Newsvine - Newsvine Q&A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics
Wed Oct 21, 2009
- Don't mind the "competitiveness" at all. I am not in predicting game on this stuff, simply reporting it out. I can still tell you the White House is QUITE nervous all of its work on Olympia Snowe will get tossed aside. So we shall see...
Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics
Wed Oct 21, 2009
- Well, filibusters don't work like that anymore; they should but the rules were changed; It's too bad, would be entertaining!
Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics
Wed Oct 21, 2009
- New York state has a tradition of allowing many parties on the ballot and candidates can get on the ballot with the endorsement of MULTIPLE parties. The New York Conservative Party has a very long history in the state and even won a U.S. Senate seat in 1970 (brother of William F. Buckley).
Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics
Wed Oct 21, 2009
- This is an old conspiracy theory that has made the rounds regardless of which party is in power.
Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics
Wed Oct 21, 2009
- Is there a specific post you are responding to? I'd challenge you to find anyplace where I've shown a lack of objectivity. Careful about shooting the messenger.
Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics
Wed Oct 21, 2009
- Well, it seems as if the rise in graduate school applications indicate just that; folks giving up, going to school etc. I've seen some estimates that the REAL unemployment number is closer to 17% when you factor in underemployed and those who have given up.
Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics
Wed Oct 21, 2009
- On this list, Nelson and Landrieu have been the most negative on the public option front.
Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics
Wed Oct 21, 2009
- I agree... it's why we try alternative places to open up forums (I'm now on twitter (@chucktpolitical) and Facebook has been pretty good for the debate; Bottom line, I agree that the First Read comment section gets hijacked too often...
Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics
Wed Oct 21, 2009
- Well, I think the White House has been surprisingly un-clever (is that the right word) in their attempts to find GOP support.
Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics
Wed Oct 21, 2009
- Yeah, the likelihood of a wash seems the MOST likely for the reasons both of you cite in this thread.

Chuck Todd has not voted for any articles or seeds yet.

Hi Chuck,

My question is in the area of domestic self-reliance...Do you the see the US, today, as a totally self-reliant entity. The reasoning behind my question is simple, little by little, I've seen industries producing goods being off-shored and IMO, the US minimized to a global consumer. With the only remnant of a superpower being our purchasing power. What are your thoughts on this..

— ctdad

Hi Chuck,

Being from Quebec, I just to say that all americans will benefit fron universal health care. It's important that the federal governant should be the first guardian of such important liberties as helath care for everyone. I think that a nation can be called a true nation by measuring how well she takes care of its citizens.

What good is it to spend so much federal money on wars and space programs, if you cannot guarantee minimum health care for everyone and espacially those who are the weakest.

Thanks !

Pierre Richard

— Pierre Richard

Chuck Todd,
I am always listening very closely when you speak. I value your knowledge and interpretation of the political landscape. I am a Norwegian citizen who is a legal alien. During Hardball tonight you said that only US citizen would get health care coverage. I assume that was a slip of the thong? Or am I missing something?
Thank you for keeping me straight Chuck Todd.
Sincerely,
AnneBerit Condit

— ABCondit

Paul,

I read your article dated June 22nd and I agree with your comments about how we need to act together now to pass a health care package.

My question to these Democratic Senators that oppose this public option. How can they be against a public option when they had the opportunity to attend one of our public universities that were founded over 100 years ago to feed the needy for higher education. We have the 47 million US citizens that need our help for health care. Where is their moral compassion to help our own people in need?

God bless the following Senators:

Blauch Lincoln - (D-AR) - University of Arkansas
Tom Carper - (D-DE) - Ohio State
Maria Cantwell - (D-Wa) - Miami University - Oxford, Ohio ( received Pell Grants)
Ron Wyden - (D - OR) - University of Oregon
Bill Nelson - (D-FL) - University of Florida
Mary Landriew (D-LA) - Louisiana State University
Kay Hagen (D-NC) - Florida State University
Kent Conrad (D-ND) - Stanford (private)
Max Baucus (D-MT) - Stanford (private)

In closing not sure which of these Senators received public assistance besides Maria Cantwell.

— FicknFecker

"Right as we walked off stage, he [Todd] said to me "That was a cheap shot." I [Scahill] said "What are you talking about?" and he said "You know it." I then said that I monitor msm coverage very closely and asked him what was not true that I said on the show. He then replied: "that's not the point. You sullied my reputation on TV."

Poor Chuck. Big baby. His feelings are hurt. BaaaWaaaa. Trouble is the MSM is lazy and they believe they ARE the story not reporting on the story.

— Greysells2

– Show More

Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 16

{"commentId":1791838,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

jfxgillis

Chuck:

Thanks for the opportunity! I have a theory (original to me, as far as I know) that if either McCain or Hillary look to be likely winners in November, that they'd suffer from "Slippery Coattails," similar to the four Senate seats GWB lost for the GOP while winning the WH in 2000.

Especially for McCain (since Hillary seems to be fading fast), might he not be a net drag on GOP down-ballot prospects in the Fall?

{"commentId":1791838,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

11 votes

#1 - Mon May 12, 2008 3:06 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799276,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

Chuck Todd

Well, I think the likelihood of McCain having a lonely victory is very high. The GOP's best chance at winning anything in November is going to be at the top of the ticket. Just look at yesterday's special election victory for the Democrats in Mississippi; it's the Democrats third pickup this year in a seat held by Republicans. Democrats are going to pick up House and Senate seats, the question is how many. Anything less than 4 senate seat gains by the Dems and they'll consider 2008 a failure. On the House side, anything less than a 5 seat pickup and Speaker Pelosi won't be happy. It's a tilted playing field down the ballot; the only place where the Republicans are in decent shape, it appears, is at the top.

{"commentId":1799276,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

7 votes

#1.1 - Wed May 14, 2008 11:56 AM EDT

{"commentId":1799346,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

Thanks for the reply!

anything less than a 5 seat pickup and Speaker Pelosi won't be happy.

Five? Heck, I bet she won't be truly happy with less than twenty!!

{"commentId":1799346,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

2 votes

#1.2 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:10 PM EDT

{"commentId":1791842,"authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}

Forest Browne

As per your request, just a copy of what I asked before....

Do you think holistically, in this election at least or better yet specifically, it really matters one whit whomever the Democrats elect? I have great respect for the GOP as a political entity but I fear that no matter they have Karl Rove, who I think will be hired, they just don't have a ghost of a chance. It's certainly interesting to think about since this is the most specifically covered (media wise) election I've ever been through. Unless the elections in Iraq turn out perfect according to this administration and can make this administration look like they knew what they were doing. I just can't see this election turning out any other way than Democratic, they just have to get out and vote.

McCain is already pulling away from this administration but it won't help the Dems are going to stick him with this administration and their actions. Hell the GOP hardly wants him and I just don't see the turnout possible no matter the strict discipline of the party, they'll just be overwhelmed.

In the end doesn't it just seem like all this posturing is just due process taking it's course? The end result will be the same. The GOP seems like it's just biding it's time to run Mitt again after a Democratic president has exhausted himself and the spare good will against a huge set of problems left by this administration.

Again I reiterate it's great to see you here and hope you find the discourse interesting.

Can't wait until Wednesday.

Forest

{"commentId":1791842,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}

9 votes

#2 - Mon May 12, 2008 3:08 PM EDT

{"commentId":1797419,"authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}

I have another simple query even though I know your overloaded already. I've been arguing here with people over the voter ID issue on a couple of articles. It's my contention that this is purely a political play to suppress voters in the states where the GOP is able to get it on the ballots.

That's all just whether a political play to help in any way they can to lower the vote count because it helps the GOP.

thanks again,

{"commentId":1797419,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}

1 vote

#2.1 - Tue May 13, 2008 9:42 PM EDT

{"commentId":1797445,"authorDomain":"uncleandy"}

uncleandy

Voter ID is not the issue everyone tries to make it into. That was an issue maybe 10 years ago. The answer to Voter ID, is early voting and the "Provisional" ballot required by law in every state. If the state is allowing Early Voting 30 days in advance of the election, the Voter ID, really is negated by early voting because the voter has plenty of time to correct the problem. Provisional ballots allow anyone to vote, regardless, and if they forgot there ID, they can simply present their ID after the fact, and the provisional ballot will be put in the box with the rest. As a rule, this can be done up to 20 days after the fact. The republicans like to make it an issue to "Blur, Blur, Blur," other issues in the campaign. Fortunately, the press is beginning to wise up.

{"commentId":1797445,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"uncleandy"}

#2.2 - Tue May 13, 2008 9:53 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799305,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

There are a lot of Republicans who think similarly; that it may not matter how Obama or Clinton is framed, the Republicans have too much Bush baggage to somehow switch the focus to the Democratic nominee. It's possible that no matter what McCain does, he'll be saddled with Bush; toss in the fact that the Democrats will have more money to beat this "McCain is a third Bush term" message home and it seems gloomy for the GOP. But the good news for the party is that a presidential vote is less partisan than any other. More people vote individually on president than they do on other races, hence the Democratic gains in the House and Senate in 2000 despite Bush's victory or the GOP's gains in the Senate in '96 despite Clinton's victory.

As for your second question: it's a lot of hype but it's marginal. Dems claim it's a suppression technique but there are enough provisional ballot opportunities that it's not a strong argument. Bottom line, I don't think either side is going to see a turnout gain or loss based on voter I.D. laws.

{"commentId":1799305,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

5 votes

#2.3 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:03 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799453,"authorDomain":"thegoodpasters-cm"}

Marilyn Goodpaster

As to provisional ballots -- here in Indiana when a provisional ballot is used at all it is put aside in a special envelope -NOT IN THE BALLOT BOX. The voter then has 10 days to provide a photo ID or correct whatever the reason was for the provisional ballot at the local election office. ONLY THEN is the vote submitted to be added to the totals.

{"commentId":1799453,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"thegoodpasters-cm"}

#2.4 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:35 PM EDT

{"commentId":1800939,"authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}

Thanks for answering my query's Chuck, although my denigration of the voter ID problem is not so much that votes would be suppressed as they're isn't much evidence of that. Rather my problem with it is the "race to the bottom", so to speak, about what party's will do, or are allowed to do to try and gain an edge. I believe the Dems would do the same under another scenario, but we need to keep some honor and integrity in the political process and we must draw the line somewhere.

The Supreme Court backing them up hurts everyone's creditability, not that politicians need any more bashing. The Supreme Court should have thrown it out just because there was a hint of partisan politics involved.

Apparently I'm dreaming.

{"commentId":1800939,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"ForestBrowne"}

#2.5 - Wed May 14, 2008 6:32 PM EDT

{"commentId":1791867,"authorDomain":"mentalshift"}

James Andre

Good to see you here Mr. Todd. I always appreciate your work and your perspective.

Obama/Clinton? Heck no! That would be the worst of both worlds. McCain can't win in November. Let's not muddy the waters.

{"commentId":1791867,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"mentalshift"}

4 votes

#3 - Mon May 12, 2008 3:13 PM EDT

{"commentId":1794996,"authorDomain":"johanna-1"}

Johanna McGowan

While I think Hilary is of real value to the Democratic party, I just don't think she could wholeheartedly take the 2nd spot. The ideal person for a running mate for Obama is Chuck Hagel.
This would truly accomplish Obama's worthy attempt to bring the parties and the country together.

The question is, would Chuck Hagel be interested? Besides being an excellent Vice-President, he
would be an outstanding President in the future.

{"commentId":1794996,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"johanna-1"}

#3.1 - Tue May 13, 2008 11:12 AM EDT

{"commentId":1799320,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

Hagel is definitely interested; he refuses to endorse McCain; that says it all on his interest; He wants on the ticket badly; but not sure if Team Obama will believe that Hagel will do the things you need a VP to do; he's not someone who seems comfortable being put "on message"; so my gut says Hagel gets serious consideration publicly so that he appears to be on the short list but that in the end, Obama goes more conventional. My current frontrunner: Evan Bayh... the picture of the Bayh family and the Obama family will be very powerful; toss in the fact that Bayh COULD put a red state in play (Indiana) and the fact he's a Clinton person, and you have all the elements Obama will be looking for. Also, Bayh's a team player; you'll never have to worry about that guy being disloyal.

{"commentId":1799320,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#3.2 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:06 PM EDT

{"commentId":1791996,"authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

Bill Harrison

Chuck, here's my theory on why Hillary Clinton didn't win the Democratic nomination. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

Hillary thought this was going to be some kind of coronation process rather than nomination process when her opponents first announced. After all, Bill Clinton was the first Democratic, full two-term president since FDR and while things had turned against the DLC-types in '06, with the Clinton war chest and fundraising machine why wouldn't Hillary have been overconfident? So Hillary decided early on that she would run more on a centrist position early in the primaries hoping she could inoculate herself against the perils of running to the left to gain the nomination which is a conundrum that has confounded Democrats for a long time when it comes general election time.

Things started going south, of course, when Obama won Iowa and had a stronger than expected showing in NH. Running to Hillary's left she had no choice but to tack in the same direction thereafter to ward him off and that in turn brought back (especially vis-a-vis her previously responsible positions on Iraq) the old feeling that the Clintons would do and say anything to get elected. Add in her considerable negatives going into the campaign and you can see why she didn't gain anymore traction than she did when the Wright stuff blew up on Obama.

{"commentId":1791996,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"wharrison55"}

#4 - Mon May 12, 2008 3:42 PM EDT

{"commentId":1793395,"authorDomain":"bburrell"}

jana-279930

Why did the media keep pushing the FL & MI issue in support of Sen. Clinton when they knew that she agreed that these states would not count. Only when she got behind in the math did they matter. The media did not explain this to voters until it was clear that Sen. Obama would be the nominee. This made great ratings so the truth was not clearly revealed why?

{"commentId":1793395,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"bburrell"}

#4.1 - Mon May 12, 2008 10:28 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799387,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

The chief architect of HRC's campaign strategy was Mark Penn, a person who had NEVER run a successful Democratic primary campaign. He simply thought he was re-running the Clinton re-elect from '96. It was a big mistake; the irony, of course, is if Penn had talked Clinton into running in '04, his strategy would have worked. The country was looking for a little bit of change in '04; Clinton represents a little bit of change; in '08, they want a lot; the Clinton name may not represent enough change for Democrats, at least.

{"commentId":1799387,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#4.2 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:20 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792043,"authorDomain":"patricktaormina"}

Patrick T., Davis, CA

Would Kathleen Sibelius be in the runnings for a VP spot, or would that be wishful thinking?

{"commentId":1792043,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"patricktaormina"}

#5 - Mon May 12, 2008 3:55 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799371,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

I think she'll be on the serious short list... but her lack of national experience may be a drawback. But if Obama believes he needs a woman on the ticket and he doesn't want Clinton, Sebelius is the next best option. Plus, her father was gov of Ohio so she should help in Kansas (longshot, frankly, but who knows) and Ohio.

{"commentId":1799371,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

3 votes

#5.1 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:17 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792051,"authorDomain":"sslonski"}

Scott-279547

Will you please start calling your Election Night device "The Delestrator" or "The Toddulator"?? I think it's the appropriate name for your magical Delegate Tabulating Device you currently use~

Thanks, have fun, and VOTE!

{"commentId":1792051,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"sslonski"}

6 votes

#6 - Mon May 12, 2008 3:56 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799374,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

i need more technology behind my maps... that said, we've got some cool stuff to play with for this fall...

{"commentId":1799374,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#6.1 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:18 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799449,"authorDomain":"elarsen"}

Eric, Salinas, CA

Chuck,
A moving van pulls up at CNN in the middle of the night and someone goes in and "liberates" that awesome CNN election map gizmo John King plays with. Too bad a goof like him gets such great tech while a great pundit like you has to dream about it.

{"commentId":1799449,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"elarsen"}

#6.2 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:34 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792059,"authorDomain":"scorpioleidee"}

Janice Rockett

Comment collapsed by the community

{"commentId":1792062,"authorDomain":"opaintern"}

Curious Democrat

Hi Chuck!

I have been wondering about this for some time and would like to know your thoughts on the issue. I know that Senator Obama has some problems with white working-class voters in OH and PA and some think that may cost him those two states in the general. What I'd like to know is, is it at all possible for Senator Obama to win the general if he only manages to get a small percentage of those votes but also gets a record-breaking number of young people, independents, obamicans and african americans?

{"commentId":1792062,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"opaintern"}

8 votes

#8 - Mon May 12, 2008 3:57 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799401,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

Sure it's possible. Obama's remade primary electorates in order to win big victories; why not in the general. It's not easy, though; Virginia and Colorado (and maybe Georgia and North Carolina) seem like places his mix of indies/young voters and African Americans could put previously red states into play. Still wouldn't be smart of the Obama campaign to write off FL and OH but at the same time, he is providing a road map of how to come up with multiple paths to 270 electoral votes; the more paths a candidate has, the more likely they'll get there.

{"commentId":1799401,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#8.1 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:22 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799487,"authorDomain":"opaintern"}

Chuck, I can't believe you answered my question! I mean I read Firstread and watch you on MNSBC religiously and am always in awe! I feel like a superstar! Anyway, thanks so much for giving me your thoughts on the matter. Your insight is very much appreciated.

p.s. I throughly enjoyed the piece about you in the Washington Post.

{"commentId":1799487,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"opaintern"}

#8.2 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:42 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792067,"authorDomain":"rewart"}

Randy E

Why doesn't Obama give a major speech on education from the steps of the Jefferson Memorial? With all the talk about the importance of education as a foundation to our society (see Jefferson quote below) it's routinely ignored at the national level.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with
their own government." - Thomas Jefferson

{"commentId":1792067,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"rewart"}

#9 - Mon May 12, 2008 3:57 PM EDT

{"commentId":1796362,"authorDomain":"ThaneEichenauer"}

Thane Eichenauer

Education funding and regulation is probably largely ignored for several good reasons. Both the Republican and Democrat parties differ only in minute details. Neither advocate the elimination of the Department of Education or phasing out federal regulation of local schools. What federal education regulation that has been implemented is roundly condemned by parents and the average teacher.
The federal Department of Education - who needs it?

{"commentId":1796362,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"ThaneEichenauer"}

#9.1 - Tue May 13, 2008 4:26 PM EDT

{"commentId":1798371,"authorDomain":"bluejohnnyd"}

bluejohnnyd

If you have heart disease, the proper solution is to either fix or replace the heart. Not cut it out.

{"commentId":1798371,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"bluejohnnyd"}

#9.2 - Wed May 14, 2008 7:50 AM EDT

{"commentId":1798654,"authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}

FDBryant3

On the other hand if you have cancer the proper solution is to cut it out.

{"commentId":1798654,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}

#9.3 - Wed May 14, 2008 9:25 AM EDT

{"commentId":1799156,"authorDomain":"bluejohnnyd"}

Cut out the cancer, not the organ. Either way, you need something to perform the function that said organ was intended to.

{"commentId":1799156,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"bluejohnnyd"}

#9.4 - Wed May 14, 2008 11:27 AM EDT

{"commentId":1799216,"authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}

Only if it is needed - which in the Dept of Education case is debatable.

{"commentId":1799216,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}

#9.5 - Wed May 14, 2008 11:38 AM EDT

{"commentId":1792073,"authorDomain":"angelah"}

Angela-279554

Hi Chuck - after Super Tuesday, pundits were calling out to SuperD's not to overturn the will of the voter.... IF a) all the elected house members voted as their district did, b) Senators voted as their state did, c) Non-elected supers voted as their state did

Wouldn't she would be ahead in supers - enough to win the nomination? Even if the superdelegates are already committed to Senator Obama, they should respect the will of their district/state.... I am assuming that all house members/senate members are super delegates, plus un-elected party officials, correct?

I know that they are allowed to exercise their best judgement, but there was such a HUGE outcry to vote as their state or district did....

{"commentId":1792073,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"angelah"}

#10 - Mon May 12, 2008 3:58 PM EDT

{"commentId":1793816,"authorDomain":"debra-2"}

Debra-280050

Angela, I've seen you ask this same question at other times. The answer is that it doesn't matter - the important thing is each state's total votes in the primaries.

Why am I saying that, you ask? Well, for example, I vote in a heavily Republican district in Georgia. I don't have a Democratic superdelegate representing my district, nor do many, many other Democratic voters in Georgia and other red states. That's why what you're suggesting is a pointless exercise.

Nice try though.

{"commentId":1793816,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"debra-2"}

#10.1 - Tue May 13, 2008 1:53 AM EDT

{"commentId":1794578,"authorDomain":"angelah"}

Wow - that was condescending I'm not particularly interested in where you vote or why you don't have a super-delegate. I'm more interested in the super-delegates that have already been appointed.

There was a lot of outrage that super-delegates could overturn the will of the voter. That each super-delegates vote was worth about 10,000 regular votes, such as yours. IF you did have a super-delegate, would you want them voting the opposite of how your district voted?

What I want to know is: there was such a big outcry before Super Tuesday for supers to vote as their district did - what changed?

It's not pointless - otherwise MSNBC pundits and others wouldn't have been calling for it.

{"commentId":1794578,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"angelah"}

#10.2 - Tue May 13, 2008 9:29 AM EDT

{"commentId":1795220,"authorDomain":"cynthia-west"}

cwest-275857

Excellent ! I totally agree with this statement. And since Nancy Pelosi told them they should vote as the will of the people vote why do they go against that. As for us inOregon, we havent even voted yet and our Supers have already backed Obama...that makes me mad cause I m not voting for him...

{"commentId":1795220,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"cynthia-west"}

#10.3 - Tue May 13, 2008 12:02 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799268,"authorDomain":"Marihelen"}

Marihelen

Angela,
I'd really like to see the calculations on that idea.

Following your rule, the supers of a particular state would be required to split their vote proportionally if they really wanted to accurately reflect the will of the voters. What you are proposing, if I am understanding you, is a winner take all approach to supers when the Democratic primary is proportional representation.

Perhaps I misunderstand your proposal. Could you clarify?
Thanks,
Marihelen

{"commentId":1799268,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"Marihelen"}

#10.4 - Wed May 14, 2008 11:54 AM EDT

{"commentId":1799366,"authorDomain":"angelah"}

Winner take all is an option - but what I am curious about is this: if each house member voted the same as their district that they represent. So even if Obama won the state, there were districts that Clinton won. She would get the super-delegates vote. Senate members represent the state - so they should vote as the state did overall. And non-elected supers should vote as their state did...

I don't know who this would give the advantage to - but so many pundits were calling for it. Since Senator Clinton won the big blue states - it would seem that she would have more super-delegate votes. Regardless, I am wondering why everyone backed away from this idea.....

{"commentId":1799366,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"angelah"}

#10.5 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:16 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799407,"authorDomain":"Marihelen"}

That's a calculation I'd like to see as well. It would be very interesting. Thanks for the clarification. :)

{"commentId":1799407,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"Marihelen"}

#10.6 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:23 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799416,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

This is a very good point. That said, Obama would likely be ahead still because he's had more luck winning Congressional Districts currently held by Democrats than Clinton has. Clinton's been strongest in Republican-held Congressional districts, particularly in places like Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. So, if the Supers simply went by their states/districts, Obama would still be ahead but it would be closer and there still would be approx. 300 Supers who aren't really elected officials who wouldn't have a guide to follow.

This is a very close nominating race; the loser will be the strongest LOSER in the modern presidential primary era. Reagan and Hart were similarly strong in '76 and '84; Reagan went on to the presidency; Hart would have had he not been sidetracked by all that Monkey Business.

{"commentId":1799416,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#10.7 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:25 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799508,"authorDomain":"opaintern"}

Angela, if the superdelegates chose the candidates based on which States they won, wouldn't Senator Obama still be ahead because he has won twice as many States as Senator Clinton?

{"commentId":1799508,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"opaintern"}

#10.8 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:46 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799537,"authorDomain":"gjn"}

Gareth-281070

No Curious that's not how it works "States a different sizes see!!? he won all the tiny ones.

{"commentId":1799537,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"gjn"}

#10.9 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:52 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799573,"authorDomain":"angelah"}

Not necessarily - because super-delegates are representing democratic seats. His wins in traditionally republican states, like Idaho and Iowa, don't garner a high number of superdelegates. She won fewer states, but the BIG states she won have a higher percentage of democratic super-delegates eg NY and California.

As Mr. Todd said - it would probably still favor Obama, but it would be a lot closer. And then there are 300 supers who aren't elected.

As an example - Senators Kerry and Kennedy support Obama, but she won Massachussets.
Governor Richardson supports Obama, but Clinton won New Mexico (by a tiny margin)

{"commentId":1799573,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"angelah"}

#10.10 - Wed May 14, 2008 1:00 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792075,"authorDomain":"misteranderson"}

Mister Anderson

Being that there is not a shred of evidence that Primary victories and losses will translate to the general election, wouldn't it be a fatal mistake for Obama to choose his VP based on his current weaknesses in the Primaries? The biggest question that most polls are not asking is if you're voting for Hillary Clinton or against Barack Obama? Being voting for Hillary because they think she's the better candidate will come home by November. Those voting against Barack Obama are those that Senator Obama will be challenged to get on board by the Fall. Either way, I think his VP pick should be someone who strenghtens his weaknesses against John McCain, and not against Hillary Clinton.

{"commentId":1792075,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"misteranderson"}

#11 - Mon May 12, 2008 3:58 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799500,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

I think there are three criteria for a VP pick: 1) does the person bring a state or constituency
2) does the person help you govern
3) does the person fill in a perceived resume gap

Ideally, you want to find someone who checks all three boxes or at least two of them.

{"commentId":1799500,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#11.1 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:45 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792081,"authorDomain":"thunderbird-56"}

Karen-279557

Earlier in the campaign, Senator Obama and his surrogates continually emphasized the need for the Superdelegates to vote the will of their constituencies. I believe he was worried that the Superdelegates would go with Clinton and he would lose. He and his camp made it sound like there would be @#!* to pay if this did not happen - that voters would somehow revolt. Now, I have read of numerous Supers going against their districts and backing Obama. Namely, New Jersey, Tennessee, and New Mexico. Hillary won all these states! Where's the hue and cry? I'm wondering if this is the "new" kind of politics that Obama is speaking about? If it's good for him, then it's "new" politics. Why isn't this point being talked about in the media?

{"commentId":1792081,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"thunderbird-56"}

#12 - Mon May 12, 2008 3:59 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792094,"authorDomain":"rocco8"}

Rocco-279561

Chuck,

I enjoy your work...you do the math so we don't have to....Two questions: No matter what happens between here, Denver and November, do you anticipate significant changes in the Dem's primary structure next time around? Hearing both Clintons mention that if the Dem's conducted their primary like the Republicans do, Hilliary would be the nominee...does that sound like tracks being laid for changes in the system for 2012 (if Obama were to lose)? Secondly, since the veepstakes is all we will hear about for the next few weeks, what is your thought on Bill Cohen for Sen Obama? I haven't heard him mentioned, and maybe there's good reason for it, but doesn't he cover just about every base for Obama?

{"commentId":1792094,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"rocco8"}

#13 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:01 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799512,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

I'm sure some Dems will attempt to "fix" the problems from this cycle; but it's more likely they'll fix a problem that will lead to new ones in four or eight years. The system seems as fair as any; just a bit complicated; My guess is that some Dems will work to try and make the system seem less arcane, so that the ratio of votes to delegates is relatively fair.

{"commentId":1799512,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#13.1 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:46 PM EDT

{"commentId":1800680,"authorDomain":"houstoneagle"}

Adam Watkins

Isn't it true that some of the methods of counting delegates (in Texas, for example) give greater weight in delegates to those areas that voted more heavily Democratic in the previous general election? If that's true, then wouldn't Obama's pledged delegate lead be much slimmer if delegates were awarded truly and strictly proportionately within a state's boundaries? Might they "fix" that "problem," and what is the talk about fixing another Texas-type problem where you have a caucus producing a result contrary to the primary result? The one good thing about the weighted delegate system is that it dilutes the impact of non-Democratic meddling in a Democratic primary, so Democrats might want to keep that.

{"commentId":1800680,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"houstoneagle"}

#13.2 - Wed May 14, 2008 5:25 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792106,"authorDomain":"BCQ"}

Tim R.

What about the democrats that have recently been elected in special elections... do they count as superdelegates, and if so, which way are they leaning?

{"commentId":1792106,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"BCQ"}

#14 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:05 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799517,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

Yes they do... The guy who replaced Hastert has already endorsed Obama. The new Dems in LA and MS are uncommitted and probably will remain so until there is a presumptive nominee. BTW, because of the MS special win by the Dems, the new magic number is now 2026

{"commentId":1799517,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#14.1 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:48 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792115,"authorDomain":"sheilas"}

Sheila S.

Thanks for offering to take questions.

Could you please devise scenarios of various 'constituency counts' to answer skeptics mathematically whether or not Senator Obama can win in November without the cohort Hillary claims to own - 'white, lower-income, no college education voters'? What percentage of the electorate is this group? What are your estimates of how many of them will INDEED vote for Obama in the general? Conversely, if Clinton were to be the nominee, how short would she fall if she only got 8% of the African-American vote, which she appears to be getting now? How large is the Hispanic voter cohort and what percentage must Obama earn to win the Presidential election? The older white voter? WOMEN?

Too many pundits are throwing these groups around as being indispensable to any/all candidates, but I haven't seen any good quantification of the size and/or the minimum/maximum impact they can have on the overall vote. I'd really appreciate your take on this. Thanks,
Sheila

{"commentId":1792115,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"sheilas"}

#15 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792116,"authorDomain":"tmbjon"}

TMBJon

I am a longtime follower of First Read and appreciate your written and on-air thoughts throughout this primary season (and its year-long lead-up).

I have a question for you that might seem trivial but something that was bugging me for the last few weeks as I have been poring over the primary schedule. Why have Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and even Democrats Abroad been afforded delegates by the DNC but nothing for the Northern Mariana Islands in the South Pacific. As far as I can tell this commonwealth has all of the same political designations as the Virgin Islands and Guam, so why did they get skimped by the DNC? I did notice the RNC afforded them a contest several months ago which McCain won handily, which further confuses me as to why they got snubbed. Any theories on this?

Thank you so much for your wealth of knowledge and insight into this election year.
-Jon Katz (D-CA)

{"commentId":1792116,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"tmbjon"}

#16 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:06 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799521,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

Good question; The DNC created this Democrats Abroad primary and I think are hoping this umbrella handles this issue.

{"commentId":1799521,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#16.1 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:49 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792119,"authorDomain":"barry-rutherford"}

Barry Rutherford

I think Hillary would make a significant contribution to the Vice-Presidency. I cannot see her remaining quietly in the back room formulating policy as Cheney seems to have done with Bush and Gore id with Bill Clinton. Both Gore and Cheney seem to be almost silent for the most part. That is my perception from over here anyway. Maybe it's just the way the media handles it. I could not see Hillary taking on a subservient role. Bu then I do not see anyone of significant and extraordinary as VP. Maybe I'm wearing blinkers but from here 'down-under' that is my take.

{"commentId":1792119,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"barry-rutherford"}

#17 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:07 PM EDT

{"commentId":1795141,"authorDomain":"johanna-1"}

Barry, I agree with you regarding Hilary but if Obama could get Chuck Hagel for VP, he would be significant and extraordinary in every way. This would do wonders to bring the party and the country together which is one of Obama's most important goals. What do you think? Would Chuck Hagel be interested under the right circumstances?

{"commentId":1795141,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"johanna-1"}

#17.1 - Tue May 13, 2008 11:39 AM EDT

{"commentId":1799564,"authorDomain":"gjn"}

that would stink a Republican , get real Its Hilary's there is no way Obama can WIN with out US, no way he can not make the offer: NO WAY SO Obama-NATIONS GET USED TO IT.

{"commentId":1799564,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"gjn"}

#17.2 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:58 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792121,"authorDomain":"fajinelson"}

Nelson22

Hey Chuck,

How are you?

Can you please tell me why no one in the Dem party is bold enough to call the Clintons to order about respecting the rule of the Party?

This is what I mean, everyone is entitle to make any statement about the electioneering process but making statements that abuse the rule of the party, I think should not be acceptable to the leaders and if they are bold enough someone should be able to call any of the campains and tell them there are rules agreed to before the whole thing began and it must be respected.

I am a Nigerian, here we are have always believed the US voting system is an example that every nation should copy, but with am hearing from the Clintons day by day it seems they no regards to the party rules - in my country such is called anti-party activities.

{"commentId":1792121,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"fajinelson"}

#18 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:08 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799424,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

This is why she's not going to be the nominee; Too many Superdelegates are worried about voters like yourself losing faith in the process even if the rules indicate that Clinton is abiding by them. It just doesn't pass the smell test to the rank-n-file Democrat.

{"commentId":1799424,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#18.1 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:28 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792124,"authorDomain":"norris-72"}

Pete-279572

Hi Chuck,
The longer Clinton stays in the race, the more aggressive she becomes in her assertion that Obama cannot win, that he cannot carry certain constituencies and cannot win the electorate map. It seems that this could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If she truly wanted a democrat to win in November she would surely drop out and now support Obama rather than criticizing him and further separating her supporters from him. Is there a chance she is staying in the race to hurt his chances in the general so she can run in 2012? Your thoughts?

{"commentId":1792124,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"norris-72"}

#19 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:08 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799428,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

I was surprised by her feisty tone last night. I think there are plenty in the party worried about how aggressive she'll be in making her case against Obama. Other than last night's speech, she's been rather tame; I'd expect her to stay tame for the rest of the campaign or risk being embarrassed by some big name Supers coming over to Obama's side.

{"commentId":1799428,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#19.1 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:29 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792135,"authorDomain":"terry-temes"}

Terry-279575

So what happens when Obama wins the Democratic Nomination but loses the general election? What will the democratic power brokers and Obama's rude immature supporters say then? What will be said when Clinton's supporters vote republican? Who will be blamed for that?

{"commentId":1792135,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"terry-temes"}

#20 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:10 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792398,"authorDomain":"liheibao"}

Waldae Georges

What is your position based on? Unless you've some facts that none of us have, like a crystal ball, it sounds like sour grapes more than analysis.

{"commentId":1792398,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"liheibao"}

#20.1 - Mon May 12, 2008 5:09 PM EDT

{"commentId":1793835,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}

gpnavonod

Terry-279575 Comment collapsed by the community

So what happens when Obama wins the Democratic Nomination but loses the general election? What will the democratic power brokers and Obama's rude immature supporters say then? What will be said when Clinton's supporters vote republican? Who will be blamed for that? 0!#23 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:10 PM EDT

Waldae Georges What is your position based on? Unless you've some facts that none of us have, like a crystal ball, it sounds like sour grapes more than analysis

His opinion is based on Ed Koch's article on the same subject. Do you have a cyrstal ball?
Is your opinion worth more than Terry's or mine ....or are you more experienced in politics than Koch? What office have you held? Have you won any public elections? What makes your opinion worth more than a bag of "sour grapes"?

{"commentId":1793835,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}

#20.2 - Tue May 13, 2008 2:09 AM EDT

{"commentId":1799519,"authorDomain":"gjn"}

I agree he will lose in the fall, there is no way the powers that be will let this happen.
they have already decide its McCain is the Man! , wait and see!
the people don't decide what a myth , POWER DECIDES ALWAYS HAS ALWAYS WILL.

{"commentId":1799519,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"gjn"}

#20.3 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:49 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792137,"authorDomain":"liheibao"}

Hey Chuck!

How do you explain the dearth of media attention on John Haggee, John McCain's pastor problem, as he has sought out Haggee's endorsement, and failed to repudiate any of his indecent comments about America, Catholicism, Hurricane Katrina et al? Is it racism on the media's part? Do outlandish angry black men, sell better than southern white koo-koos? The Jeremiah Wright story was PUSHED by the media with a force I have never seen before, yet John McCain, who in light of everything Barack Obama has had to go through to distance himself from Wright, has yet to denounce, repudiate, whatever, Haggee's comments. Why does he get a free ride? If it's not racism, then please explain so I can understand. Oh, I don't buy the excuse that there was a 20 year relationship either, unless the media is saying that Haggee's remarks are less damaging because McCain hasn't known him that long. Offensive remarks are exactly that, offensive, regardless of time, relationship, etc.

{"commentId":1792137,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"liheibao"}

#21 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:11 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792140,"authorDomain":"michaelroland"}

Michael Roland, LA

The DNC wants to punish both Florida and Michigan for breaking party rules. Is it possible that the DNC will decide not to punish the VOTERS of those two states but rather punish the two state's Democratic Party Leaders (i.e. SUPER DELEGATES)? They could avoid disenfranchising the voters by cutting the value of a super delegate in half. After all, aren't the state party leaders of Florida and Michigan mostly responsible for this debacle?

{"commentId":1792140,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"michaelroland"}

15 votes

#22 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:11 PM EDT

{"commentId":1795331,"authorDomain":"brendamayer"}

Brenda Mayer

Excellent question. As a Florida resident I'm concerned about this issue.

{"commentId":1795331,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"brendamayer"}

#22.1 - Tue May 13, 2008 12:22 PM EDT

{"commentId":1795570,"authorDomain":"michaelroland"}

Thanks Brenda:

As a Democrat I recoil at such phrases/words as "DISENFRANCHISED VOTERS" and "FLORIDA" (no offense Brenda). :)

I just wonder if the party leaders realize what hearing those two phrases together "Disenfranchised Florida Voters" does to the typical Democratic Voter. I can't imagine what it does to loyal Florida Democrat. And now, we're in danger of disenfranchising Michigan voters too. Well- if Florida and Michigan are disenfranchised this time the DNC will not be able to blame the Supreme Court. They (and the voters) will have no one to blame but the party elders. I hope the party leaders figure this out soon and in a way that is fair to the voters of both Florida and Michigan. Since 2000, Democrats (no matter what state) have "disenfranchise scars". I Think . . . The candidates should reach a compromise to seat all the pledge delegates B U T . . . The DNC should punish the super-delegates for not being responsible leaders in the first place. Scheduling their state's primaries in violation of DNC rules was a half-witted idea; therefore each super-delegate should get a half-vote. Good Luck in Florida Brenda!

{"commentId":1795570,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"michaelroland"}

#22.2 - Tue May 13, 2008 1:25 PM EDT

{"commentId":1795715,"authorDomain":"michaelroland"}

I just wonder if the party leaders realize what hearing those two phrases mixed together ("Disenfranchised Florida Voters") does to the typical Democratic Voter. I can't imagine what it does to loyal Florida Democrats. And now, we're in danger of disenfranchising Michigan voters too!!!

Well- if Florida and Michigan are disenfranchised this time the DNC will not be able to blame the Supreme Court. They (and the voters) will have no one to blame but the party elders. I hope the party leaders figure this out soon and in a way that is fair to the voters of both Florida and Michigan. Since 2000, Democrats (no matter from what state) have "disenfranchise scars".

I Think . . .

The candidates should reach a compromise to seat all the pledge delegates

B U T . . .

The DNC should punish the super-delegates for NOT being responsible leaders in the first place.

Scheduling their state's primaries in violation of DNC rules was a half-witted idea; therefore each super-delegate should get a half-witted-vote.

Good Luck in Florida Brenda!

. . . sorry! my previous post got garbled!

{"commentId":1795715,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"michaelroland"}

#22.3 - Tue May 13, 2008 1:49 PM EDT

{"commentId":1795958,"authorDomain":"brendamayer"}

The DNC should punish the super-delegates for NOT being responsible leaders in the first place.

Scheduling their state's primaries in violation of DNC rules was a half-witted idea; therefore each super-delegate should get a half-witted-vote.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not even a Democrat (I'm a former Republican turned Independent) and I can see the injustice in this situation.

{"commentId":1795958,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"brendamayer"}

#22.4 - Tue May 13, 2008 2:47 PM EDT

{"commentId":1796219,"authorDomain":"mga876"}

Jim M.

I'm Glad to see a few others on the same page as me! I'm in Michigan and no matter who I talk to, we all agree; Michigan does not blame the DNC or either candidate, we blame our own state leaders for not giving us the chance to weigh in on the decision to move our vote. Specifically, more blame is going to Gov. Granholm. Not only was she a part in the decision to move the primary, but she also did Hillary's campaigning after Both candidates agreed to not do so here. Cut the delegate in half and count us, but take away the supers vote- more importantly, Gov. Granholm's vote. It's the supers that broke the rules, not the voters But there are still consequences for their actions, We can deal with losing a few pledged delegates. This is what seems to be the sentiment around me...

{"commentId":1796219,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"mga876"}

#22.5 - Tue May 13, 2008 3:51 PM EDT

{"commentId":1796574,"authorDomain":"michaelroland"}

INTERESTING!

It's good to get feedback from voters in both Florida and Michigan.

I hope your thoughts convey those of most of your state's constituency.

I've been hearing that the voters in both Florida and Michigan may make the Democratic Nominee pay for what has happened to them by voting for McCain or by just staying home during the General Election. That would just add insult to injury. (Not to mention what it could put our country through for the next 4 years.)

Personally- I don't think the News Media give voters enough credit. (They certainly didn't give those in Indiana and North Carolina enough credit to see through the Gas Tax Holiday.)

AND- I'd like to hear more about Gov. Granholm's compliancy from the MSM. (Maybe we can read about it in First Read one day soon.)

Thanks Brenda & Jim for your thoughts!

{"commentId":1796574,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"michaelroland"}

#22.6 - Tue May 13, 2008 5:19 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799440,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

well, if I were running the DNC, my recommendation would be to punish the Supers and not the voters; seems logical. But that won't be the case; the most likely compromise will be seated as is but the delegations will be cut in half. So if Clinton netted 18 delegates out of Michigan, the compromise will only get her 9. In FL, her net was 32-35 delegates and therefore her net will be 16-18. As for the Supers, they might actually NOT be cut in half, which seems unfair but there's a case that the Superdelegates aren't punishable for their state's actions. Again, this all isn't logical but this is the complicated process that is the DNC primary calendar.

{"commentId":1799440,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#22.7 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:32 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799460,"authorDomain":"michaelroland"}

Well then... maybe you should be running the DNC Chuck! ;)

{"commentId":1799460,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"michaelroland"}

#22.8 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:36 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799550,"authorDomain":"nlehto"}

Neil Lehto

In Michigan, I doubt few Democrats feel disenfranchised because everybody knew in advance this would happen. There was an expectation Hillary Clinton had the nomination locked up and having voting convention delegates was meaningless. The rise of Barack Obama was a surprise. However, the rationale for violating DNC rules was intended to sway DNC scheduling of future primaries beginning in 2012.

{"commentId":1799550,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"nlehto"}

#22.9 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:55 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792141,"authorDomain":"roberty1"}

Robert-279579

I am puzzled about why nobody is talking about Supreme Court justices as an issue! It would be the best argument to make for Obama to bring Hillary's key supporters (women) under his tent. The next president may pick 2-3 of them! This could overturn Roe especially because the older justices are Dem apponitees. I think this argument alone would pull everyone together, do you think this case will be made forcefully? Good job on your analysis, we appreciate it.

Thanks, Robert

{"commentId":1792141,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"roberty1"}

#23 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:13 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799441,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

McCain is talking about it more than the Dems. It's just not the motivating issue for Dem primary voters as it is for GOP primary voters.

{"commentId":1799441,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#23.1 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:33 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792146,"authorDomain":"michael1-1"}

Michael-279581

In determining the final popular vote count, how are you going to count MI & FL? For example, if Michigan splits the delegates in half, do you split the popular vote from the state in half? Will you even count MI in your popular vote at all since Obama wasn't even on the ballot? And how will you factor in caucus states, many of which did not even record how many people voted. Since Clinton may proclaim herself the popular vote winner, it would be nice to know exactly what the correct way in counting the votes is. Thanks,

{"commentId":1792146,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"michael1-1"}

#24 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:14 PM EDT

{"commentId":1799461,"authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

well, the popular vote count is an art, not a science. Right now, we haven't given the uncommitted Mich. vote to Obama; there's an argument that maybe we should; but then what about the votes of folks who voted in territories that don't have a vote in the general election (like Guam, America Samoa and Puerto Rico)? Should those votes count? I haven't included them yet but the Clinton campaign is pushing hard that we do. The bottom line on the popular vote, it's CLOSE; VERYCLOSE and the ultimate winner will have won about half of the Dem primary vote and the ultimate loser will have won about half the primary vote. Had every caucus been a primary, Obama would have a bigger popular vote lead but a smaller pledged delegate lead; Had California been held two weeks later; he might win it; had my aunt had a youknowwhat, she'd be my uncle...

there's no accurate popular vote count; it's apparently like pornography, you know it when you see it.

{"commentId":1799461,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"chucktodd"}

#24.1 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:36 PM EDT

{"commentId":1792151,"authorDomain":"kathymgrega"}

Kathy Grega

Todd
The media seems to think that if Obama become the nominee that Clinton supporters will rally around him. I hear this all the time------let me tell you, this is not going to happen. Obama does not have the experience, internationally nor economically to be the best candidate, simple put, we will not vote Obama.
We will listen to McCains point of view on all these matters, and either vote for him, or not vote at all.
You media folks tend to think not---you think we will fail in line like good foot soldiers--that is not going to happen. Obama is weak on all matters---except good speeches--- I am not going to take a chance with yet another candidate who offers change---with no experience behind it---more so today.
I am not a big fan of McCain, however he is not Bush. He is a reasonable person with a ton of experience, he is trustworthy and will reach out to all come Nov. He is worth taking a look at if Obama become the nominee !!! Your thoughts

{"commentId":1792151,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"kathymgrega"}

#25 - Mon May 12, 2008 4:16 PM EDT

{"commentId":1793677,"authorDomain":"heismykeeper"}

Yvette for a Better America

{"commentId":1793868,"authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}

The media seems to think that if Obama become the nominee that Clinton supporters will rally around him. I hear this all the time------let me tell you, this is not going to happen. Obama does not have the experience, internationally nor economically to be the best candidate, simple put, we will not vote Obama.
We will listen to McCains point of view on all these matters, and either vote for him, or not vote at all.
You media folks tend to think not---you think we will fail in line like good foot soldiers--that is not going to happen.

I agree, Kathy. NewsVine is topheavy with Obama supporters...LoL, If you haven't noticed? Barack is an unknown quantity who popped into the limelight a few years ago. He has no record of anything but:
...
Odd voting , bad attendance, and some very questionable characters in his background.

He may be the "Second Coming" to the Far Left and Liberal Independents...and good for them!

But he's not this Democrats "Cup of Tea"

{"commentId":1793868,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"gpnavonod"}

#25.2 - Tue May 13, 2008 2:38 AM EDT

{"commentId":1799302,"authorDomain":"NYEILEEN"}

EILEEN FROM UPSTATE NY

I would like to comment on the "democrats" who are supporting Clinton but will not support Obama- you really need to examine your own beliefs and ideals. Are you racists or hardheaded? Democrat comes from democracy. That's what we are. The difference between dem and republican is obvious to most.
And by the way, Obama is not "black" he is half white and was raised by his white mother and grandparents. I am a white, college educated woman from New York. I realize that people think that a Clinton back in the white house will be like the 80's- only this isn't the 80's- times have changed. We need to evolve.

You call yourselves democrats- As a democrat I think you all need to think past your dislike of Obama and consider the state of our union.
We are in a pathetic and deadly was and with Mccain we will continue to be there for at least another 4 years.

Roe v Wade is in grave danger- as women are you willing to sacrifice the future of your daughters and granddaughters to make their own reproductive choices?

Senator Mccain is also very old- what happens if his health is compromised? Who knows who he will chose as his vp-Is that a chance you are willing to take?

Our economy is in the tank- do you like paying $4 a gallon for gas??

I am an obama supporter (and I live in upstate NY and Hillary is my senator) I can tell you I have voted for her in the past. However, She has not done ANYTHING for New Yorkers. I feel her conduct has been questionable in the primary and probably will not vote for her again for senate. I think she has stoked racial lines and brought back alot of racial issues from those lovely 60's. If we are considering the people around our candidates and what they say and think-shouldnt we consider that Bill Clinton lied under oath about the Lewinsky affair? He also has had many questionable pardons and business dealing since he left office. Am I the only one who remembers whitewater, and her "vast right wing conspiracy blab"? The GOP is going to devour her in the fall if she is the nominee!!
She will need Obama supporters behind her just like he will need Clinton supporters behind him.
again I am an Obama supporter....
I will however, vote for her in the General if she somehow won the nom as I care about this country more then my foolish feelings about my candidate.
How many more of our Men and Women need to die in Iraq for you all to realize that ANY democrat is better then this continued war???

Think about the country as a whole and Not just Your candidate and their ego and that goes for ANYONE who is backing the eventual loser

{"commentId":1799302,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"NYEILEEN"}

#25.3 - Wed May 14, 2008 12:02 PM EDT

{"commentId":1800115,"authorDomain":"kathymgrega"}

EILEEN FROM UPSTATE NY
I beg to differ with you Eileen---racist or hardheaded???? I think not. Supporters of Clinton are either democrats or independents who feel very deeply that she is the best nominee to beat McCain. These are very trouble times, both in this country and around the world---we need experience. It is too critical a time in our nation to accept nothing less than that. I do not hate Obama, I think he has run a very good campaign and is due much credit for what he has accomplished to date, However, he is weak in experience in matters that are very important to many of us. Know I;m sure I will hear all kinds of comments about how a president surrounds themselves with "experts" in the field and that the president himself/herself sets the tone and listens to his/her ad visors. Well that may be true---however I deeply feel that we need a president who not only sets the tone, but is in command of the issues....this is how results are implemented. I firmly believe that Obama would make for a great president one day....just not today. I as an independent who leans democrat, but.....judges the candidate by his/her strength firmly believe that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be hard to beat in the general. Having said this, the VP spot for Obama would allow him the time necessary to gain the experience first-hand on matters critical in this country and abroad. So I will conclude by saying that the DNC members will, in my opinion be making a critically flawed decision should, through their vote, place Obama as the nominee. I am sorry to say that Obama is not strong enough, nor will he have the support of the middle class to win in Nov. Thus as I have indicated, I myself will take a serious look at McCain. I already respect him for his honor to this country, his strength of character and his trust-worthness---he is not Bush. If after a review of his policies, and ideas, and if I am not comfortable with the direction he has in mind for this country both at home and abroad, I will exercise my right not to vote. Iam not comfortable with Obama, it has nothing to do with race, gender, or age. it is simple a fact that he does not have, in my opinion "earned" my vote. My right to exercise a "no vote" is no different that all those millions of new voters who have never bothered to vote before this election. And I will close respectfully by saying that Obama does does have the support of swing-voters to carry this election come Nov. I have watched the RNC make mincemeat out of far-right liberals who lack experience, and have questionable personal relations and this time will be no exception. With two wars going on today and the threat of terrorism lingering daily, the republicans will not give up the White House without an all out "war" of attacks, and I would be willing to bet that there attacks will be heard all throughout this country, and people will take this into the voting booth come Nov. McCain is flawed, however he is not Bush, and I myself fear the unknown in Obama
thank you

{"commentId":1800115,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"kathymgrega"}

#25.4 - Wed May 14, 2008 3:05 PM EDT

{"commentId":1800264,"authorDomain":"kathymgrega"}

Sorry, I meant to say in my comment above that Obama DOES NOT have the votes of the middle class.......

Now watch.......the Obama supporters will call me and "idiot" "uneducated" and "stupid"
in addition to being a "racist"

Typical of the attitude the vast majority (not all) have !

{"commentId":1800264,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"kathymgrega"}

#25.5 - Wed May 14, 2008 3:48 PM EDT

{"commentId":1801165,"authorDomain":"NYEILEEN"}

Kathy,
I did not imply that you were uneducated.However, I feel your comment that if Obama was the nominee instead of Clinton is just plain stupid. I did not realize you were not a democrat, rather an independent.I was originally commenting because I though you were a democrat who would only vite for Hillary. I respect your decision to sit out this election if you don't decide Mccain is the right candidate for you.
I disagree with your comment that Obama cannot win the middle class-I am a white, middle class New Yorker and the enthusiasm I have seen for Obama around my area is impressive (especially since this is Hillarys state)
You talk about experience. What experience besides a few more years in the Senate does Hillary have? She was first lady. Does that mean that Laura Bush is also qualified as her husband was the gov of Texas and the president (just about the same amount of years Hillarys has as first lady) No of course it doesn't!!
I also respect Sen Mccains military service. He is a hero in that regard. That does not mean I want him to keep our troops in harms way for no good reason.
i also value my freedom of choice- and he does not
He also has a blatant disregard for women (as evidenced by the lovely name he called his wife in front of the traveling press corp)
but we do have one thing in common. I am changing my affiliation to Independent.
I do not like how the DNC has allowed this divisive race to go on and on.
And yes, I will vote for the democrat this year for president, no matter who it is because I want this damn war to end!
Don't you?

{"commentId":1801165,"threadId":"263340","contentId":"1483453","authorDomain":"NYEILEEN"}

#25.6 - Wed May 14, 2008 8:03 PM EDT

Newsvine Q&A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Published to:

Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Newsvine Q & A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF:

New Users:

Existing Users:

Newsvine Q&A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: