved before the 56th calendar day preceding the date of commencement of the Democratic National Convention; and,
B. Any challenge alleging:
1. Failure to implement a final order of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee; or
2. Failure to implement a plan approved by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, if such challenge is initiated on or after the 56th day preceding the date of commencement of the Democratic National Convention, except with regard to Rule 19.E. of the Delegate Selection Rules.
Thus, if the RBC rules against Clinton, it's not clear from this text that Clinton can appeal it to the Credentials Committee -- it won't be a challenge at all, first off, because you "challenge" the credentials of seated delegates, which is the opposite of what Clinton wants. And a challenge alleging failure to follow RBC orders won't work, because that's what she's appealing in the first place. On the other hand, if the Rules and Bylaws Committee does seat the delegates, Obama can appeal back to the RBC, and, so long as the appeal isn't resolved by June 30 (56 days before the convention starts), the Credentials Committee will hear it. Of course, I may be reading the above passage too narrowly, in which case any challenge, whenever made, will be heard, and not just ones that went through the RBC.
"Nuclear" option
The Huffington Post has an article today on the possibility that Clinton will get Michigan and Florida seated via the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC), on which she has more members than Obama. I posted on this in March, but now Demconwatch has a nice list of the RBC members, and their endorsements. Edsall, at Huffington, has an estimate that's off -- Clinton actually has 12 declared supporters on the committee. There are 30 members on the committee, but members from a disputed state can't vote on that state's being seated. That means there will be 29 members voting on each state, since there is one member each from Florida and Michigan. Will Clinton be able to get 3 votes from members who haven't endorsed her? Possible. But there's more.
The next stage, as Edsall says, would be a challenge at the Credentials Committee. There, Obama is leading by various amounts -- here's a spreadsheet with the numbers. Obama is leading by 11.5 with all state delegates included (bizarrely, FL and MI will be seated on the Credentials Committee), and MI's three uncommitted going for him. However, FL members cannot vote on the FL challenge, and likewise for MI members. Obama's lead goes up to 13.5 for the FL challenge, and stays even for the MI challenge, except that the "uncommitteds" now in his column go away, as do 3 members in Clinton's column. Since Obama's lead will almost certainly stay the same through the rest primary process, that means that Dean's 25 appointees would have to break 19-6 for Clinton to seat MI, and 20-5 to seat FL. That is clearly a very unlikely scenario.
Thus, we can see that, even if Clinton wins the RBC fight, she will almost certainly lose the Credentials Committee fight. What happens after that? The Credentials Committee report, along with a "minority report," dissenting from the decision, goes to the full convention. And here's where things get more tricky: by VII.B.1. of the DNC's Rules,
Since Obama will win the Credentials Committee fight, the delegates voting to approve the Credentials Committee plan will not include FL and MI (who wouldn't be able to vote on their own states' delegates anyway).
So where does this leave us? Clinton can't win this battle as it stands. She could drop a nuclear bomb by convincing the RBC to seat FL and MI as they stand, but it would almost certainly be overturned by a Credentials Committee controlled by Obama, and upheld by Convention delegates supporting Obama. More likely would be some sort of compromise -- penalizing FL and MI half their delegates, etc. That might be politically harder to overturn. The question will be, if the RBC denies her, will she continue to fight it, knowing that she will lose at the convention? That will say a lot about her goals for this campaign.
The next stage, as Edsall says, would be a challenge at the Credentials Committee. There, Obama is leading by various amounts -- here's a spreadsheet with the numbers. Obama is leading by 11.5 with all state delegates included (bizarrely, FL and MI will be seated on the Credentials Committee), and MI's three uncommitted going for him. However, FL members cannot vote on the FL challenge, and likewise for MI members. Obama's lead goes up to 13.5 for the FL challenge, and stays even for the MI challenge, except that the "uncommitteds" now in his column go away, as do 3 members in Clinton's column. Since Obama's lead will almost certainly stay the same through the rest primary process, that means that Dean's 25 appointees would have to break 19-6 for Clinton to seat MI, and 20-5 to seat FL. That is clearly a very unlikely scenario.
Thus, we can see that, even if Clinton wins the RBC fight, she will almost certainly lose the Credentials Committee fight. What happens after that? The Credentials Committee report, along with a "minority report," dissenting from the decision, goes to the full convention. And here's where things get more tricky: by VII.B.1. of the DNC's Rules,
The Secretary of the Democratic National Committee shall determine a Temporary Roll of delegates to the Convention which shall consist only of those persons selected and certified as delegates in accordance with the Rules and pursuant to this Call, unless a credentials contest shall have arisen with respect to any such person(s), in which case the Secretary shall include on the Temporary Roll the name of the credentials contestant recommended for inclusion by the Credentials Committee in its report.
Since Obama will win the Credentials Committee fight, the delegates voting to approve the Credentials Committee plan will not include FL and MI (who wouldn't be able to vote on their own states' delegates anyway).
So where does this leave us? Clinton can't win this battle as it stands. She could drop a nuclear bomb by convincing the RBC to seat FL and MI as they stand, but it would almost certainly be overturned by a Credentials Committee controlled by Obama, and upheld by Convention delegates supporting Obama. More likely would be some sort of compromise -- penalizing FL and MI half their delegates, etc. That might be politically harder to overturn. The question will be, if the RBC denies her, will she continue to fight it, knowing that she will lose at the convention? That will say a lot about her goals for this campaign.
Clinton's Indiana-China problem
McClatchy has a good summary of the events, as well as a link to a rebuttal by Clinton. Basically, Clinton ran an ad attacking Bush for allowing a factory making magnets for weapons to be "moved" to China. It turns out, however, that the initial sale of the factory to the Chinese company was approved by the Clinton administration. Clinton's rebuttal is that the factories were required to remain in the U.S. That doesn't take account of the fact that the requirement was only until 2005, but that's not even the biggest problem.
There were two factories, in Anderson and Valparaiso (note the misspelling in the Clinton press release). The Anderson factory was closed in 2001, and there was no fuss at all about it. I have a link to the original AP article text, with no mention of any legislators protesting. The protests came when the Valparaiso factory, which the Chinese company hadn't bought until 2000, after the original sale had gone through, was closed. So here's the question. If the factories were supposed to remain open until 2005, then why weren't there protests when the Anderson factory was closed? Because, according to a disreputable-looking source from 2003, the source of the guarantee was just an agreement the union had with GM, and tried to have with the Chinese company. It wasn't negotiated into the sale agreement.
Let me be clear: I don't really care that the Chinese make our magnets -- various experts have said that it's not really a risk. The issue is just about plant closings, and there, Clinton is being disingenuous. There was no government-enforced guarantee that the Anderson plant would remain open. Now, even on the subject of the plant closings, I'm not disagreeing with the Clinton Administration's actions, but Hillary Clinton is misrepresenting those actions. The Valparaiso protests by Bayh and others were on the grounds of national security, not job loss -- and this is not a national security issue, it is a job loss issue.
There were two factories, in Anderson and Valparaiso (note the misspelling in the Clinton press release). The Anderson factory was closed in 2001, and there was no fuss at all about it. I have a link to the original AP article text, with no mention of any legislators protesting. The protests came when the Valparaiso factory, which the Chinese company hadn't bought until 2000, after the original sale had gone through, was closed. So here's the question. If the factories were supposed to remain open until 2005, then why weren't there protests when the Anderson factory was closed? Because, according to a disreputable-looking source from 2003, the source of the guarantee was just an agreement the union had with GM, and tried to have with the Chinese company. It wasn't negotiated into the sale agreement.
Let me be clear: I don't really care that the Chinese make our magnets -- various experts have said that it's not really a risk. The issue is just about plant closings, and there, Clinton is being disingenuous. There was no government-enforced guarantee that the Anderson plant would remain open. Now, even on the subject of the plant closings, I'm not disagreeing with the Clinton Administration's actions, but Hillary Clinton is misrepresenting those actions. The Valparaiso protests by Bayh and others were on the grounds of national security, not job loss -- and this is not a national security issue, it is a job loss issue.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Switching sides
Numbers are quoted here and there on the percent of each candidate's supporters who will support the other candidate. But these numbers are wrong in a crucial way. For Clinton's supporters to imagine her losing via pledged delegates doesn't take much -- the steady trickle of superdelegates continues. to both sides, and at some point Obama passes 2025, probably in mid-June. The Obama superdelegates can argue that all they did was ratify the pledged-delegate lead. But to really find out what Obama supporters will do, you need to ask them, "Would you support Hillary Clinton if she won the nomination in a floor fight at the convention after finishing behind in pledged delegates?" I think the numbers will change then.
Black groups are already warning that this would be unacceptable -- Sam Stein at Huffington says that a group called Color of Change is starting a petition to tell superdelegates not to deny Obama the nomination, and McClatchy has an article about black voters staying home if Obama doesn't get the nomination. We'll see whether everyone finds it unacceptable.
The way, of course, that people make it "unacceptable" that Obama loses is by turning on their elected politicians who didn't help. Now, Clinton needs those elected politicians -- she needs basically every DNC member who hasn't declared just to draw even, and so she has to hold on to her congressmen, governors, etc. Will superdelegates who represent populations that went 65-35 for Obama really be willing to stand up to that? Maybe Charles Rangel, but he's somewhat unique.
Black groups are already warning that this would be unacceptable -- Sam Stein at Huffington says that a group called Color of Change is starting a petition to tell superdelegates not to deny Obama the nomination, and McClatchy has an article about black voters staying home if Obama doesn't get the nomination. We'll see whether everyone finds it unacceptable.
The way, of course, that people make it "unacceptable" that Obama loses is by turning on their elected politicians who didn't help. Now, Clinton needs those elected politicians -- she needs basically every DNC member who hasn't declared just to draw even, and so she has to hold on to her congressmen, governors, etc. Will superdelegates who represent populations that went 65-35 for Obama really be willing to stand up to that? Maybe Charles Rangel, but he's somewhat unique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)