Why is Puerto Rico important?
May 31st, 2008
-
What role will Puerto Rico play in 2008 and in the future?
With respect to the electoral battle being waged by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, no-one could have imagined back in January that the Puerto Rico primary would be anything other than the chance for the people of this Caribbean island to feel involved in the process of selecting the Democratic nominee.
Whilst the nomination is substantially decided, the sheer size of the Puerto Rican electorate could still influence which candidate gets to claim a victory in the popular vote. To put Puerto Rico’s size in context, if it became a full State, its population of around 4m (between Kentucky and Oregon) would make it larger than 24 current states and the Federal District, and would apportion it approximately 8 Electoral College votes.
Puerto Ricans are able to vote in the General Election if they are resident in a US state, but the strange relationship between the island and the USA means that unincorporated territories and possessions do not have voting representation in either the US Congress or the Electoral College. The island describes itself in English as a ‘Commonwealth’ (a rather confusing translation of the Spanish ‘Estado Libre Asociado’ – literally ‘Associated Free State’) which is reliant on the US for certain areas of government (defense for example) and US Federal Law applies, although it has autonomy in many other areas, including a certain degree of fiscal autonomy. If forced to suggest a British equivalent, I think I would have to say the Isle of Man’s relationship with the United Kingdom would be the most appropriate comparison I could draw.
There have been historic ties between Puerto Rico and New York/New Jersey, given that these states have been the destinations for most Puerto Rican migrants to the US (immortalized by Leonard Bernstein’s ‘West Side Story’). For that reason in particular, a Clinton victory by a significant margin is to be expected. A recent poll had Clinton leading 50% to 37%, and seems to accord with her support amongst Hispanic voters and Catholics nationally. Endorsements have gone in Clinton’s favour as well, likely to take 5 or 6 of the 8 Superdelegates, though the Governor has expressed his support for Barack Obama. He was originally the Obama campaign’s co-chair in Puerto Rico until corruption charges led to him being replaced by William Miranda Marin, the mayor of Caguas.
Governor Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, based in the capital San Juan, is a real political character. He suffered the first ever Gubernatorial veto override in PR, as well as governmental shut-down when the Speaker refused to send him a bill to sign because they had ‘accidentally’ voted for the Governor’s preferred level of Sales Tax. The Puerto Rican Supreme Court had to order the Speaker to hand over the bill, and he threatened to refuse before relenting. The Governor, who was co-chair of PR’s Obama campaign, has now been embroiled in scandals about party finances and breaking federal election law (including the admission that he spent $40,000 of his party’s money on new suits, equivalent in value to approximately 100 of John Edwards’ haircuts).
As we rarely get a chance to discuss Puerto Rico, and with less at stake than many of the previous primary contests, I thought I would just offer a little bit of interesting information which might explain the climate in which this vote is taking place.
Puerto Rico’s status is the main political issue on the island. The three traditional parties represent the three main options for Puerto Rico’s future – the Popular Democratic Party (PDP, or PPD in Spanish) are a Social Democratic party nominally aligned to the Democrats, and believe in the continuation of the status quo: an unincorporated territory of the USA, though with ever greater autonomy. The Governor, who is the leader of the PDP, surprised many by talking about his aspiration that Puerto Rico should become ‘sovereign’ (a term usually used by advocates of Statehood) and he has sought to have Puerto Rico represented independently at the General Assembly of the United Nations.
The New Progressive Party (NPP, or PNP in Spanish) campaigns for full Statehood and representation in the US Congress, and controls both the Puerto Rican legislature and currently send their leader, Luis Fortuno, to Washington DC as the non-voting At-Large delegate to the US House of Representatives. They are affiliated with both the US Democratic and Republican parties. The far-left Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP) support full independence. The other registered party is the Puerto Ricans for Puerto Rico Party (PRPRP), who seem to express no clear view on constitutional status, and are best described as being similar to the Green Party. Recent referenda have seen about 40% support Statehood and less than 5% support full independence, with the remainder either supporting the continuation of the status quo or expressing that they are not sure.
The US party platforms from previous Presidential elections give us an indication of how the US government would respond to any expression for change in Puerto Rico. The Republican party has committed to accepting Puerto Rico as a full state when they decide to join by plebiscite, with a continuation of current status until that point. They would, I think we can infer, oppose Independence, and their platform re-iterates the authority of the US Congress to make the final determination. The Democratic platform changed a little between 2000 and 2004, with the Democrats’ previous position (under Al Gore) of supporting any result of a referendum being moderated to accepting only ‘realistic’ outcomes when John Kerry was the nominee.
Double Carpet and I were discussing the primary season today, and we got onto wondering why both parties allow Territories such as Puerto Rico to vote in their party primaries when those same territories have no vote in the Electoral College - unlike for example France where nearby DOM-TOM such as Guadeloupe and Martinique get to vote in the presidential election.
I think it must be partially in deference to the large numbers of Puerto Ricans who live in the US whom neither party wishes to antagonize. Secondly, both parties will be aware that Puerto Rico will likely one day choose to vote for full Statehood, and should that be accepted by Congress then Puerto Rico would become a valuable asset in the electoral college, worth more than half the other states in the Electoral College. Neither party would want to have the reputation for having ignored Puerto Rico when it was still a territory.
So if it gave Hillary Clinton a large enough majority in the Democratic primary tomorrow, there is a chance that Puerto Rico might still be decisive in determining which candidate wins the overall popular vote. Though this is very unlikely to have much of an impact on the identity of the eventual winner, it will maybe fuel debates about the legitimacy of the winner, and could affect internal party debates about the attractiveness of a National Presidential Primary for the Democratic Party. However, the real impact of this small island on US politics is likely yet to be felt. Should it attain Statehood, it could dramatically shift the balance of power between the parties vying for control of the United States government.
Morus
MessageSpace Advertising
Does Puerto Rico have any seeming desire for statehood?
Presumably, it’s expected to swing for Hillary, and therefore we’ll have to endure yet more nonsense from her crack team of idiot savants as they explain how Puerto Rico somehow negates the fact that by every reasonable measure Obama has beaten her.
WHY WON’T SHE JUST GO?
Look, now I’ve upset myself.
Doctor Who will calm me down. STEVEN MOFFAT! Woohoo!
Well, you’ve killed everything stone dead there, Morus!
Well, you’ve killed everything stone dead there, Morus!
1
“WHY WON’T SHE JUST GO?”
I think she’s going down for the third time. Which will probably endear her to Bill and secure the promise of a happy retirement.
And when a congresswoman asks “how’s the bill faring on the Hill?” everyone will know what she means.
2 Not many subjects further away from a Winchester by-election than the constitutional status of Puerto Rico!
In all seriousness, the RBC proceedings are suggesting that MI and FL will be seated at least in part, with full votes for Superdelegates, and if Puerto Rico does give her the lead in the popular vote (given how Democrats generally support a National Primary and are more likley than Republicans to support abolition of the Electoral College) then she has a justifiable case for the nomination for the first time since Super Tuesday.
I don’t think she’ll get it, and I don’t think she should, but to win the national popular vote is a much better case than she has previously given (’big states’ or ‘primaries not caucuses’).
Anyone read the Rum Diary by Hunter S Thompson? That’s the real Puerto Rico.
6 - One of my favourite books!
Has anyone been to Puerto Rico? I’d be interested in any first hand accounts from PBers
5 - But really, how can the popular vote mean anything when
a) it has nothing to do with the voting system
b) there is no standard electoral system, so different turnouts are inbuilt into the system
c) polling spread across months anyway
Or have i totally missed what people mean when they talk about “popular vote”?
8 - It’s not valid, but when the Democrats are generally supprotive of a popular vote contest, winning the popular vote *as it stands* may mean something to Superdelegates.
I don’t think it’s fair, but it’s her strongest argument yet - especially when compared to Evan Bayh’s “convert states into Electoral College votes, and work it out that way”!
7 - never been there. My sole knowledge is based on what Dr Thompson says. I have similarly clouded knowledge of Las Vegas.
He did also write one of the finest books on a political campaign.
8 - My understanding is, that had the Democrats used the same electoral system in primaries that is used in the actual Presidential Elections, Hillary would now have the majority of the delegates.
8 All valid comments but the “popular vote” meant something to Obama supporters when it was likely that he would win it .
9 - Are Democrats “generally supportive of a popular vote contest”? If they are why don’t they have one? They became “supportive” one day after the 2000 election, but a day earlier they had been strongly opposed!
And at least votes cast in Presidential Elections are cast on a consistent basis (with allowances for eg. low turnout in California). The primaries aren’t even consistent about the extent to which you have to be a consistent Democrat to vote.
Essentially there is no “moral argument” that Clinton can put. The only argument she can make is that she is better placed to win the Presidency and the Super-Delegates should nominate her on that basis.
11 - I might be wrong, but I think that (if you give Montana and South Dakota to Obama, as expected) and remember that DC is the only non-state that votes in November, there would be a 269-269 tie.
CLINTON - CA, AZ, NM, OK, AR, TN, KY, WV, IN, OH, PA, MI, NY, NJ, MA, RI, NH, FL
OBAMA - DC, ME, VT, CT, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, WI, IL, MN, IA, MO, KS, ND, SD, NE, CO, WY, MT, ID, UT, NV, WA, OR
So were it a General Election, it would go to the House of Representatives - who are Superdelegates!!!
13 - I think Democrats are, or at least are much better represented in those campaigns than Republicans. The State parties are the ones who oppose, because it would make them largely irrelevant.
14. If it’s 270 to win, where is the missing delegate?
What missing delegate?
17. My cock up there are only 538 delegates.
16 - There are 538 members of the Electoral College (one for every Senator and Congressman, plus 3 for DC by virtue of the XXIIIrd Amendment). To win, you need an absolute majority, which would be 269.5 - which in practice means 270 to win.
Because 538 is an even number, there is a chance of a tie, dealt with by the XXIIth Amendment. In this very rare instance, the vote for President goes to the House of Representatives (who vote by State in this instance) and the vote for VP goes to the Senate.
19 - Why would it be 269.5? And if it’s 269.5 why not 269.1, or 269.01 or… ?
20 - Yeah sorry, not really thinking!!
Thanks for the article Morus.
“might still be decisive in determining which candidate wins the overall popular vote(…)it maybe fuel debates about the legitimacy of the winner”
Agreed. I was saying this the other day, there’s is an article, an old one, which asks if Hillary is not the new Gore. Because she may win the popular vote, but she probably will not be the candidate. If she wins the popular vote, and in the future Obama is president and is in a crisis, many will say that she would be best, and will question his legitimacy…
Heading out for a little while, back later.
Maybe Sea Shanty Irish will find us a nice Puerto Rican song…
Technically of course the XXIIth Amendment presumably wasn’t introduced because there are an even number of delegates! Just in case anyone would accuse the Americans of inventing a complicated solution when an easy one (adding another delegate) would do
Sporting’s GE Seasts market remains open for business, so it’s unlikely there will be any polls out tonight.
22 - I think it really is pushing the argument to suggest that an Obama Presidency will be undermined by failing to gain the “popular vote” (whatever that means) in the contest for the Democratic Nomination!
26-Pushing what argument? Clintonites will always exist, and you know that when people get angry with a leader, they always want someone else. Maybe when Obama makes a mistake, some will think that Hillary wouldn’t do it. And it’s the same with her, imagine if she won the nomination, and she is in presidency, she does something wrong, people will think that Obama would be better. I’m not in anyway saying that this will undermine Obama’s presidency but it can make more difficult…
24 alex what a truly insulting and revolting post - this kind of childish and toffee nosed sneering is totally ruining PBC; why do you have to make such pathetic posts - it’s demeaning to all who read them
[just doing mal19ken's work for him in the hope it saves him the effort of posting random insults; or posting at all actually]
@28:
Hey, he never accuses me of making pathetic and nasty posts, even when I’m trying.
28 king
Sad.
Malcolm
It isnt, other than it could hand Clinton another very good win and Obama really doesnt want her stacking up big margins in any state now he has it wrapped up. It simply doesnt look good that the presumptive nominee is still getting the occasional thumping even if it dont change the end result.
1. Because its a deomcracy and she has a right to carry on.
Whats your issue with that?
It amuses me the complete snobbery that seems to accompany peoples desirability to post in the eyes of others. The left seem to want everybody banned! Or you cannot poke fun for more than 3/4 posts a thread as Mboy said on the previous thread.
The best one of all were the people giving Mark Oaten MP a load of grief about spelling on the last thread. Not thanking him for bothering to read their posts and highlight his position but go on about his spelling!
Sometimes people on here show what an insular and elitist forum this can be. Very funny indeed! 
31. Surely, if Obama’s probably going to win the nomination, the Puerto Rico political elite would have most to gain by rallying round him. I don’t understand why they are backing Clinton.
In my opinion, nothing would be more fitting than for an Obama presidency than bringing Puerto Rico into the union.
* to bring Puerto Rico…
34. Because a majority prefer Clinton
30 malc [overlooked genius faction]
sadder
king
On the betting front - when are PP going to pay out on Obama? PP paying out seems to be the definitive signal that something is a done deal and I stand to make enough money to pay for a luxury meal at Pizza Express (wine included).
27 - Well if a band of Clintonites are intent on destroying an Obama presidency from within then i suppose any argument goes.
I just think that the “popular vote” argument is weak enough when applied just to who should get the Democratic nomination. The extension you’ve added - that if Obama wins the Presidency it will have been because he is the Democrat candidate, not because he is Obama (the implication that any Democrat, specifically Hillary would win if they were given the nomination) - seems to be one that will be rejected out of hand by the American electorate.
29 - Perhaps we could swap usernames, so we can both get the credit we seek and deserve?
DNC Rules Committee coverage is available here and will resume at 9.15
Whats this bullshit about Boris Johnson only serving one term on the Liberal Democrat Blogs?
33 - BTW can i congratulate you on how much your spelling and grammar has improved since your early postings. You’ve obviously been working very hard at it.
Seems to have improved your language as well
30. It seems that in ‘malc19ken’ we have a worthy successor to the much missed ColinW
14 - Hillary got more votes in Texas and in Nevada, so I have the impression that in the Presidential Elections she would have had all their delegates. Now, because they are divided in “one member constituencies” in Democratic Primaries, Obama had more delegates from both states.
43. I must have been confused, I thought ColinW was something to do with Jack’s arse!
38-I did not say that Obama will win because he is the Democratic candidate(I even read my posts again to see if I said that), actually I don’t even know who will win. But that if Obama wins the presidency and makes a mistake, some who voted for Hillary will think she wouldn’t made the same mistake, then these will complain that he had no legitimacy to be the Democratic candidate.And this is not an argument against Obama, because I believe the same would happen to her. I just think it’s part of politics, when you fail, people will always think how would it be if your opponent was in power.
39 - Alex, Did you ever get an explanation from Malcolm (”Hey, Teacher, leave the kids alone”)over his ColinW-esque tirade on the previous thread? As a former Headmaster, he really should know better.
7 - I spent an enjoyable week in Puerto Rico a couple of years ago. If I’d known the crucial part it would play in the next presidential race I’d have spent less time in the cocktail bars, casinos and beaches and more time asking the locals about their attitude to NAFTA, statehood and healthcare so I could offer something constructive on this thread
.
42. Or perhaps the hard work went into creating the original mistake-filled, scatological and mildly insane posts. The mask has been slipping a bit of late,,,
46 - Yes i know. But implicit in that is that “Hillary would have won the Presidency if only she had been the Democratic candidate”.
43 - Great minds…but ColinW has the edge. At least his abuse was usually confined to a couple of fruity epithets, not tedious paragraphs of bile.
49 - that’s an interesting and plausible thought. He must have had to try really hard to get chucked out of the Tory Party though!
Surely Puerto Rico can’t really be included in the popular vote tally since it won’t be voting in November. If you did you may as well have an Ontario primary!
51. John - yes, ‘Malc’ isn’t quite up to ColinW’s standards yet, but he shows great promise
I don’t recall ColinW picking on random posts to dispense his bile though, did he?
A Headmaster? Surely not?
55 - “I don’t recall ColinW picking on random posts to dispense his bile though, did he?”
No, he picked on random Tories.
50-Not all, that’s why I use “if she won”. Even if she was the Democratic candidate and lost the presidency, then people would think why they didn’t choose Obama…
“The left seem to want everybody banned!”
Typically, before the end of WWII, the Right was Authoritarian, and favorable to Big Daddy State.
Now, Authoritarianism and Big State are attributes of the Left, with the difference that the Left want a Nanny State, authoritarian nonetheless,
There was a reversal, an inversion.
57-*used
55 - Yes, I’m sure he posted that once….as well as his exalted status as a former Deputy Labour Leader (albeit probably in a lean year) of the Grimewold Urban Disticy Council.
Disticy = District
57 - lol confusing. I thought we were talking about the circumstances where Obama was already President. ie. Hillary supporters undermining him on the grounds that she would have been President (and a better one) if it wasn’t for her being cheated out of the nomination.
Circumstances are different if we are not looking quite so far into the future.
62-But this is the argument that some Clintonites may use.
52. Mavricks are mavricks though! I actually prefer being an individual rather than an addition to a party. Not many Tories have Republican sympathies as i do or think that some Tory MP’s are bone ideal and need kicking out of parliament as quickly as possible.
The Tories though despite my banned membership are my philosphy of choice. The reason i became banned was my relentless pursuit of some vile and pretty nasty individuals i encountered in Tory HQ. I did some pretty funny things actually and badgered some pretty inflietial folk - maybe i should write a book!
Or maybe i already have! 
63 -
And they’ll be laughed out of court 
Do you think she’ll still harbour hopes of running for the Presidency in 2016? (challenging an incumbent President would be unprecedented in recent history, wouldn’t it?). If not, i don’t really see the point in the Clintonites trying to undermine anyone!
65. Is 1980 not recent history? Or 1968?
Two of the last three Democratic presidents have faced heavyweight challenges from within their party after their first term. Not coincidentally, neither Carter nor Johnson achieved re-election.
65. Yes but she is arrogant, Bills song was always about Tommorrow and it would seem that is what HC is planning.
I still think the degree of rascism out in the US. makes HC’s position understandable. Obama could easily become the most unpopular President in History if things go wrong. It is like all things in life, your percieved weakness is used against you: Obama’s main weakness is because he is percieved to be Black (Actually he is mixed race). Believe me when things get tough, on the ground in America race will become the issue that tips Obama to unpopularity. It will be used against him relentlessly - just you watch!
Think that the US presidential vote will be closer as rascists will say they are voting democrat but then a few will sneakily vote republican for President Democrat doe the House and Senate.
63-I don’t think it’s a question if she will still be habouring hopes for the Presidency. But if you were one of those who voted for Clinton in the primary, had doubts about Obama, but when November came you voted for him. Some months later, he makes a mistake that you think she would never make it, wouldn’t you think why wasn’t she the candidate(admitting that she wins the popular vote)? And this is not because he’s Obama and she’s Clinton, it just because when you make an option you always give up something, if you are not sure, you will always think how would it be if you had made the other option…
68-It’s for 65(Alex), sorry!
56 I rather miss ColinWs posts
I particularly liked the qualifier ‘tory’ which he applied to any insult, using it almost as a superlative; he couldn’t imagine anything more extreme than being a tory version of anything. Naturally he called me a ‘tory fool’ more than once.
66. But Johnson didn’t seek renomination did he?
70. I think he used to find the questioning in terms of legality for acts of Buggery rather difficult though. To some people Buggery is something that should not be debated - I believ ColinW hated talk of Buggery and the legislative thust that occured in recent years.
71. I didn’t say that he did. But had Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy not challenged him, he might well have done so.
70.:D
It was the way the little pipsqueak used to pop up without warning and spray some poor unsuspecting poster with his colourful, yet pithy response. ColinW was never big on the thoughtful response full of insightful analysis, when a simple, straight to the point insult would do. You could almost feel the bile as it hit you.
71 - he retired to his ranch a broken man.
75 He lost out in the 1966 congressional/senate elections which basically finished of his Great Society legislation, then in the Summer of Love, while the white West Coast was all Flowers, Drugs and Love-Ins, Newark & Detroit burned, in Vietnam 1000 US casualties a month. We laughably talk about the failures of Gordon’s government - in 67 & 68 Johnson gave a masterclass.
Interesting piece.
76. I don’t know i think Brown has been to use John Hutton’s alleged words a ……………………. Everything Brown has tried to do has been a disaster.
66 - sounds like a pretty good argument for a Republican President! The first term is when a President can get things done and Democrat Presidents can expect to have to spend a quarter of it fighting their own side for re-election!
Do the Democrats understand the concept of pulling together in the same direction?
79. No they are a bit like the british Labour party, squabling for the top job.
65. Ford was also challenged by Reagan in 1976.
The Telegraph’s “big story” seems to be that Steve Hilton, the man behind the Cameron rebranding, is to quit and move to the US.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/2059048/Tories-lose-Steve-Hilton-to-America.html
82 - but that he’s still going to work as a consultant from the States, and he’ll be back in 6 months.
Non-story or what?!
And there was me thinking it might be old pics of Dave snorting coke or something!
Good job they are not sending Harry! Think he would have been given some agro by the press.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1317716,00.html
81 - That’s different.
58. Depends on the country. In the UK, Labour are undeniably the more authoritarian party, in my view. Whereas in the US it is the Bush administration that claims congressional oversight doesn’t apply to the Vice-President’s office, that the authority of the President can override international law, the created the heinous PATRIOT Act, that illegally wiretapped our phones without telling the rest of government, that redefines torture, that sets up a parallel system of military tribunals where defendants don’t have their constitutional rights.
Indeed, at least one legal scholar has made clear that Bush has abrogated more powers than parliament allowed George III, whose excesses led to the colonies declaring independence in the first place.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0805/S00367.htm
67. It is Barack Obama that identified himself as a black man, before anyone else did.
13. A majority of both Democrats and Republicans support getting rid of the electoral college, and always have done.
Besides, most Democrats grief about the 2000 election wasn’t down to the electoral college - it was down to (1) 20,000 African Americans being illegally disenfranchised and (2) The conservative majority on the Supreme Court preventing a fair recount in Florida.
82.Is that it!?!? In this day and age, being based in America is hardly the same as going to the South Pole for 6 months, I hear that telephone conferences and the internet are quite popular these days too!
88. “Always have done” means “for quite a long time”, obviously.
After reading stories like the one linked below, you start to think making an elbow-throwing, GOP-hating fighter like Clinton as Senate leader might not be such a bad idea:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20961789/the_senate_caves/print
Now Goldsmith sticks the boot into Gordon on 42 days (it must be his turn on the rota?)
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1317724,00.html?f=rss
No polls tonight then?
93 Jack, you are starting to sound like DC (where is DC BTW?) must wean yourself off, you don’t need another poll now do you? they are habit forming but we’ve had quite a few recently.
Surprised there isn’t a Sunday Telegraph ICM though.
93. Apparently not. Pity.
Looks like pb is stuck discussing the dubious merits of a platitudinous pipsqueak who belongs in the remedial class and a fat-arsed harpy with cellulite-riddled thighs.
Time for a large armagnac, I think.
94. Observer / Mori could be due as well but no sign of any. Thats it for me.
Alan Milburn turns up in the Sunday Times - curiously his agenda is quite Cameroonian (what a surprise)
Taxes should be cut, especially for the low-paid. ,,get many more people off benefit and ,,,help for first-time buyers to get onto the housing ladder. … a bigger role for restorative justice and community courts. Tough but fair rules should be put in place on immigration and housing and welfare allocations. Parents as well as patients should be given choice over services. People who have long-term health needs and those requiring help in old age or with childcare should be offered their own budgets so they can make the choices that are right for them. Local services, such as the police and NHS, should be directly elected. And local communities should be positively helped to run local schools, housing estates and childcare centres.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4039938.ece
Its June tommorrow. Whats happened to the may Mori Tracker ?
98 Presumably Mori are still testing their new weighting - and we are waiting.
97 Ted. I hope that Milburn is not going to run a succesful leadership challenge based on that mini-manifesto.
Now, that would confuse the voters - having two main parties which are virtually indistinguishable from each other!
Good job that this sort of thing doesn’t happen in real life, eh?
99. Indeed. perhaps they have locked themselves in a cupboard with shame.
63/65- Hillary and her minions won’t move against Obama, post-election, unless his presidency seems to be collapsing and the 2012 primaries are nigh. Johnson only bowed out in early 1968 when it was obvious he was way too unpopular to win, and Kennedy only attacked Carter when it looked like Carter was a sure loser. If she tried to undermine Obama early in his presidency or while he’s still popular within the party, she’d be finished.
Part of the reason Hillary is pursuing this nomination with such dogged persistency is that she knows this is likely her last shot. Her best hope would be if Obama were defeated in November, which would leave her with a good shot in 2012. But if he wins, its quite unlikely she could beat him in a 2012 primary, or that she would even try. Then in 2016, if Obama was re-elected in 2012, she would likely be up against Obama’s VP, and she would already be 68 (younger than McCain, but can you imagine what she’ll look like by then?).
82. LOL! What a non story!
Why has my beloved Hillary gone dwon from 11/1 to 8/1 for the nom in the last few hours?
88, Socrates, I’ve had a lot of fun tossing the political ball around with you, but do you really believe the line about illegally disenfranchising 20,000 black voters? The Civil Rights Commission, which was no ally of Bush at the time, could only come up with “evidence” such as an empty police car “menacingly” parked in front of a polling station, and other such tripe.
As for the Supreme Court preventing a fair recount in Florida, it was actually the Gore team and the complicit Florida Supreme Court that bungled any hope of that by seeking anything and everything except an across-the-board recount of every Florida vote using a universal standard, the only fair solution that had ever existed. That was the point of the U.S. Supreme Court, including the fact that by the time Gore got around to asking for their intervention, it was too late for such a count to be properly arranged and executed.
82. I disagree that’s quite a big story. The man behind the rebranding of the conservative party is out the country, that’s going to impact the tories presentation, look how labour’s campaigning has become terrible with the loss of the ‘97 talent.
86. In other words it’s the incumbents who are authoritarian independent of ideology?
105. Wasn’t there some dodgy removing of black voters from the electoral role using a faulty screening program to remove ex-cons?
106. Continued. Of course Cameron could afford to campaign a little less hard over the next few months, so i don’t think it’ll have any long term consequences.
104 -”Why has my beloved Hillary gone down ”
Bill will be pleased!
106- If you can find a state for me that doesn’t make mistakes that erroneously leave people on or off the voter rolls, be sure to tell me about it. The term “disenfranchising” historically usually suggests a deliberate act designed to prevent targeted individuals from voting, and clearly the allegation here is that some cabal sought to illegally prevent black people from voting. It is a huge jump to go from mistakes that happen everywhere to substantiating the charge of “illegal disenfranchisement.” The case was never made, and no charges were ever brought anywhere to that effect.
105 Rightly or wrongly the 2000 Florida count caused a great deal of damage to the reputation of the USA as a fair democracy just as the postal vote scandals have done in the UK .
Defo no polls tonight then? Are they all sort out their weighting??
Interesting front page healine in Tomorrow’s Sunday Times: “MPs tell Brown to purge his Scots.”
Sky news report that “…Gordon Brown has been advised to get rid of some of his fellow Scots from his immediate circle. ”
What’s going on here? English Jobs for English Workers?
Or is this just the Times being mischievous?
110- I agree that a lot of damage was done, largely by those who irresponsibly sought to win applause and vent their own anger by finding people to blame for Gore’s razor-thin loss. When something so important is lost by such a close margin, it is understandible that some people become incredibly angry and frustrated by the defeat. But the impulse to find people to punish for the “crime” led to the creation of a whole mythology of bogeymen and conspiracies that was eagerly lapped up as an elixir for the pain of defeat and has ever since poisoned American politics.
Thanks for the article Morus. What the Democrats really need is more confusion in the race!
(Suits me, I am greener on McCain than Obama and Clinton!)
106, 109. Katherine Harris requested a private technologies firm research a list of ex-felons - and specifically requested they include all possible name matches, even if such names were known not to be the felons in question. This ENTIRE list was deleted from the Florida electoral roll. Some 2,000 odd (my mistype above) were incorrectly deleted because of this sham - some 80% of them were African American.
And it was the Republican party that deliberately slowed up the recounting party when it bussed in thousands of interns to barge in to recounting buildings around the state. The “run out of time” argument was completely bogus - as was shown by the fact the Supreme Court’s decision was specifically listed as a “one time only” judgement, for the first time in it’s history!
113. Is not the main problem the flawed electoral college system, where a razor thin number of voters can hand the entirety of the presidency to one person?
113 With respect it was much more than that , it was also Bush putting hanging on to a very close win before a totally fair and accurate count with the help of his close family’s control in the state under dispute .
97.
Alan Milburn - really it’s too late for any Labour agendas. They’ve had 11+ years. They’ve proved their ideas don’t work. Labour were passed a strongish economy in 1997 and have progressively blown the legacy with excessive monies diverted to the public sector and benefit recipients and with mounting damage to the private sector from high taxes, irksome regulation. Add on unskilled immigration and the importing of criminals + the PC neutering of the police service and the slack criminal justice “system” and you have a complete horlicks. I see a 25-year clean up being necessary. Labour should be silent during these 25 years.
If there are no polls tonight that surely is good news for Brown.
I seem to recall after Crewe & Nantwich various people on here saying he would come under severe pressure after about 2 weeks when MPs return from the Whitsun holiday. Well this doesn’t appear to be happening, does it? I suspect Brown (and David Cameron!) will be delighted.
As posted before, if he doesn’t go before the end of July he will remain PM till next Summer at least. He will not go in the Autumn as it would then be totally impractical to have a Queen’s Speech whilst the Leadership election was still in progress (unless there is a Straw coronation - ie no contest).
115- I’m a lawyer in the U.S. and am a graduate of an American law school. The Supreme Court, not to mention lower courts, constantly uses language limiting the scope of its decisions, particularly in circumstances where the facts of the case are unique and are unlikely to be repeated in just the same manner elsewhere.
In other cases, such as Shelley v. Kraemer, 224 U.S. 1 (1948), the court forever after declares that the decision was limited to the issue at stake in that case and its reasoning cannot be extended to any other subsequent matters. The court is free to make its rulings as narrow or expansive as it wishes, which is often a consequence of bargaining that must be struck to arrive at a particular decision in a case (e.g., we can argee on this and that, but nothing else, so our holding will be limited to this and that). It isn’t unreasonable to conclude that the facts of the 2000 presidential election were so unique that they are unlikely to be repeated and that any subsequent similar event would have to be judged independently on its own merits.
And to dive into your particular issue for a moment, if the felon was “Joe Blow” and she requested that “Joseph Blow” also be searched for and removed, do we have a basis to conclude that “Joseph Blow” must be black? She may have been incorrect in her judgment and overzealous in her efforts to purge felons, but again, it is a big jump to cry “illegal disenfranchisement.”
117- But Gore always had it within his power to request a total recount of the state by a universal standard. If he had asked the Florida Supreme Court for that right away, they would have given it to him and Bush would have been impotent to stop it. That’s the way court proceedings work: Person A (Gore) asks the court for something, Person B (Bush) responds. Gore screwed up.
With only 120 posts over the last four and a half hours, this must be the quietest night on PB for many a long month.
A sign perhaps that the clamour for Brown to go is easing somewhat.
120. Maybe I am mistaken on the one time only thing. I will have to investigate that. Oh, and what about Clarence Thomas’ wife served under Bush, but no conflict of interest was declared.
But it’s pretty clear that if you got a list of black people, and found people with similar names from the same area, they are far more likely to be black. This is due to the fact there are many names which are predominantly African-American, and because distantly related family members are more likely to share the same surname. How else would you explain 80% of those wrongly disenfranchised were black, when African Americans only make up 15% of Florida’s population.
Let’s not forget that the bipartisan US Commission on Civil Rights recommended the Justice Dept. pursue litigation against numerous officials - strangely, once that department was controlled by the Bush administration no litigation followed.
121. I do agree Gore made a mistake in not requesting a statewide recount at first (especially seeing that to do so would have been more likely to overturn the vote total). But it was still completely immoral for the recount to be stopped once it was under way.
I was interested by the recent story of the Surrey police politely telling the governemnt to stuff their targets. I have been surprised how little dissent there has been from the shires in the last few years. The government report on local council funding is a story of pork barrel politics that woud make any American happy.
I noted that last year Crewe and Nantwich got a measly 1.6% increase. I guess this was because they had become part of a Tory Council and thus were considered expendable!! I wonder how many other Labour MPs in places such as Reading up 2% are worried that Central Government has basically given up on their seat.
97.Ted, they would be better off just joining us in the Conservative party.
112.”Interesting front page healine in Tomorrow’s Sunday Times: “MPs tell Brown to purge his Scots.””
Apparently its just not cricket to have too many Scots or Old Etonians littering the Cabinet or the Shadow Cabinet these days….Lazy and negative politics seem to be in vogue, pick a minority that is a useful target and blame all the perceived short comings of a party on that lot.
123. because they are over-represented in the felon population?
Obama resigns from controversial church
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
It seems as if the Dems have reached an agreement on Florida, it will be a half vote for all delegates, rough figures will be Clinton 55, Obama 33 and Edwards 6.5.
It’s on CNN now.
122 - I think my article can probably take some credit for that - apologies all.
RBC is voting right now on the FLorida challenge.
127. I’m talking about the non-felons who were incorrectly identified as felons.
Moving onto Michigan challenge now. They have a motion of half votes for there as well.
Sky: half the FL delegates will be seated
123- You have to admit that all Supreme Court justices have a major conflict of interest in a case like Bush v. Gore given that they were all appointed to their position by either a Democrat or a Republican, both of which parties were essentially appearing before the court. Perhaps Ginsburg and Breyer should also have recused themselves, in particular, since they were both appointed to the Court by none other than Bill Clinton, a very close associate of litigant Gore. Souder and Thomas should also have recused themselves as appointees of the father of litigant Bush.
You curiously mentioned a “list of black people.” That is quite a charge! Harris was submitting a “list of black people” to be stricken from the voter rolls. Let’s find a prosecutor before the statute of limitations runs on this felonious act!
And the Civil Rights Commission is bipartisan only to the extent that it has appointees from both parties; it certainly did not act in a bipartisan manner, being controlled as it was by the very partisan Mary Frances Berry, an angry and unabashed left-wing Democrat.
133. Unanimous decision too.
According to the beeb, they will vote in favour on half votes in Michigan as well.
*** The Rules & Bylaws Committee has voted to seat Michigan and Florida at 50% for all delegates, pledged and Super. ***
Florida resolution passed 27-0 (chairs did not vote, FL delegate could not vote)
Clinton has lost.
Voting on Michigan in two minutes
126. ChrisD. “…pick a minority that is a useful target and blame all the perceived short comings of a party on that lot.”
I totally agree. Substitute the word “Blacks” for “Scots” in the headlines, and it shows even more clearly how despicable these sort of attacks are.
You can get 1.08 on Obama. That is value if you put enough on.
Sounds as if the Clinton campaign will fight Michigan till the end.
134. I agree. The fact that the top judges in the land are appointed by politicians (and increasingly politicians who RUN on who they will appoint to the court) is a joke of democracy.
And I stand by my claim. The Florida Republican party deliberately purged a list of predominantly black, legitimate voters from the electoral roll - even though they knew many of those names could well be incorrect. And I believe bipartisan commissions need majority agreement to publish statements. Do you really believe Harris & co acted fairly in how they went about this? And why do you think she was parachuted into congress by Bush shortly afterwards?
QUOTE FROM HARRY ICKES TO THE RBC (voting against motion to seat Michigan at 50%)
“There’s been a lot of talk about party unity, put our arms around each other. I put to you tat hijacking 4 delegates is not a good way to get to party unity.
One final word, Mrs Clinton has asked me to reserve her right to take this to Credentials Committee”
Florida delegates as per the vote:
Clinton would get 52.5 delegates, Obama would get 33.5, and Edwards gets 6.5.
Is that the uncommitted for Obama?
So Clinton has instructed it to be taken to the credentials committee if necessary according to one committee member…….fair enough..wishy washy compromise stripping Clinton effectively of 4 delegates. All or nothing I say…..compromise on decisions like this don’t work..either reinstate or don’t reinstate.
102-If she wins the popular vote, she will have a case to make for her candidacy(not discussing if it’s a strong argument, or if is right or wrong), and this may lead to some questions of legitimacy in the future(like Morus said).
I’m not saying only Clintonites would move against Obama if he has the presidency or that Obama fans will move against Hillary if she has the presidency. I’m just saying that if you voted for Clinton in the primaries, and has doubts about Obama but voted for him in November, when he faces his first crisis, you will begin to ask yourself if she wouldn’t do a better work.
It’s getting pretty acrmonious at the RBC, and the crowd do not seem happy at only half-seating.
By no means representative of course, but I one thing strikes me.
I always thought that once there was a nominee, that all the Clintonistas who said they would back Obama (26% v 19% of Obama’s supporters who said they wouldn’t support Hillary) would come around. When judicial appointments were on the table in November, I always thought they would come around and support him.
Listening to that crowd, there is real disgust from certain members of the Democratic PArty (right or wrong) and I am starting to worry that unless she is on the ticket she will barely support him, and if she doesn’t support him vociferously, then he might struggle against McCain.
I think I’ve underestimated the bitterness amongst the MI and FL state parties.
144 - yes. That’s what they are really objecting to.
147. That crowd won’t even be representative of Clinton supporters. They will all be members of campaign staff around the country I suspect.
146 - Worse is if he loses. The Clintonistas will say that he stole the nomination and lost a certain win (Kerry plus Ohio).
If he wins, I think most people will forget about this. If he loses, they will never let him forget it.
130.Morus, this is the only political story of importance tonight, so it would have been strange to go on another topic. But its Saturday night and there are no polls or breaking UK political stories in the Sunday press so far…and its been a lovely evening weather wise.
138.Disraeli, I agree totally with that comment. Its nasty, racist and very negative and oh so hypocritical….I have watched it gain an undeserved platform over the last year in particular.
Riveting stuff to watch…….some real passion here.
149 - It was Harry Ickes face that told the story for me.
(Though ironically, I think in August 2007, he voted for the penalty)
£4k on Obama at 1.08njust got mopped up. Now at 1.07.
Michigan vote wins. 19 - 8. That will be that.
153. If Clinton doesn’t support the Democratic candidate going into November, she should be ostracised from the party.
Looks like Obama will be at least 200 delegates ahead after all the smoke clears…
Or about a 5% lead at the convention. A close result, but a clear victory… [for comparison, slightly less than Johnson/Livingstone]
151 - I did a thread on the RBC on Thursday
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/05/28/is-this-where-hillarys-dream-finally-dies/
I thought it would be overkill to do it again, and we only have 12 hours until Puerto Rico, which we will never likely cover again, so I thought I’d take the chance.
I’m always worried about overkill on byzantine parliamentary procedure, as it is a niche interest, even amongst this crowd! Apologies.
I think the crowd sounds anti because Clinton got her people out to protest the meeting, Obama didn’t.
141- Harris ran for Congress, naturally with the President’s support. I’m not sure what you mean by “parachuted.” Isn’t that a term usually used in British politics for candidates who run in constituencies in which they don’t live (like Tasmin Dunwoody in C & N)? As for Harris & Co., I don’t see their reaction as very surprising at all. As soon as Gore got the legal machinery rolling, soon followed by a very pro-Gore state supreme court, it was natural for the state’s elected Republicans to become alarmed and think they had to swing into action to see to it that the fight wasn’t entirely one-sided.
156 - Agreed. I said this week that a comprimise was the worst possible reslt, as it taes the wind of indignation out of her sails, but doesn’t get her close enough to still challenge.
She might say she’s going to the Credentials Committee, but now that MI and FL are seated in part, I think the Superdelegates will flood to her a week on Tuesday. This is over, bar bribery and arm twisting.