There's a rumor going around the blog world that La Opinion, the spanish language Los Angeles area daily newspaper, may make a primary endorsement tomorrow, something it usually does not do.

One of California's largest unions is throwing its support to Barack Obama for president.

 

A spokeswoman for the Service Employees International Union told The Associated Press of the union's decision two days after its first choice, John Edwards, dropped out of the race. The president of the state council, Annelle Grajeda, was to formally announce the endorsement in a statement later Friday, spokeswoman Jeanine Meyer Rodriguez said.

 

The 650,000-member union's backing could help Obama cut into Hillary Rodham Clinton's lead in the polls among Democratic base voters, many of whom are union members.

 

The SEIU includes city, county and state employees, as well as in-home support and health care workers.

 

With only a few days to go before Tuesday's election, the union does not have much time to muster support for Obama. Union officials said they plan a limited operation on his behalf by urging their members to vote for him.

 

Luis Vizcaino, a spokesman for Clinton's California campaign, said she had the support of other unions, such as the United Farm Workers and the California branch of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

 

"We're feeling very good about where we are with our labor support," he said.

 

The Obama campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Link

Stupid question, could Hillary choose Bill as her VP running mate?

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804.

 

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

 

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

 

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the

 

whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

 

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

 

Weren't you listening in grade school? There is no such thing as a stupid question!

 

Anyway, the answer is no. The bolded sections exclude Bill.

 

 

Weren't you listening in grade school? There is no such thing as a stupid question!

 

Anyway, the answer is no. The bolded sections exclude Bill.

 

That is pretty clear then. Cool. No duel Presidency.

That is pretty clear then. Cool. No duel Presidency.

 

In theory, no. In practice....

 

Let's just all hope that we never have to worry about it.

Obama scores the first LA Times Presidential endorsement in decades.

Obama scores the first LA Times Presidential endorsement in decades.

Wow. That's pretty big.

 

Hey, what happened to those rumors about Barack being in New Mexico today with Richardson, and maybe an endorsement? That didn't happen, did it?

 

Wow. That's pretty big.

 

Hey, what happened to those rumors about Barack being in New Mexico today with Richardson, and maybe an endorsement? That didn't happen, did it?

Richardson was in DC today.

 

Also, CNN.com has a piece in "The Ticker" saying Bill Clinton and Richardson to watch the super bowl together. That's a lot of wings and pizza!

Also in California, Oprah will be campaigning with Michelle Obama.

 

Also in California, Oprah will be campaigning with Michelle Obama.

You can add Caroline Kennedy to that one. What a powerhouse of females.

No idea how big of a boost it could be, but at this point, in a Dem primary, it sure doesn't hurt. That's a lot of infrastructure working for you, even if it's only a few days.

It's s***ty infrastructure, but infrastructure nonetheless.

Richardson was in DC today.

 

Also, CNN.com has a piece in "The Ticker" saying Bill Clinton and Richardson to watch the super bowl together. That's a lot of wings and pizza!

 

I'd like to see the two of them in a competitive eating contest. I bet Richardson could give Joey Chestnutt a run for his money. At least if it was an endurance, not speed, contest.

Silent Protest at Clinton Event... there HAS to be a picture of this somewhere.

 

 

From NBC/NJ's Athena Jones

SAN DIEGO, CA -- About 40 minutes into a speech Clinton was delivering in front of a huge crowd at San Diego State University, two young men stood up and unfurled a red banner that read: "Nepotist tyrant hands off Iran", with the senator's picture attached to the middle.

YES WE CAN!

YES WE CAN!

Wow! Absolutely awesome.

La Opinion, LA's largest Spanish language daily, endorses Obama. As far as I can tell, it appears to be a virtual sweep for Obama in California Newspaper endorsements. Sacramento, LA, San Fran, Oakland, and on and on and on. If you want a test of whether or not newspaper endorsements mean anything, it's Tuesday out here. Because this is about as one-sided as you can get.

La Opinion, LA's largest Spanish language daily, endorses Obama. As far as I can tell, it appears to be a virtual sweep for Obama in California Newspaper endorsements. Sacramento, LA, San Fran, Oakland, and on and on and on. If you want a test of whether or not newspaper endorsements mean anything, it's Tuesday out here. Because this is about as one-sided as you can get.

I think "day of" voting will be nearly a tie or a win for Obama. the problem is the early voting. So many people voted early and i bet that favors Clinton. It'll be VERY interesting.

CNN just reported that Edwards will NOT endorse before Super Tuesday.

Spineless bastard. Well, maybe this is the strategy? Let Obama get close on Super Tuesday and after the Super Tuesday victory speech by Hillary... have Edwards, Richardson, and/or Gore endorse Obama to give him a post-Tuesday boost.

 

Ok, so I went through and used the most recent polling data to APPROXIMATE the total delegate count after Super Tuesday.

Here is my methodology:

1) I only used states where the was a poll in the last week (post S.C.)

2) All Edwards and undecided voters were split evenly between Clinton and Obama. This is not "scientific" but it is being fair to both sides.

3) If there were more than one poll conducted in a particular time frame, I averaged them out.

4) States with no recent data I split 50-50.

 

Unfortunately, there is no current data for a LOT of the states. Namely: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Democrats Abroad, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah. That's a combined 386 delegates.

 

So, it breaks down like this...

Clinton - 920

Obama - 879

Edwards - 26

 

THAT'S damn close people.

Not an exact science, but this really puts it into perspective.

 

A quick interesting point: People are talking up Hillary in CA and NY. BUT, if Obama wins IL 66-34 and Hildog wins CA and NY 54-46 and 58-42... Clinton only has a a small lead of 19 delegates That cancels out Obama's wins in SC, NV, and Iowa. at that point... it's a game for the rest of the states.

Edited February 2, 200818 yr by Athomeboy_2000

The more amazing thing than that math? The actual race is several times more complicated. Because you literally seem to have to go down to the district level.

By contrast, a Democratic candidate who gains 15 percent of the popular vote in a congressional district generally is guaranteed at least one delegate.

 

In a race with two equally matched rivals — Obama and Clinton are both running well-funded national campaigns — that tends to leave the winner of the popular vote with only a narrow delegate advantage over a loser who runs a strong race.

 

Multiply that across dozens of congressional districts — 53 in California — and predicting the winner of the delegate struggle is a virtual impossibility.

 

Then it gets harder.

 

For the Democrats, in a congressional district with three delegates, two go to the popular vote winner, and the loser gets the third as long as they win 15 percent of the popular vote.

 

But in a congressional district with four delegates, the winner and loser in a two-way race are likely to divide the spoils evenly. The winner must receive nearly 63 percent of the vote to get a 3-1 split in delegates, and 85 percent of the vote to win all four.

 

Then there's the winning by losing scenario.

 

This can happen in states that award an odd number of delegates in some districts and an even number in others.

 

Imagine a candidate loses the statewide vote narrowly, but manages to win the districts that have an odd number of delegates.

 

A version of that happened in Nevada earlier in the year.

 

There, Clinton had more supporters attend caucuses, but Obama won the delegate contest, 13-12.

The more amazing thing than that math? The actual race is several times more complicated. Because you literally seem to have to go down to the district level.

Oh believe me, I am well aware of that. I have absolutely no way of calculating something that complicated. Mine is very general. I just wanted to illustrate how CLOSE this really is.

 

Also, the media needs to stop reporting "Clinton wins NV"... well, she didnt! Obama did! It's all about the delegates. Despite what people might want or thing, the delegates are more important than the popular vote. So, if Obama gets 186 delegates to 184 for Hillary... he won! even if she won 52% of the popular vote.

Edited February 2, 200818 yr by Athomeboy_2000

Both the Gallup and Rasmussen national tracking polls moved back towards Hillary today.

Clinton: 46.5% (43.5%)

Obama: 39.0% (39.0%)

Lotta possible reasons.

This could be due to any number of factors, including the debate, the inevitable fading bounce, superior Clinton campaigning, or even the demographics of Friday polling. (Considering the age gap between Clinton and Obama supporters, who do you think is more likely to be at home on a Friday night?) Whatever the cause might actually be, it could not come at a better time for Clinton, since Obama had pulled to within just two or three points in the days immediately after the departure of Edwards from the campaign. It also seems to be rippling into state level polls, as Rasmussen also shows Clinton leading in Missouri by nine, and in Alabama by five (Alabama is a must-win for Obama, and it should be noted that the previous Rasmussen poll of Alabama put Clinton up 15).

Still that leaves 15% or so undecided in both of those. If those broke heavily one way that could sway anything.

Edited February 2, 200818 yr by Balta1701

Obama's on the move!!!

Obama has a slight lead in California and is virtually tied with Clinton in New Jersey and Missouri

Obama's on the move!!!

Obama has a slight lead in California and is virtually tied with Clinton in New Jersey and Missouri

The more exposure he gets the better he does. He's the anti-9iu11ani.

 

It is a Zogby poll though. I'd take that with a pound of salt.