Last week I had a huge influx of readers interested in my piece on Eric Cantor. Seems I'm not the only one thinking McCain might just pick Cantor. I think it's a longshot, but possible.

Things are getting very hectic personally. This may be the last newsletter for a few weeks or more. We will be on vacation in California for a couple of weeks and I will have Grand Jury duty after that. Plus work is exploding for me and Joy's dissertation is overdue. Even politically, I will need to put some extra effort into my friend, Devin Cohen's primary election September 9th. But this newsletter I cover some pretty critical stuff.

The most ignored story off the day, ignored even on Daily Kos as the Edwards "scandal" hits, is the new war between Russia and Georgia. I don't know how much I can inform people about this, but it is the latest war in the trans-Caucus flashpoint that perhaps you remember includes Chechnya.

Today, Russian tanks invaded Georgia territory to support a break away Republican called South Ossetia. Georgia considered this an act of war and there is currently fierce fighting between Russian and Georgian forces within South Ossetia.

As a result of the tight Democratic contest, I am sure the DNC will take up yet another tinkering of the primary calendar and the process for electing delegates.  A lot of ideas are bounding around right now.  Here are some of my thoughts on what the DNC could do going forward.  I tried to do a broad-brush outline rather getting too specific and technical.  Let me know what you think in the comments:

What a tool. Rather than congratulating Obama for winning a great race, fairly and graciously, with more elected delegates from those who voted in primaries and caucuses, Mark Penn, in a New York Times op-ed instead credits the superdelegates for pushing Obama over the top, and blames "low-turnout caucuses" (a talking point throughout Clinton's campaign as being "undemocratic" and "unfair"), blames the media, and blames just about anything and anyone but himself, for the loss.

...as Barack Obama gained enough superdelegates to put him over the top. ... But she went from a lead of 120 superdelegates in early February to a deficit of 40 before last Tuesday.

Given her successes in high-turnout primary elections and defeats in low-turnout caucuses, that simple fact may just have had a lot more to do with who won than anyone imagines.

more...

[cross-posted at Rumproast.com]

I found these photos of female Obama supporters on Flickr today. The pride and joy the women exude in the pictures speaks volumes. They were taken by Robert Kangas at the 7th Congressional District caucus in Seattle, WA on 5/17/2008.  Remember, women count. Enjoy.

First, my main source for this is a great piece by Rhodes Cook on Larry Sabito's Crystal Ball '08 http://www.centerforpolitics.org/...

This is a short diary.

I wanted to bring people's attention to the fallacy promoted on the front page of the RealClearPolitics web site:

This is basically based on their calculation, Ickes' style, of the Michigan vote as follows:
1- Undecided votes are not counted for Obama;
2- Votes are counted as full votes; and
3- Caucuses at Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine were not counted, with the "fine print" explanation that these states have not released their vote totals.

This is an outrage in my humble opinion.

Update [2008-6-1 13:57:46 by yaddab]: I know: The popular vote does NOT count, but we should not allow any such false argument to be used to fool the uninformed. Also, many comments referred to RCP as a right-wing leaning web site. That may be the case, but it also happens to be one of the most quoted web sites in the MSM when it comes to elections stats. When there is a major fallacy there, it spreads very quickly. Here's an example of CNN quoting RCP.

At the Democratic Rules Committee meeting on Saturday, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich) once again justified his state’s decision to violate party rules and move up the date of its primary by blaming Iowa and New Hampshire.  He criticized the preeminent role of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in the quadrennial presidential election process, arguing, "no state should have the right to go first" during every campaign season.

Besides the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire had absolutely nothing to do with Michigan’s myopic ill-advised decision to break party rules, I believe that it is important to support the traditional role of these first-in-the-nation presidential selection events. In particular, I want to defend Iowa’s longstanding position (since 1972) as the opening caucus state.

The Texas State Democratic Convention is on June 6.

Here's one email from the Clinton campaign:

We need at least 160 volunteers to work as Convention Credentials Monitors!
These volunteer staffers will play an important role in making sure that the sign-in process at the Texas Democratic Convention is on the up and up as well as making sure that all of our delegates are getting in and that we are filling seats with alternate delegates.

Well, gee, that sounds harmless, right? and this one, too:

I've long maintained that caucuses are undemocratic affairs that shut out a great number of people. Proponents of the caucus contend that they are excellent party builders, and truly leave the decisions up to the party's most committed activists.

New numbers out of Texas give a lot of weight to supporters of the caucus system. Not including 50,000 caucus goers in Travis County, so far the Texas Democratic Party has collected:

682,728 minimum confirmed caucus goers*
598,861 with complete addresses
513,083 with phone numbers
223,525 with emails

Those are people the state party can contact directly, and it extends way past the party's traditional urban strongholds:

Of the 254 counties, we have data for 233 at the moment.
211 counties had more than 20 caucusers.
189 counties had more than 50 caucusers.
170 counties had more than 100 caucusers.
114 counties had more than 300 caucusers.
84 counties have more than 500 caucusers.

That includes numbers from some of the most Republican counties in the state. Bottom line?

At the state, county, and local level this data is already being used by campaigns and independent efforts. None of this data, nor the organizing that has and will happen as a results would have been possible without two things.

1. A Contested Presidential Race

2. The Texas Caucuses

Primaries truly do little for party building. Caucus are almost 100 percent party building.

It's a compelling argument in their favor, and one that is forcing me to rethink my initial opposition.

Perhaps Texas DOES have the best idea -- a hybrid system that has both a primary, with the broader access it offers -- and a caucus for party-building purposes. Make the primary a mail-in ballot for maximum participation (like Oregon), and perhaps we'd be on to something.

I keep reading that the Clinton campaign's bogus count of the 'popular vote' excludes four of the caucus states. Why is it that only four of the caucus states are listed as not having their popular vote tallied?

I'm tired of these through-the-looking-glass argument from the Clintons. It's the second time on a national stage that I've been told the equivalent of "who are you going to believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" and I don't like it one bit. Rather than rant and throw shoes at the TV I'm just going to ask...

If caucuses don't matter why on earth did the Senator from New York spend 74 days in Iowa since the 2004 election and never once make this argument in front of Iowans?

All of Hillary Clinton's Iowa visits are chronicled by the excellent GWU Democracy in Action project. 74 days in Iowa and never does Hillary Clinton argue that caucuses shouldn't count and now she can't say it enough. What does that record say about Sen. Clinton's character? 74 days, not a peep.

Lately, caucuses have been getting a really bad rap.  Clinton and Clinton supporters disparate caucuses as illegitimate, un-democratic systems for choosing the democratic presidential nominee.  

Now, we all know that this sudden movement against caucuses has risen only because Clinton lost ALL the caucus state elections (I consider Nevada an Obama victory).    

In this diary, I want to offer a defense of caucuses, and argue that the democratic presidential primary process should continue to include a mix of caucuses, open-primaries, and closed-primaries.  Caucuses are an important part of the process.  They are legitimate, I argue, because not only are they democratic in nature, they also provide an invaluable measure of electability factors, factors that primaries are not able to effectively measure.  Moreover, contrary to what Clintonites argue, Obama's overwhelming victories in caucus states provide a strong basis for arguing that Obama is more electable than Clinton.  Analysis after the fold.  

     Barack Obama won yesterday's Presidential preference primary in Idaho by roughly 20 percentage points over Hillary Clinton.  Earlier in the campaign season, when Idaho held caucuses, Obama's margin was three times as great.

     Add Idaho's data to the results in Texas.  There, Obama won the caucuses held in the evening following his loss in the primary earlier that day.     Coast-to-coast, Obama won almost every caucus, but was far less dominant in the primaries.    I'm among those who accepts the conventional wisdom that Obama's supporters were significantly more likely than Clinton's to have the time, energy and commitment to caucus..    
.

So here are some thoughts on fixing the electoral system for nominating a candidate...

How many times can you repeat the word assassination, Keith? Why don't you lend her tired comment more energy in the media--and in the mass consciousness?

In this article the author listed all the death imagery in the MSM about Hillary. You're referenced in the article, Keith, as having said you hope "somebody will take her into a room—and only he comes out." Interesting, our dear hypocrite, no?

Did you watch the whole interview, Keith? It was a long DRONE on policy, and for the older ones of us, RFK's tragedy was specifically June 68. (As MLK's was in April). And she referenced June for Bill and that other CA primary--and now you ride it. Yes, it was a stupid reference but clearly, if you watched the interview, was not of malicious intent.

Well that's stupid... would I do something like that? Oh yeah, because I live in Washington State and we have a fracking caucus here. It was on February 9th. I know this because I went to it, voted for Obama, ran for precinct delegate and won, went to my Legislative District caucus, ran for delegate and lost (couldn't figure out how to answer the phone at 3am). Turnout was massive. The crowds were spilling out the door.

But, Washington State also has a primary election. It was on February 19th.

Although everyone on KOS is well familiar with the facts, rules and regulations of our Democratic nominating process, I have a more personal tale of angst that I simply have to get off my chest.  It is about my formerly Republican, 82 year old mother, her views on this entire process, her dismay at the idea that her vote might not count, and her conversion to being a registered Democrat, because of Barack Obama.

GOBAMA, GOMAMA!