By Delegate Heather R. Mizeur (District 20).
Neutrality guided my thinking as an uncommitted superdelegate during the recent Democratic nominating process, largely because I prefer building the Party to picking horses. Voters decided that Senator Barack Obama should be our presumptive Presidential nominee.
Sure, superdelegates came out to break the deadlock, but they opted for the candidate who had earned the most pledged delegates. Based on the rules that were in place, the nominating process came to its appropriate conclusion.
That’s different than saying the system worked.
Like any idea committed to paper but unproven in the real world, the flaws in our process only became evident when it was put to the test.
The last eighteen months have made it clear that there are many improvements needed, and that reform means more than preventing superdelegates from becoming the central front of another nominating process. Here are some of the things we should consider.
Superdelegates
The idea of superdelegates – or, more officially, an unpledged party leader and elected official (PLEO) delegate – strikes many as undemocratic. Many proposals aimed at curbing their influence center on making their votes more dependent on how the voters in a Congressional district, state, or the whole country voted.
Among these ideas was one I heard from many of Senator Obama’s supporters in Maryland, who believed superdelegates should pledge to vote the way their state (or Congressional district) voted.
The trouble is, Democratic superdelegates aren’t evenly distributed around the country – by population, by percentage of the nationwide Democratic primary vote, or by any other means. Several states – including Maryland and the District of Columbia, won by Senator Obama, and California, New York, and Massachusetts, won by Senator Clinton – are overrepresented by superdelegates. Others states are underrepresented.
This inequity happens for a number of reasons. Many superdelegates are appointed to be at-large DNC members, representing a particular constituency – Young Democrats, African-Americans, GLBT Americans, etc. Former Presidents, Vice Presidents, and some other high-ranking officials also continue to be superdelegates. Wherever these superdelegates live, they are counted with that state’s delegation.
If this logic had been followed by everyone, and all superdelegates had voted the way their States voted, the final numbers would have been much, much different – and this would have probably helped Senator Clinton more than Senator Obama.
Later in the campaign, as the process was nearing its end, I began to hear another argument emerge, mainly from Senator Clinton’s supporters: superdelegates should pledge to support the winner of the national popular vote. But this argument, too, is more complicated and problematic than it seems.
First – in addition to the disagreement about whether (and how) to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida – there was a lack of consensus about whether (and how) to count the votes cast by Michiganders and Floridians. Second, the contests weren’t all held on the same day, making the national popular vote a “photo montage” of the electorate rather than a snapshot. Third – and most importantly – the caucuses held in just over a dozen states do a poor job at capturing “popular” sentiment (more on that in minute).
For these reasons, using the national popular vote for a nominating contest would be as flawed as requiring superdelegates to vote the way of their state or district.
What does it all mean? What should we do about superdelegates?
We could require them (or certain categories of them) to remain neutral until after the primary contests have all concluded, as I did. We could devise a system to bind them (or certain categories of them) to primary vote totals in a way that wouldn’t give some states an outsized influence. We could reduce the overall number of superdelegates, making it less likely that they would exercise as much influence on the nominating process.
Or we could do away with superdelegates entirely.
Caucuses
After Senator and Michelle Obama move into the White House and we’ve secured expanded majorities in the House and Senate, the DNC needs to review whether or not we continue allowing states to hold caucuses. Though cheaper to hold than primaries, they are an imperfect way of nominating a President.
First, and most obviously, caucuses are a bizarre creature in a democracy that values secret ballots. But they also depress overall turnout, and skew what turnout there is away from older voters, working-class voters, voters with disabilities, and other who have trouble making it to a caucus site and staying there, sometimes for hours. There are no absentee ballots for caucuses, and so voters with unmet child care needs, voters who make a living through shift work, deployed members of the military, and voters without reliable transportation are shut out of the process.
We should invest in our democracy by requiring primaries, not caucuses.
A Rotating Regional Primary System
If only Michigan and Florida had followed the rules, their influence on the nominating process may have been greater. But they were only marginally more ambitious than most states in trying to increase their influence on the primary process. (See: Tuesday, Super)
It is past time to allow more states an opportunity to hold the first in the nation primary. We should strongly consider fundamental reform to our party’s nominating contest, taking a close look at a regional primary system. The DNC could carve up the country into 5-8 regions and then use a lottery system to determine the contest dates for each region. This would allow new, different voices to be heard.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Let’s use what we’ve learned from this extraordinary nominating contest to make further improvements for years to come.
Editor's note: This guest post is the second part in a two part series describing Delegate Heather R. Mizeur’s (D-Takoma Park and Silver Spring) status as a Democratic superdelegate in the recent Presidential nominating process.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Democratic Democracy
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
On the Sidelines but in the Fray
By Delegate Heather R. Mizeur (District 20).
The Washington Post recently ran an article detailing my fifteen minutes in the superdelegate spotlight.
I hope it’s the last fifteen minutes I’ll have to spend there.
Like a couple hundred other Democratic superdelegates around the country, I remained – as the Post put it – “adamantly, stubbornly undeclared” throughout the primary season. And so for nearly six months, the Clinton and Obama campaigns each lined up a small legion of surrogates, who dutifully called to sway my vote one way or the other.
And that’s the story the Post ran, the story most Americans wanted to read about uncommitted superdelegates: phone conversations and meetings with Governors and Senators, encounters with friends and neighbors on the Metro, and – of course – Melissa Etheridge calling.
But my experience is more nuanced than that.
The night before the article ran and my support for Obama’s candidacy became official, he had become our presumptive nominee by reaching the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.
The timing of my decision prompted questions by people who posted online comments, emailed me, or blogged about the article. Why did she wait so long? Why now?
Fair questions – what I haven’t ever articulated well enough was why I stayed on the sidelines.
It’s quite simple: I wanted the voters to decide.
We have never had an election like this one, and we may never have another. Since their creation in 1982, superdelegates had never played a significant role in choosing our Party’s nominee for President.
Even when it became clear that we might be forced into that role, there was no rulebook to guide our decision-making process – or the campaigns’ and the public’s efforts to sway our votes.
I became a superdelegate when the Maryland Democratic Party chose me as one of its representatives to the Democratic National Committee. When I was elected as a Committeewoman in 2005, I pledged to work hard for our Party, to grow our base, to shape our platform, and to support our candidates. Since then, I have remained neutral in Party primaries, which isn’t always easy in a state and a county boasting a bumper crop of talented Democratic leaders.
Last fall, when faced with a heavily contested presidential nominating process, I decided to remain neutral until at least after the Maryland primary had concluded. Doing so lets me be an unbiased resource connecting voters and activists to all Democratic campaigns. It also allows me to advocate and assist all our candidates.
I held a house party for Bill Richardson, and offered to do the same for the other candidates. I volunteered at rallies for Barack Obama and John Edwards. I drove elderly voters to the polls for Hillary Clinton. I took pride in helping other Marylanders do the same.
As Maryland’s primary concluded, it seemed increasingly likely that the contest would remain close and the national dialogue would continue to unfold and flourish. My gut told me that it was important to let that conversation run its course – that Superdelegates should not prematurely end this race. Though my resolve to remain uncommitted was sometimes tested, it was never broken.
Along the way, I was encouraged to declare my choice for the Democratic nominee by both sides of the contest – campaign surrogates, advocates in Maryland and across the country, neighbors, and the candidates themselves. Sometimes it seemed that there were as many rationales as there were pundits to deliver them.
These were oftentimes compelling, but none ultimately convinced me that I should abandon my neutrality. And so I remained “adamantly, stubbornly undeclared,” waiting for the process to play itself out.
On June 3rd, it had ended. The last primaries and caucuses had been held, the last votes had been cast and counted. Senator Obama and his campaign had masterfully developed and executed their national strategy and he emerged as our presumptive nominee.
Never has staying out of a fight proved to be so bruising.
Committing my support when I did has been misinterpreted by some as political opportunism; remaining undeclared through the end of the races has been misconstrued by others as a self-interested joy ride. While I can probably do very little to change these opinions, I would like to offer some insights.
The Democratic Party, Senator Barack Obama, and our candidates up and down the ballot are stronger than ever as a result of this primary season, and we stand ready to defeat Senator John McCain and the failed policies of the Bush Administration in November.
Because the process was allowed to play itself out, each state played an important role and we sent organizers to states and cities where Democrats normally do not compete. Because the process was allowed to play itself out, tens of millions of people voted and we registered record-breaking numbers of new voters. Because the process was allowed to play itself out, Senator Obama is ready to win in November, and we are all ready to help him.
And finally, because the process was allowed to play itself out, America decided – instead of me.
Editor's note: This guest post is the first part in a two part series describing Delegate Heather R. Mizeur’s (D-Takoma Park and Silver Spring) status as a Democratic superdelegate in the recent Presidential nominating process.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Governor, It’s Up to You
In a comment on my previous post calling for Maryland’s uncommitted super delegates to jointly announce their support for Senator Barack Obama, District 39 Delegate Saqib Ali said the following:Adam, Why do you only put the responsibility on the 9 unpledged Super-Delegates?
Delegate Ali makes a fair point. Maryland’s pro-Clinton super delegates are:
I agree that all the uncommitted Super Delegates should immediately endorse Senator Obama.
However the 11 Super Delegates who have previously pledged to Senator Clinton should also SWITCH to Senator Obama post-haste. It is their responsibility to heal the party every bit as much as the uncommitted SuperDs.
In fact if "The Clinton 11" switch, it would have a net effect of +22 for Obama. It would be a crushing blow. It would have a huge mathematical and psychological effect. It might end the nomination battle today.
So yes, the 9 uncommitted should join the Obama train. But even more important, The Clinton 11 should join too!
Governor Martin O’Malley
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger
State Treasurer Nancy Kopp
Former Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
Alvaro Cifuentes, Former Chair, DNC Hispanic Caucus
Maria Cordone, Director of Community Services, International Association of Machinists
Richard Michalski, Vice President, International Association of Machinists
Glenard Middleton, President, AFSCME Council 67
Carol Pensky, Founder, DNC Women’s Forum
Michael Steed, Managing Director, Paladin Capital Group
We should note that both AFSCME and the Machinists have endorsed Senator Clinton. Since the Clinton Administration fought hard to pass NAFTA, which has devastated the Machinists, many of the rest of us in labor have been scratching our heads over their endorsement for many months.
The key figure in the above list is Governor O’Malley. He alone has the power to deliver most if not all of Maryland’s super delegates as a group, as Delegate Ali suggests. Some believe that the Governor has national ambitions. What better way to enter the national stage as a bold deliverer of the party from a continuing bloody primary fight?
There are more parochial reasons for the Governor to intervene. Maryland badly needs federal funding for its BRAC transportation projects, its three proposed transit projects (Baltimore’s Red Line and the Washington suburbs’ Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway) and further cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. How would the Governor be better positioned in pursuing those funds? By sticking with a furious, increasingly ugly Clinton campaign to the bitter, losing end? Or by delivering victory in the primary to future President Obama?
Governor, it’s up to you. We are watching.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Enough is Enough
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is tough, smart and a hell of a campaigner. But after her crushing loss in North Carolina and narrow win in Indiana yesterday, it is clear that she will not be the Democratic nominee for President. To maximize the chances of beating Senator John McCain, it is time for the Democratic race to end. And the following nine Maryland residents can make that happen.
Now that 93% of the pledged delegates have been selected in the state primaries, the winner will be decided by the party’s super delegates. For the most part, they are sitting or former Senators, Congressmen, state and local elected leaders and state and national Democratic National Committee members. As of this writing, there are 795 super-delegates, of whom 271 are pledged to Hillary Clinton and 257 are pledged to Barack Obama. If the super delegates decide to support Senator Clinton, they will be overturning their own party’s popular vote. That is incomprehensible for a party that calls itself “Democratic.” Out of respect for their own voters and in the interest of taking the fight to the formidable Senator McCain, the party’s super delegates must state their support for Senator Obama. And they must do it now, before another Democrat-on-Democrat attack ad is broadcast or another self-inflicted wound to the party appears in the papers, the cable channels or YouTube.
Maryland has 29 super delegates, of whom 11 are pledged to Senator Clinton, 8 are pledged to Senator Obama and 10 are undecided. The 10 undecided super delegates are:
Senator Ben Cardin
Congressman John Sarbanes
Congressman Steny Hoyer
Congressman Chris Van Hollen
Susan Turnbull, Vice Chairwoman of the National DNC, Bethesda
John Gage, President, American Federation of Government Employees
Belkis Leong-Hong, President, Knowledge Advantage Inc., Gaithersburg
Heather Mizeur, State Delegate from District 20, Takoma Park
Gregory Pecoraro, City Council Member in Westminster
John Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO
Ms. Turnbull is unable to commit to a candidate because she is an officer of the national DNC, but the other nine are free to vote their conscience. It should not be a difficult choice. Maryland Democrats voted for Senator Obama by 60-36.5%. Senator Obama won 55% of the vote in both Congressman Sarbanes’ and Congressman Van Hollen’s districts and claimed a whopping 66% in Congressman Hoyer’s district. Delegate Mizeur’s State District 20 voted for Senator Obama by 64-35%.
Senator Clinton cannot win unless she convinces the party establishment to ignore its own rank and file – an unthinkable prospect that reminds us of George W. Bush’s “victory” in 2000. How many more attack ads, pot shots, innuendos and whisperings must we endure before marching into the real battle against the Republicans?
If the nine uncommitted Maryland super delegates above declare for Senator Obama on the same day, that could strike the final blow in the Democratic contest. Ladies and gentlemen, please do it – NOW. And then onward to victory in November.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Maryland’s Democratic Presidential Primary Record
From Marc Korman: Previously, we examined Maryland’s track record in presidential elections. Today, we take a look at Maryland’s Democratic presidential primary record since World War II.
According to the Maryland Secretary of State, Maryland’s first partisan presidential primary was in 1912. The practice did not become a regular quadrennial occurrence until 1952, with the exception of 1968 when the state did not hold a primary because of an overlapping state constitutional convention. From 1912 until 1984 Maryland held its primary in May. From 1988 until 2004 the primary was held in March.
A total of thirteen presidential primaries have been held in Maryland since World War II. In seven of those primaries, Maryland voted for the eventual Democratic nominee. That number climbs to eight if you count 1964, when home state Senator Daniel Brewster was standing in for incumbent President Lyndon Johnson.
Of the seven races where Maryland voted for the eventual Democratic nominee, only two went on to win the fall election. They were Kennedy and Clinton. If you count Brewster in 1964, three went on to win the general election. Two of the three were incumbent presidents, Clinton in ’96 and Johnson in ’64.
Of the eight races Maryland Democrats voted for the eventual Democratic nominee, six have come since 1980 beginning with the vote for Jimmy Carter over Ted Kennedy and continuing until 2004 with the exception of Tsongas’ victory over Clinton in 1992. Maryland Democrats’ new found ability to pick the eventual nominee probably reflects the trend, until 2008, of party nominees being picked earlier and earlier in the cycle.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Presidential Primary Results by LD with a Close Look at D18
Election result junkies can find the unofficial results for each congressional and legislative district as well as each polling place in Montgomery County online. Obama carried all eight legislative districts in MoCo by the following margins:
District 14: 57% to 41%
District 15: 50% to 48%
District 16: 55% to 43%
District 17: 50% to 47%
District 18: 56% to 41%
District 19: 50% to 47%
District 20: 64% to 35%
District 39: 55% to 43%
Rich Madaleno forwarded me a nice table with the precinct results for District 18. Obama carried all but six of the thirty-five precincts in District 18. Obama's three best precincts in the District were comprised by Chevy Chase municipalities (Chevy Chase Village, Town of Chevy Chase, and Sections 3 and 5).
Clinton carried five precincts with relatively high shares of Latino voters in the eastern part of the District (Twinbrook East, Randolph Hills, CT Ave. Estates, Glemont Hills-Wheaton HS, and CT Ave. Park-Turkey Run).
However, Obama did very well in other precincts in the eastern portion of D18. After Chevy Chase, Obama's three best precincts in District 18 were Forest Glen-Capital View, Woodside-North Woodside, and Silver Spring-Woodside Park.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Latest Polls
SurveyUSA has Obama up over Clinton by 55% to 32%. More details after the jump.
Clinton's black support is very weak--receiving only 15% compared to Obama's 78%. In contrast to earlier primaries, Obama appears prepared to win the Latino vote in Maryland where he currently leads with 65% to 33% for Clinton.
Clinton currently has a plurality among white voters with 44% to 39% for Obama. Her strongest region of the State is the Baltimore suburbs where she has 41% to 44% for Obama. The Senator from Illinois leads in Baltimore City with 68% to 21% and elsewhere in the State with 60% to 29%.
There is a huge gender gap. Obama leads among men by 65% to 24% while winning women by a margin of just 48% to 39%. One wonders if this is driven primarily by white voters as it has been in some previous primary states.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Get Your Presidential Supporters Here!
Now that the Holiday Season has past and The Iowa Caucus is upon us I thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at who our local electeds are lining up behind. The Gazette gave us the names back on December 21 but let's look a bit closer.
Now any good follower of MoCo politics will tell you that being Free State political activist does not matter in the presidential selection process unless of course you spent time over the Holidays in Iowa or plan on wintering in New Hampshire for your favorite candidate. But the list tells you a few things of the 42 people representing us in Rockville (County Executive and 9 County Council) or Annapolis (8 Senators and 24 Delegates), 20 of whom have declared for someone.
Neither of the MoCo Congressman are publicly behind a candidate; Nor is our County Executive. But our Governor, Lt. Governor, Treasurer and Senior US Senator are behind Clinton. AG Gansler is state co-chair for Obama. Comptroller Franchot and Junior US Senator Cardin are undecided.
The elected women are lining up behind the lone female candidate. The list includes 3 of the 4 women on the MoCo Council (Floreen, Ervin and Trachtenberg) and 3 of the 10 members of the MoCo Delegation to Annapolis (Sens. Kramer and Forehand and Del. Hixson). No elected woman from MoCo has come out for anyone besides Hillary. So yes Virginia there is a gender gap.
The first time elected officials are either behind newcomer Obama or staying out. Seven of the seventeen newly elected / appointed members of either the County Council or Annapolis Delegation are for Obama (Councilman Berliner, Sen. Raskin and Delegates Ali, Frick, Gilchrist, Hucker and Reznick); compared to three for Clinton (Councilwomen Trachtenberg and Ervin and Del. Kramer). But another seven are undecided (Councilman Elrich, Sen. Lenett and Delegates Carr, Manno, Mizeur, Rice and Waldstreicher).
Undecided leads the combined totals of Obama, Clinton Edwards 22-19. But of those that have committed Obama leads Clinton 11-7. But Clinton leads among the past Delegates and Senators 6-0. And Clinton leads among the municipalities 5-0.
The MoCo Board of Education -- the canary in the coal mine of local politics -- has two of its members behind Clinton (President Navarro and O'Neill) versus one for Obama (the recent convert to the Democratic fold Stephen Abrams.)
Both recent converts to the Democratic fold are for Obama. Former US Senate candidate and former Bush ranger Josh Rales along with Abrams are Obama supporters. Also former Republican turned Democratic Delegate Luis Simmons is a pledged Delegate for Edwards -- making him the sole local elected official for the 2004 Vice Presidential nominee.
If one were to surmise from the listing of supporters, Clinton has the establishment vote; Obama has the newcomers and most are waiting for the dust to settle before deciding.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
What Do a Texas Hold 'Em Tournament and a Presidential Forum Have In Common?
They are common to me because I immediately went from the Forum last night to a Texas Hold 'Em tournament making for a rare daily double (to borrow from the racing industry) on a Wednesday night.
Texas Hold 'Em and Presidential Forums have as much in common as state sponsored gambling initiatives. Sort of like balancing the budget on the backs of gambling addicts such as what is being proposed in Annapolis (to benefit the racing industry).
Maybe there is not an answer to my question just like there is no answer to the question "who won the Presidential Debate last night?"
Six of the eight Democratic Presidential candidates appeared at Forum held at the Kensington Armory on Wednesday night. It was sponsored by virtually every Democratic club in the county (27 as of last count) which maybe rarer than my aforementioned daily double. Think about it; when was the last time that many Democrats agreed on anything?
Well the Democratic candidates did agree last night and the unifying theme was W, as in the President, as in Mr. Weapons of Mass Destruction, as in he lied and soldiers died.
George W. Bush hangs over both political parties in a way no other President has in my life. Neither Reagan at his zenith nor at his nadir can match our current President for unifying folks. Last night's Forum was no different.
The Forum was interesting to those of us who consider politics part-fascination and part-sport, sort of like "American Idol" where everyone is their own personal Simon Cowell. Granted that is a very small universe, but it is a passionate one.
From the couple who stood outside the Armory reminding people that it is Patriotic to Impeach to those passionately for one of the candidates
inside it is like holding low cards and hoping the flop comes your way. You are not mathematically eliminated and so hope springs eternal and so you put some money down in the hopes that your cards will prevail.
Now if you were a causal voter you were nowhere near the Armory. But for the nearly 200 people who did attend it was a chance to hear the surrogates for six of the eight Democratic candidates remind us of why we like to talk politics.
Granted even in an hour and a half -- the length of the Forum -- the audience was limited to one minute responses to some complex issues facing our county, which is hardly fair. However the alternative of Perot flipcharts and CNN monologues would have limited the audience to the six surrogates only -- and this blogger.
"So who won?"
I can tell you who won the Texas Hold 'Em Tournament last night (Johnny O) but I can't answer who won the debate; because it is still before the heavy betting begins -- which is just before the flop. So call this the "pre-flop" maneuvers and it becomes real on Monday January 14th across Iowa, provided Michigan does not recalibrate things.
Just like Texas Hold 'Em where certain cards are generally losers and not even worth an ante-in, you can still play since it is still not impossible to draw a winning hand by using the community cards which is what all those candidates not named Clinton or Obama are hoping for -- that the country will sour so much on the current inhabitant -- and that with the right cards they can be the party's nominee.
So if you are near the back of the pack you bluff and bluster and hope for the best. In this case you hit the hardest at the front runner. Therefore it was no surprise that the harshest criticism came from Sen. Gravel's and Rep. Kucinich's surrogates. Still the overall tone was tame and I think the current officeholder had a lot to do with the unification so don't have anyone tell you that this President can't bring people together.
This quote from the John Edwards surrogate "Where do the Democrats get the tag of fiscally irresponsible when you have the record deficits of Reagan and Bush One and Two?" turns the conventional wisdom of the causal voter on its head so thanks Mr. President for unifying us Democrats under the banner of the fiscally prudent party.
Buzz Clinton
The audience was decidedly pro-Clinton probably because: 1) she is the front runner (there I go again with another gambling term) and 2) her local campaign folks did an excellent job of getting their people out. But what impressed me most about the Clinton folks is how many new activists she has. Every successful campaign I have been a part of has included one part experienced hands and one part new activist. And it is the newbies who are the folks that really create the campaign buzz. Call it Buzz Clinton.
Obama The Exploitor
Obama is like the player sitting at the table with the second best hand and needs to exploit things to unsettle the front runner. He brings part moxie and part brains to get an advantage. His surrogate, St. Senator Jamie Raskin, provided both. Their supporters were about half of the Clinton folks but maybe that had to do with Obama being in town so many of his supporters were at his low dollar fundraiser listening to the real thing rather than the excellent imitation by Raskin. Obamaites are also like the Clintonistas in that they have several new faces mixed in with veteran hands.
The other four candidates had less than a handful of supporters each at the event.
Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul as soulmates
I think Kucinich speaks to the soul of Democrats much like Ron Paul speaks to the soul of devoted Republicans; I doubt either will be elected but if you are a Democrat and don't agree with core points of the Representative from Cleveland you might want to check your party affiliation. As his surrogate, Steve Cobble, said after reminding the audience that the problems America faces need "big and bold responses and with Kucinich you get little and bold" (referring to his diminutive size) you had to like the fight in him.
Check with Montgomery County Cable to see the debate
Cable Channel 16 recorded the debate and it will be shown at a later date. When I find out when I will post a message on this blog. But I will tell you that the six surrogates (Clinton, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama, and Richardson) were well prepared and did a good job of speaking not about themselves but about their candidates.
So what do Texas Hold 'Em and a Presidential Forum have in common?
Probably that having the best cards in your hands does not guarantee victory and being the obvious front runner as Hillary is does not guarantee her nomination. The Iowa Caucus is 90 days out. It has not become an "ABC" race -- Anybody But Clinton race -- but anyone else is going to need to have the community cards at the table go their way to unseat her.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Maryland Blue Crab Vote
The state Democratic party has been running a Presidential Poll that anyone can participate in. I have. And I think it is interesting to see what the opinion is of those who have voted. It is obviously unscientific so the blog owner here, who is a college professor, may bounce me for even mentioning something so crass. But as the ol' saying goes "when the cat is away the mice will play". So play I will.
Unlike the buzz on the national scene for Obama and Clinton, in our corner of the world Obama is basically kicking butt of all announced candidates -- and not only Hillary's but Edwards and Richardson and the rest of the crew.
The fact that Gore is in second confirms what I have gotten when talking with other political activists the past month or so. Gore seems to be the reprising Mario Cuomo's 1992 role as the favorite son who sits on the sideline with his plane set to take-off and no one on board. I know of several local electeds who would sign up for Gore tomorrow if he announced today. But so far he is doing a Cuomo.
So without the afterglow of Gore's Inconvenient Truth we have a race of Obama and Clinton. I still am undecided between Edwards and Obama. But I am leaning towards Edwards.
Obama seems to be the Howard Dean of 2007/8. It seems all the new political activists are for Obama as they were a political generation (four years) ago. Like I was in 2004, I want Obama to do something to justify his high standing. But maybe it is as one hard-core supporter of Barack's told me after their organizing meeting pre-Spring Ball "about half of the people in the room were never involved in a previous campaign." So Obama seems to have found a way to expanded the base of Dems that the others can only dream of.
Edwards is holding firm in the 3rd position. Can he break away from the rest of the pack and join Hillary and Barack at the head of the parade? He is the strongest 2nd choice candidate. So there is hope for him.
Things will heat up with the 2nd Democratic debate this Sunday on CNN. I plan on getting together with some other activists to see how the players play. I will report on my findings. Until then watch to the MD Dems web site and be ready to vote for your favorite candidate when June rolls around.
Remember, the cat is away. ;)
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
The Political Power of Black Women
Tom Schaller has an interesting column in the Baltimore Sun arguing that black women may well determine who determines the Democratic presidential nomination. Since African Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic, the black share of the Democratic primary vote is usually higher than the black share of the overall electorate. And black women make up an outsized chunk of the black vote:
Because African-American men not only are fewer in number but also register and vote at much lower rates, black women cast almost three of every five of these votes - 59 percent, to be precise. White women also outnumber, out-register and outvote white men, but the disparity is smaller (53 percent to 47 percent).Two factors help explain why black women outvote black men and a stronger rate than white women outvote white men. Education is the strongest predictor of who votes. Unlike among whites, women are better educated than men in the African-American population. Felon disfranchisement also plays a role. Several states with sizeable black populations disfranchise people with felony convictions. A disproportionate share of blacks, especially black men, have lost their voting rights as a result.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Maryland Left Behind?
Several big states are thinking of moving up their presidential primaries by several weeks. Specifically, California, Florida, Illinois and New Jersey are contemplating moving up their primaries to the week after the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary. In 2004, Maryland held its primary in the same week as California and before Florida, Illinois and New Jersey. At ther rate delegate rich states are moving up, it could all be decided by the time it gets to the Old Line State.
