This one shouldn't take long to call, but still, here it is. 0% Reporting Barack Obama (D): John McCain (R): Cynthia McKinney(G): Ralph Nader (I): Bob Barr (L):
When you show up to the district level caucuses this weekend, you may be in for a surprise. Under the rules listed in the Delegate Selection Plan (pdf) the campaigns must file with the CDP chair by today at 5 pm a list of candidates for delegate that number at least three times the number of slots that they approve. This is Rule 12. E(1) Reg 4.23.
There are 241 district level slots (121 females, 120 males) and there are over 2,350 candidates running. Assuming that both campaigns take the time to go through the names and pick out only three per slot that means that there will only be 723 viable candidates this weekend. The deadline to submit the approved names just passed, so we should know the deal some time soon.
This is all part of the process and it makes total sense for the campaigns to spend the time going through the names and double checking that they have strong candidates for their delegate slots. While it seems unlikely that we will head to the convention not having a single candidates, the campaigns need to work hard now just in case.
Are you a delegate candidate that has been contacted by the campaign? Any CDP staffers who want to weigh in here? Don't forget to go to the CDP website and see where your caucus is located this weekend. I know they have been firming up locations.
[UPDATE] I have transcribed the relevant rule.
Each presidential candidate, or that candidate's authorized representative(s), must then file with the California Democratic Party Chair by Monday, April 7, 2008, at 5 pm, a list of such candidates he or she has approved, provided that approval be given to at least three (3) times the number of candidates for delegate men and three (3) times the number of candidates for delegate women, and three (3) times the number of candidates for alternate men and three (3) times the number of alternate women to which the presidential candidate is entitled.
I read this to mean that candidates are required to hand in lists, but they could be all of the candidates who have filled out their forms. They have a minimum, but not a maximum that they must submit to the CDP.
Here and across my series of 872 blogs, I've been pretty vocal about the superdelegate situation, about how it's a media creation designed to set Democrats against themselves and damage the party's credibility as we move into the fall. I'm not the only one, either. Today comes a thinly sourced story about how the Clinton campaign is vowing to go after pledged delegates who represent the distribution in the various state primaries and caucuses, a charge that the campaign summarily denied. The truth is that the Democratic Party's somewhat convoluted system practically demands that some pledged delegates will be up for grabs, but this Politico/Drudge effort doesn't pass any kind of smell test. Essentially, my feeling is that the Democratic Party put together a system they never thought they would have to use. For decades now both parties have created a calendar designed to nominate a candidate as early as humanly possible. They never considered the implications of having two equally strong candidates and a campaign that would grind on (although let's get some perspective on that; it's only February 19 here, and the scenarios being games out may be inoperative in a matter of weeks). Now that the system is being trotted out, pretty much for the first time ever (arguably, 1984 brought these rules into play), it's showing a little rust. OK, a lot of rust. They're trying to patch it up and have a bunch of elder statesmen manage this situation. I think this is a freak-out that is far too premature.
If 1-2% of all voters can whittle the field down to two candidates, and deliver a nominee on the Republican side, we have a serious problem and everyone knows it. I think this debate over whether or not California matters has been completely misunderstood. My degradation of California moving up was a focus on the PROCESS, not some animus against California. The process sucks. It needs to be reformed in a big way. The fact that Florida broke the rules, moved up, delivered no delegates on the Dem side, but obviously succeeded since they PICKED THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE, should tell you something. We need a spread-out process and maybe earlier conventions to end this bad front-loaded system. It's terrible for democracy. It should not continue for one more election.
For weeks now here at Calitics we have been discussing the puzzle of Decline to State voters. They make up the only growing part of our electorate at 19.3% (about 3 million voters), but they greatly underperformed during the 2004 primaries (only 8% vote for a presidential candidate). These voters should be ripe for the picking, but are hard to target. They include true independents and both regular Democratic and Republican voters. DTS voters have three choices in this election 1) just vote on the initiatives 2) vote in the American Independent party primary or 3) vote in the Democratic party primary. Unfortunately not many of them know they have to be proactive about requesting a Democratic primary ballot or risk having a blank spot at the top of their ballot instead of candidate's names.
The Courage Campaign has launched a campaign to help educate DTS voters and make sure they know how to participate in the Democratic primary. We are calling and emailing 300,000 registered DTS voters with the simple message: Yes, you can vote for president, just ask for a Democratic ballot.
The NYT covered DTS voters and our "yes you can vote" campaign today. (quotes and more on the flip)
Via Newseum, here's how Barack Obama's victory over Hillary Clinton in South Carolina is playing above the fold in today's California's Sunday papers:
Bakersfield Californian: Obama routs Clinton in S.C. North County Times (Escondido): Obama romps in South Carolina LA Daily News: Obama defeats Clinton in rout in S. Carolina LA Times: Obama easily captures strongest win yet in S.C. Modesto Bee: Obama crushes Clinton in South Carolina primary Sacramento Bee: Obama's big win sets up next fight San Diego Union-Tribune: Obama thrashes rivals in S.C. San Francisco Chronicle: OBAMA WINS BIG IN S. CAROLINA Orange County Register: Obama runs away with S.C. Contra Costa Times: Obama nets huge win in S. Carolina
More after the flip and please use the comments to let us everyone know what you're doing and seeing locally.
Here's a quickie. That was the craziest scene I've ever witnessed. We went to the caucus at the Wynn. Imagine maids, chefs, cocktail waitresses, cool kids from the club, etc., all in a room doing politics. Nuts.
Clinton 189, Obama 187 in our caucus. Obama did not get a bump from the casinos on the Strip. A LOT more later. I could write a book.
For the record, there are a lot of allegations flying around about voter intimidation and voter suppression and all of that, on the Clinton AND on the Obama side (the Edwards folks are saying they just didn't have the people and didn't have the money). To be clear, I saw none of that at the Wynn, though of course, there was so much media there nobody would have been able to get away with it.
I'll give a full report probably tomorrow.
P.S. The Nevada State Democratic Party is reporting that turnout is above 114,000 caucus attendees, with 88% of precincts reporting. That is a ridiculously high number. Something like 9,000 people voted in 2004. Another good day for Democrats.
P.S.S. The Obama campaign is claiming that they're going to end up with 13 delegates to Clinton's 12, because he outperformed Clinton in rural areas of the state. Indeed, in everything but Clark and Washoe Counties (Vegas and Reno), Obama won 55-45%. I have no idea if this is true, but considering the delegate count is what actually MATTERS, you'd think that this would be reported.
P.S.S.S. OK, I just spoke with Jill Derby, the head of the Nevada State Democratic Party. Regarding the Obama claim that he'll actually get more delegates out of this, essentially that's spin. Derby said that the caucuses are an "expression of the support of Nevadans today." Around 11,000 delegates were elected today. That will be winnowed down at county conventions and eventually at the state convention in May to the 25 that will go to Denver for the DNC. In 2004, Kerry didn't win every delegate on Election Day, but most of the delegates that eventually went to the DNC were his. Once there's a presumptive nominee, the delegate numbers are subject to change. It's non-binding.
If that makes your head spin, the short version is that this was a beauty contest, and you can't project delegate numbers at this time.
On the question of charges of voter suppression and intimidation, which the Obama campaign is officially alleging, Derby said this (paraphrase):
"We had strict standards in place for what went on in the caucus room. Outside of the room is not necessarily our purview. We did get a few calls over the course of the day, and we did eject some people from the caucus room for engaging in tactics that were not within the rules."
I asked her if she was going to initiate an investigation, and she demurred. She basically said that if Nevadans feel they have had their voting rights infringed upon, they should take it up with the "proper avenues," which specifically she said was the courts. She also basically said that there was a lot of passion on both sides, and these kind of charges get thrown around in those circumstances.
Trying to be hands-off here, just the facts, ma'am. I can tell you one thing - this will not go away, and it could end up being a very big part of the conversation heading into South Carolina.
Two groups of Caliticians will be hitting Nevada for the weekend to cover the caucuses on Saturday afternoon. I will be with Todd Beeton of MyDD in Las Vegas; and Brian, Juls and I believe Lucas will be in the Reno area. In Vegas, we'll be hitting the "closing argument" events from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on Friday night (John Edwards actually has a morning event in Vegas that we'll probably miss, and then he leaves Nevada for Oklahoma and Missouri), and we'll make an appearance at one of the at-large precinct caucuses on the Strip on Saturday. I'll let the NorCal component check in with their plans.
First, I want to make sure that everybody is clear that these endorsements come from the Calitics Editorial Board, not the community as a whole. The Calitics Editorial Board consists of Brian Leubitz, jsw, Julia Rosen, David Dayen, Lucas O'Connor & Robert in Monterey. We would have liked to endorse as a community, but there are tremendous problems with ballot stuffing that this software just can't deal with. That being said, all are welcome to agree, disagree, flame us, whatever, in the comments. I'll give you our endorsements here, and then briefly discuss them over the flip. An endorsement required 4 of the 6 votes. Furthermore, this post should not be considered of anybody specifically. Rather, it is the voice of the Editorial Board as a whole. So, without further adieu, here they are:
President: Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
Proposition 91, Transportation Funding: No
Proposition 92, Community Colleges: Yes
Proposition 93, Term Limits Reform: Neutral/No Recommendation
Propositions 94-97, Native American Gambling Referenda: No
It appears the GOPigs "Steal the State" initiative will not be on the June 2008 ballot but it could still make it to the November 2008 ballot if it gets enough signatures, or a second version of it could be introduced after a low-turn-out June 2008 primary as a new but similar initiative. A re-introduced initiative could require fewer signatures based on a low-turn-out election in June, if I understand the rules correctly. So, either the initiative is dead or it isn't. Either it will be on the November 2008 ballot or it won't. Either it will pass in November or it won't. Either it will be challenging in court or it won't. Either it will be upheld or it won't. Either the final court decision will come before the electors cast their votes in December or it won't.
Well, I say "enough!" We need to take the lead and not depend on or react to events beyond our control. We need to quit responding to the GOPigs. We need to make the GOPigs respond to us.
We are 56 days from the California Presidential primary on February 5, and just a few weeks from opening early and absentee voting, and I think it's reasonable to assess how the facts of the race thus far have met with the expectations, and even if it isn't reasonable, I'm about to do it. The entire rationale for moving up the primary to February, from people as varied as the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, even our friends at the Courage Campaign, was that this would bring new attention to California in the Presidential race and would allow the state a say in the picking of a nominee.
While the turnout model for a June non-Presidential primary is unknown, this should cheer people who don't want to see California's electoral votes stolen by an unbalanced dirty trick.
When voters are read the title and summary of the proposed initiative, a solid majority opposes the measure - 53 percent would vote NO if the election were held today and only one out of five voters (22%) support the initiative while a quarter of the electorate (25%) is currently undecided. This is one of the lowest levels of support we have ever seen in our polling for a statewide initiative in California.
It doesn't sound like this is a tilted poll designed to get a certain result. It sounds like the months of harping on this both through the netroots and in the media are having an impact. They may yet get this dud on the ballot, but we'll crush it on Election Day.
Of course, we wouldn't even be talking about this if it weren't for the splitting of the primary races allowing for a low-turnout election in the middle of the summer to be an inviting target for Republican dirty tricksters. The real reason for moving up the Presidential primary was not just to keep up with the Joneses and "make California heard" in the Presidential process - if that was the goal they're failing miserably - was to ensure that termed-out lawmakers could serve again in the Legislature, by putting the term limits change on the February ballot in time for them all to run again in June. And now that initiative is starting to falter. So the Legislature created the conditions for any number of pernicious Republican ballot measures because they wanted to stay in power - and now they may not even accomplish that.
(I'd like to know as well... - promoted by David Dayen)
Democracy for America has been buzzing all day about the statement released by our Executive Director Arshad Hasan. Here one of the reasons why:
Our challenge to Al Gore: Jump In or Drop Out!
And another:
Despite the fact that Al Gore has not announced that he will run and wasn't even included in the endorsement poll, DFA members have seized the power and written him in. With over 65,000 votes cast so far, the time has come for Vice President Gore to make a decision.
The clock is ticking. We are deep into the 11th hour. There are fewer than 90 days until the first votes are cast. And filing deadlines to be on the ballot start closing in just days.
You deserve to know. Is Al Gore in or out?
Voting is still open until November 5 at midnight, and there is plenty of time for any candidate to win. All your candidate needs is your vote right now:
For months, politicians in big states like California, Florida and Michigan have griped about their lack of influence in the 2008 presidential race, pushing up their primaries to try to diminish the sway of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Now, thanks to those efforts, Iowa and New Hampshire appear more important than ever.
It's mainly a process story about how candidates must score an early victory to be able to gather enough money to compete on February 5. It was all so eminently predictable, and the relative absence of any Presidential candidates or buzz in this state with a little more than 3 months to go until the primary is further proof. The only way to end the prospect of Iowa and New Hampshire picking the nominee is to... stop having them pick the nominee.
We seem to have instituted this unwritten "must not talk about the Presidential primary" rule, so I'm breaking it. Not only did John Edwards receive the support of the Iowa chapter of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) today, but he also bagged the California chapter, which is 656,000 members strong. The Clinton and Obama factions in New York and Illinois may have denied Edwards the national endorsement, but these state endorsements are a big deal. Under SEIU rules, no other SEIU local from out of state can do any political activities in California for any candidate other than John Edwards. This gives Edwards valuable organizational support, and with him taking public financing and going up against the major dollars of Clinton and Obama, that's going to help a lot.
I remember this refrain over and over again from everyone who demanded that California move up its Presidential primary to February 5. The most populous state should have a say in the nomination, everyone said. The candidates will have to start talking about "California issues," they said.
Chris Bowers has a post showing the number of public appearances made by all of the Presidential candidates thus far this year.
There have been more trips to Iowa and New Hampshire than to every other state and territory combined. And I wish Courage Campaign was still doing their ATM Watch, because they would clearly see, as Bowers mentions...
...looking at upcoming events in California, one can see that over 60% of all scheduled appearances in the state are fundraisers, and virtually every non-fundraiser campaign appearance in the state is accompanied with a fundraiser.
I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily.
In the presidential campaign, we've heard a lot about "experience" (a plus for Hillary Clinton), "change" (Barack Obama's strongest point), and "electability" (which helps John Edwards.) But one factor that has yet to play a role is "trust." It is one thing to hear what a candidate has to say, but how can progressives know who will stick to their guns when the right-wing noise machine attacks - and who will capitulate, triangulate and take our support for granted? If "trust" becomes a major concern for Democratic primary voters, Hillary Clinton could be in trouble. And while a candidate can tout their resume to boost "experience," their platform to project "change," and good poll numbers to push "electability," there isn't much they can do about the fact that voters don't trust them. Especially when you've been in the public eye for 15 years.
I really want to not believe this, no matter what kind of sense it makes.
But despite initial rhetoric, political analysts believe California will avoid a long budget dispute because lawmakers have a one-time incentive this year to negotiate in a timely fashion: job longevity.
Lawmakers want voters to pass an initiative in February to change the state's term limits law so members may serve up to 12 years in any one house. One proposal would ensure that Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata can remain beyond 2008 even though current law would force them out of office next year.
To build support for the initiative, lawmakers will need to appear productive this year, and the budget is the Capitol's most symbolic gauge of productivity, said Tim Hodson, director of the Center for California Studies at California State University, Sacramento.
"All policy initiatives are impacted by the budget, so it has become a single, deceivingly simple symbol of the ability for state government to work," Hodson said. "Frankly, the political players and the news media have reinforced this notion of the budget being no more complicated than the arithmetic it takes to balance a checkbook. So if the Legislature and governor can't, the public thinks they're obviously inept or corrupt."
The problem is that the leaders in the Legislature would be bashed SO MUCH if they gave in on, say, slashing funding for the poor or the elderly, that they would lose as much support as they would gain. There's a fine line between "working together" and "giving the Governor every cruel thing he wants." How could progressive groups be eager to pass a term limits bill for the benefit of those who would sell out our poor or our elderly? Budgets in California take time, and it's up to the Legislature to explain why, should there be an impasse. "Arnold is trying to build a budget on the backs of the poor and our children, etc."
(I come at this from about the opposite direction, but I think it will make for some good discussion. - promoted by blogswarm)
I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron. I'm sure many folks here will disagree.
Several months ago, I opposed moving California's Presidential primary to February 5th because (a) there's no guarantee it will give us major influence in picking the next President, (b) it will front-load the primary schedule so that lesser-funded candidates have no chance in hell, and (c) California would be a "magnet" for other states to have an early primary - creating a primary season that starts early and ends early. Now Florida has snuck ahead by pushing its primary to January 29th, despite sanctions from both national parties that the Sunshine State will get fewer delegates at the national conventions. South Carolina is furious because Florida has jinxed its game, and now New Hampshire plans to exercise its God-given right of "always being first" by pushing its primary back to December - almost a year before the general election. While it's easy to get mad at Florida for crashing the party (and who doesn't hate Florida when it comes to Presidential elections?), California and 24 other states have no one to blame but themselves for this fiasco when they pushed up their primaries to February 5th.
The Field Research Corporation, the polling organization with the best track record in the state, has released a poll on the Democratic presidential primary (PDF). Hillary Clinton still has a sizable lead. The following table includes only these four candidates, mostly because Richardson, the next candidate got only four percent, and also Field only provided favorables for these four.
As you can see, Clinton still maintains a large lead, and Edwards isn't as high as the S-USA poll. This poll was taken Mar 20-31 (a really long time to take a poll), so there will be some difficulties with the data. The MoE is +/- 5%. I'll leave the further analysis to you...I've got a thesis to write. ;) Also, I'd expect a Republican poll tomorrow.
