10 posts tagged “2008 election”
It's been two full weeks now since the Democratic Primary was settled. However, there are some interesting observations to be made from the first half of this year in regards to how the Democratic candidate is selected. I wanted to touch on some of the things I've made note of in this post.
Increased Voter Turnout: Will it Translate to the General Election?
The Democratic Party witnessed a huge increase in voter turnout for the primaries, due mostly to the two main candidates bringing in scores of new voters. Normally this would indicate an even larger turnout at the polls come November, and it probably will still, but there are two points to consider.
- Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton brought in new voters. Now some bloggers have noted that it's a shame that many of these people have had the right to vote for years, and had never before participated in primary voting and in some cases, even a presidential election. This is both disturbing and inspirational. Disturbing, because it revealed an all too common affliction, apathy. Inspirational, because for once, people are really showing interest in government and politics, and even moreso, believed that their voices count. This leads to point number two...
- Because of the nature of this race, with two star candidates that drew in strong devotion from supporters on both sides, it is reasonable to note that the outcome was not found favorable to a great number of people. As exit polls suggest, the majority of Senator Clinton's supporters will still back Senator Obama in the fall. But to dismiss those who may not is a mistake that the Democratic Party cannot afford to make. Really, every Obama supporter and all those associated with his campaign, have to note that this race was rather polarizing, and cannot take for granted that the record turnout of Democrats will all vote the party line in November.
Popular Vote vs. Delegate Count
There are four ways to look at the popular vote. Two are favorable to Obama, two are favorable to Clinton, and all four expose two further issues within the system.
The first counts every state, including caucuses, except for Michigan, because Obama's name didn't appear on the ballot in Michigan. The second counts every state, except those that held caucuses, and also excludes Michigan. Obama wins the popular count by those two measures. This is consistent with the results of the delegate count.
Once you add in Michigan to the first two scenarios, you have two sets of results where Senator Clinton wins the popular vote. This is inconsistent with the results of the delegate count.
Now, to those of you saying, yes... but the delegate count determines the winner, not the popular vote, that is true. However, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and yet lost the election due to the electoral college results. Is this fair? There are arguments on both sides, and I won't deal with that now. However, one thing to note is that the Democratic Party does use a proportionate delegate allotment system, so just because a candidate wins a state, it doesn't mean that the losing candidate doesn't receive any delegates at all from that state. I appreciate that system because my vote for Obama in Tennessee still counted for something.
The two further issues that this brings up though, are caucuses and the primary calendar. Or rather, Florida and Michigan.
Caucuses
I will admit, though I have voted in primaries and every presidential election I've been eligible to vote in (which only amounts to two general elections) I had never witnessed a caucus until this year. I sat amazed, staring at the television screen. "This is how they determine who wins a state?" I questioned, as voters debated back and forth, trying to win people over to their side.
And then, "I want to move to Iowa and do this myself!"
Followed by, "Really? Is this even democratic?"
And that's my question. Why do we have caucuses? How do you really measure the will of the whole state by the people who are willing to hang around for hours in order to cast their votes?
Michigan, and to a lesser degree, Florida
So we know that Iowa and New Hampshire get special "first caucus" and "first primary" status. After that they decided to add a couple more states to the mix before "Super Tuesday." These states get hit hardest by the candidates. The residents are bombarded by volunteers and fliers and phone calls, etc... This year, every state got a chance to have a say in the election, but in recent years this hasn't been the case. So, Florida and Michigan decided to move up their primaries, believing they deserved more attention but violated party rules in doing so. The party, wishing to deter other states from doing the same, initially penalized both states at the maximum level.
I understand the Democratic Party's reasoning, but I also know this. To keep with the theme of the Democratic Party, they cannot afford to disenfranchise voters. The end ruling restored half-votes to both states. That's better than nothing. But this calendar process will clearly need to be dealt with. This cannot happen again.
Michigan is the worse of the two because Obama took his name off the ballot, along with several other Democratic contenders, most notably John Edwards. Clinton left her name on the ballot. At the time of the ruling, all the candidates agreed to honor the ruling. Due to the absence of Obama's name on the ballot, results of the primary will always remain unclear. Polling showed Clinton leading in the state, but by what margin she would have won we may never know. The RBC ruling didn't split the votes according to the election results, but as a compromise. That compromise reflected the uncertainty of the results, but its fairness is up for questioning. I do say this as an Obama supporter.
Overall though, I am glad that Michigan and Florida's votes were partially restored, as opposed to not at all.
Superdelegates Aren't So Super
Again, the Democratic primary having such a fierce battle brought to light another issue that I really hadn't been aware of previously. Superdelegates. Really? We need superdelegates to have super votes that could, theoretically, overrule the will of the people? Really? That's democratic?
Positives
With all the issues I've brought forth, I do want to note some positives:
- New Voters. Lots of them.
- Increased awareness of how the system works.
- An overwhelming desire to see change in this country.
I was going to give an analysis on how Obama won and why Clinton lost, but that's been done all over the internet, and it's past time for me to go to bed. So this should wrap up my postings on the primaries, and from now on my political posts will focus on the contest in November.
Now, I am obviously a supporter of Senator Obama, and have been throughout the primary season. I will admit, that over the last six months I've sometimes criticized the words and tactics of the Clinton campaign. I reacted rashly to comments Senator Clinton made, because of that I called for her to withdraw from the race. In retrospect, I can see that I missed the point, and I believe that point was highlighted by Senator Clinton's endorsement speech.
She toughed it out until the end, and never stopped fighting, and I now believe that was the right decision. Tuesday night, when she spoke, I wasn't expecting her to concede (mostly because her campaign stated that she wasn't going to that night) and because of that, I was not upset that she didn't immediately step down after Senator Obama clinched the nomination. Even when the traditional media was criticizing that move by her campaign, I was beginning to understand.
I have often been asked, why, as a woman, I was voting for Senator Obama. I will admit that the first twenty dollars I donated to this election went to Senator Clinton. I will also admit that the thought that she might have become the first female president was an exciting idea for me. In the end though, I chose to vote and campaign for Senator Obama, because I felt he was the best candidate, and I didn't believe I should base my vote entirely on gender.
However, Senator Clinton has broken barriers for women everywhere. She has given any woman, especially young women, the ability to believe that they can achieve anything. One day there will be a female president of the United States, and it will be rooted in the campaign Senator Clinton ran this year.
In not giving up until the end, she will have encouraged many other people to not give up on dreams that may have previously seemed insurmountable. And when Senator Obama had enough delegates to secure the nomination, she stood by her word and endorsed him. And I believe she will continue to work hard to help him win in November.
I doubt there was anything easy about the speech she gave yesterday. I imagine even thanking her supporters was difficult because they had invested so much time, energy, hope and resources into her campaign, and the gratitude she displayed had to have been bittersweet.
But then there was a much more difficult task. She had to ask the eighteen million people who voted for her to now stand with her and support Senator Obama as the nominee, a role both her and eighteen million people had wanted her to fill. She did so eloquently, gracefully, and with as much force behind her words as Senator Obama or any of his supporters could ask for. She made it clear that it was her desire for the Democratic party to emerge victorious in November.
This speech needed time to be written. Senator Clinton waited to deliver it, yet she announced Wednesday that the speech would be happening. This is important. First, she quickly indicated that she would be suspending her campaign, so that the Democratic party was not left waiting. Yet by giving herself a few days before delivery she allowed herself time to process the end of her campaign, and so her words were spoken with a much clearer mindset than if she had done so Tuesday night, or Wednesday.
Now, clearly it will take more than five days for Senator Clinton's eighteen million supporters to fully cope with this transition. I suspect it might take the senator herself a while, but publicly she has done what she needed to do, in order to take the first steps of reuniting the Democratic party.
For this, I am grateful, and I hope all of Senator Obama's supporters are as well. Senator Obama released a statement expressing his own gratitude.
To all of Senator Obama's supporters, my plea to you is this: No more Clinton bashing. Throughout this campaign I have tried to keep my remarks and my thoughts civil, and speak out only against policies or campaign actions, without making my critiques on the Senator herself. I hope I have done that. But there have been a minority of outspoken Obama supporters who have not, and this needs to end. Even with the potential of Senator Clinton getting the VP spot on the ticket, it is imperative that we only move on in unity from now on. Ultimately, the VP nod will go to someone of Obama's own choosing, and he will choose the person who he thinks will best serve the country.
To all of Senator Clinton's supporters I would ask that you ignore that group of Obama supporters who would bash Senator Clinton. They do not accurately represent their candidate. And I do understand that not all of you will come rushing to sign up with the Obama campaign. My only understanding of how you must be feeling is based on the 2000 and 2004 elections. And with so much more at stake this year, I'm not sure that even that adequately describes the feeling. But for those of you who have already decided to follow Senator Clinton's lead, you have my utmost respect, and gratitude. Even those of who haven't, you still have both my respect and gratitude because I do know how it feels to invest yourself in a candidate, and each of us has been part of a historic primary season.
I now hope that the process of unifying is well on its way, and that we can take back the White House come November.
It's been a few days since I wrote about Senator Clinton's reference to the assassination of Robert Kennedy. I have since calmed down. Though I still think Senator Clinton should have apologized for her comments in full, it was a conversation with my mom that helped put things in perspective for me.
Historically, it is true that candidates weren't so quickly chosen to be the nominee. Primaries didn't kick in until the late 1800s, and even then, only in a few states. However, since the adoption of the primary system, both parties have had a few long battles where no clear front-runner emerged immediately. Senator Kennedy's run was an example of that. And of course, we know how that horrific story ends.
So yes, Clinton's reference was historically accurate. There was no doubt about that. However, there is a definite generation gap when it comes to how her comments were taken.
I was venting my anger to my mom, stating that Senator Clinton should have apologized. My mom heartily disagreed. Now, my mom is a conservative, and no fan of either Democratic candidate. In fact, she wants Obama to win the nomination because she thinks it will be easier for McCain to beat him in the November election. She also has a few choice words to describe Clinton (both Clintons, for that matter) that I will not mention here. So when she came to Senator Clinton's defense, I listened, surprised.
As she shared with me, Senator Kennedy's assassination happened when she was sixteen. She remembers it vividly. The event left quite an impression on her, and so the June reference was immediately recognized by her. She was quick to dismiss the idea that Clinton intended anything else, and also stated that the New York senator had nothing to apologize for. I took this to heart, and thought it over.
And this leads to the generation gap I mentioned. I was not alive back then. I know the details of the Kennedy family that I've studied in history and political science classes. But knowing something and witnessing something are completely different things. So the historical reference seemed crass to me.
However, I will dismiss that issue for now. There is another generational difference that I feel is more important: How my generation has responded to Barack Obama.
The polls and results of previous primaries have shown that Obama clearly has stirred up excitement among the youngest demographic of voters. We who have supported him have likened him to a Kennedy for our generation. But we are not alone. When Caroline Kennedy endorsed Obama, she said he would be a president like her father.
In the New York Times she wrote:
Yes, as Scio, Scio pointed out, Obama has a third of the experience in Congress that President Kennedy had. And that has been a major issue in this campaign. However, Obama has that same ability to inspire Americans. Inspiration is a powerful thing. Hope is a powerful thing. We've witnessed a period of eight years where the faith of the American people in the highest office of this country has diminished rapidly. If I had not been alive to witness it, it would be hard for me to believe that the same man who stood so strong and bold and brave after the worst attacks on American soil, the president who united the country and helped rally our resolve to become stronger after that day, is the same man who has since divided us.Over the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.
Senator Obama believes that we can reunite. That we can be a stronger America. My generation has latched onto that. But it would be foolish to say that there aren't fears about this African American man running for president. They are largely unspoken, but ask any of us who have campaigned for him and I'm sure we'd all say we've heard those fears voiced at least once during the duration of the campaign. For while the battle against racism has seen great gains over the last seventy years, there are still those who harbor hatred. And the worst of these are on the fringe, the extremists. So yes, concerns exist.
So when Senator Clinton used that example in this campaign, that is what we heard. I don't think it was intentional. But it set off alarm bells. And so I still believe a more formal apology is necessary. However, at this point, I will accept her graceful withdrawal from the race once the primaries are over.
Whether or not she does just that remains to be seen.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."
--Senator Hillary Clinton, responding to calls for her to drop out of the race.
Keith wraps up with:She actually said those words.
Those words, Senator?
You actually invoked the nightmare of political assassination.
You actually invoked the specter of an inspirational leader, at the seeming moment of triumph, for himself and a battered nation yearning to breathe free, silenced forever.
You actually used the word "assassination" in the middle of a campaign with a loud undertone of racial hatred - and gender hatred - and political hatred.
You actually used the word "assassination" in a time when there is a fear, unspoken but vivid and terrible, that our again-troubled land and fractured political landscape might target a black man running for president.
Or a white man.
Or a white woman!
You actually used those words, in this America, Senator, while running against an African-American against whom the death threats started the moment he declared his campaign?
The politics of this nation is steeped enough in blood, Senator Clinton, you cannot and must not invoke that imagery! Anywhere! At any time!
And to not appreciate, immediately - to still not appreciate tonight - just what you have done... is to reveal an incomprehension of the America you seek to lead.
This, Senator, is too much.
Because a senator - a politician - a person - who can let hang in mid-air the prospect that she might just be sticking around in part, just in case the other guy gets shot - has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States.
I might consider the timing of Senator Clinton's remarks, so quickly after the last post I wrote on this election, to be ironic if I was not infuriated. There is no excuse for her words. NONE! I don't care about the intent behind them. The Obama campaign has chosen to assume the best, that Clinton was simply citing historical references where the nomination took a while to wrap up. However, the implications were there, accidental or not. Senator Clinton has gone too far.
It is time for this race to end. Now.
Update: No, I do not think Senator Clinton is staying in the race simply because she's hoping something god-awful might happen that I don't even want to voice. However, I think she needs to apologize, and more than she did today:
For just the implications, however unintended they may have been, of her words, she needs to apologize. Not just to the Kennedy family, but to Senator Obama, and the American people."I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation - and in particular the Kennedy family - was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever."
--Senator Clinton, regretting previous remarks
Recently, Hillary Clinton, feeling that the traditional media had been unfair in their recent coverage of her campaign, appealed directly to bloggers. Well, I certainly wasn't privy to that conference call, as I'm barely a blogger, much less a political blogger, but I will take this moment and answer Senator Clinton's call.
The Race as it Stands: Far Too Negative
Yes, there are many calling for Senator Clinton's concession in this race to be the Democratic Party's nominee. I happen to agree with this, but not for the reasons you may thing. Yes, I am a Barack Obama supporter. Yes, I believe he's all but clinched the nomination. Yet it is not for that reason that I wish for Hillary to step down.
Instead, her attacks continue on the likely nominee, Senator Obama. And this is frustrating for me, not just as an Obama supporter, but as a Democrat who would like to see Senator McCain defeated come November. I agree with Senator Clinton: Every voter should have a chance for his or her voice to be heard. I support the race to continue through June 3rd, the end of the primary season. However, Senator Clinton, I wish for you to focus more on your strengths, rather than Obama's perceived weaknesses. Your brand of politics continues to be divisive. Your supporters consistently poll as being more likely to vote for Senator McCain over Senator Obama in November, and despite your protests that a Democrat must win, you are only building their resentment for the candidate who will defeat you in the Democratic primary by handing Republicans a ready supply of arsenal against Obama.
Please stop.
"It's the map, not the math."
As we have witnessed frequently within this contest, Senator Clinton's campaign has often changed the standards of measurement in order to best fit their needs. Now, even though Obama leads in pledged delegates, superdelegates, states won, and popular vote, the Clinton campaign states that Hillary has won a greater number of electoral votes, if this contest was being held in November.
This much is true, I will not argue. However, it is a mistake to think that Obama would not pick up the majority of Clinton supporters in the general election, and thus would automatically lose the states Senator Clinton has won. This faulty argument is one of a desperate campaign.
Speaking of Math...
The Clinton campaign is claiming that it holds the lead in a popular vote contest. This is untrue. In order for Clinton to claim the majority vote among Democrats, one would have to count Michigan and Florida, as the votes stand in these two states, and ignore the voters in all caucus states. This is problematic for two reasons. First, caucus states had huge turnouts, and their votes should be counted and can be tallied based on percentages and total Democratic voter turnout. Second, Senator Obama, following the wishes of the Democratic party, removed his name from the ballot in Michigan. Thus, there is no way to measure how the junior senator from Illinois would have performed in Michigan.
Either way, when you factor in the caucus states and let Michigan stand as is, Senator Obama still holds the majority vote.
Michigan and Florida
I agree with Senator Clinton that these two states should be seated at the Democratic National Convention. There is no need for the Democratic Party, the so-called people's party, to allow for voters in these states to become disenfranchised. However, these two state delegations should be seated with a penalty. I am hopeful that a resolution will be worked out on May 31st.
We have no way of knowing what the results would have been if voters had not believed their votes would have counted.
End this Before the Convention
There are those pushing for this race to go all the way to the Democratic National Convention in August, and those who clearly wish to see it end before then. I am with the latter group. Even though I will be attending the convention myself, and obviously a battle to the convention would be incredibly exciting, I care more for the future of this country than my own entertainment. As a party, Democrats must come together and begin to patch up the divisions amongst us well before the last week of August. This race has been, in part, so exciting and fierce because Americans are ready for change. We have a president leaving office with a 28% approval rating. That means that a whopping 72% do not approve of the president's performance in office. Come November, we need to rally for positive changes in this country, and not lose an election that should by all means, be ours.
Senator Clinton's Legacy
Here is the topic I wish to address the most. I believe Senator Clinton's legacy depends on how she responds when Senator Obama finally crosses the line and secures the nomination with 2,026 delegates (which may be increased after May 31st). Will she graciously concede? Or will she lead a bitter battle to the convention and cause deeper rifts among Democrats?
On a more positive note, Senator Clinton has now broken through the barrier that suggested a woman couldn't campaign for president. This legacy will empower women for generations to come. She has definitely proven herself a fighter, and an incredible asset to the country and New York. However, come June 3rd, she should surrender her goal of becoming the Democratic nominee, and work with the Democratic party to elect Senator Obama as the next president of the United States.
A rather candid shot taken during Governor Richardson's endorsement of Senator Obama.
I wouldn't be disappointed at all to see both those names on a ballot in November.
If the biggest critique of Obama's candidacy is his lack of experience (and I would like to point out that many of our greatest presidents had only as much, if not less, experience as him - Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Woodrow Wilson...) Governor Richardson would certainly bring that to the ticket.
His accomplishments, in brief:
- US Congressman, with plenty of foreign relations experience
- US Ambassador to the United Nations
- US Secretary of Energy
- Governor of New Mexico
Yes, I think an Obama/Richardson ticket would be fantastic.
Phenomenal?
Challenging?
Amazing?
Words fail me. Yesterday Senator Obama took the greatest challenge presented him so far in his campaign, met it head-on, and then took it to the next step, using the negative comments delivered by his former pastor in a sermon to tackle the issue of racism in the United States. In it, he encouraged Americans to talk about this issue, rather than avoiding it:
The full text of his speech can be found here.For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.
This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.
This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.
I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.
Last night I learned that I have been selected as an alternate delegate to the Democratic National Convention. That's right! I am going to Denver!
Back in 2004, when Democrats took over Boston for the last nominating convention, my eyes were glued to the television and I thought, "I wish I could be there." Of course, no moment of that event captured my attention as when Barack Obama, not yet elected as a US Senator delivered the keynote address.
But despite wanting to be there in person, to experience first hand the excitement and mayhem that is a nominating convention, after the 2004 election I didn't give it a whole lot of thought.
Skip ahead to December of 2007. I've been watching the campaigns unfold, eager to see who would emerge as the leader. Back then I'd decided that I wasn't going to choose a candidate until a nominee emerged. (Oh how little did I know!) I'm at a Christmas party, when I notice three of my friends are wearing Obama stickers. At that point, Senator Obama was the candidate I was leaning toward, so I asked them about the stickers. One of my friends told me she was helping to head up the local campaign. "Awesome," I replied. "I've been thinking about getting involved."
Do you know that look that people who are looking for volunteers get when someone suggests that they may be interested in helping out? Having volunteered with many organizations at different times in my life, I'm well accustomed to that look. It was then that I knew I was part of Team Obama.
January 3, 2008. The local Obama campaign members are gathered in front of a television, watching the Iowa caucus play out. I'd never watched a caucus in action before. This was an entire side of politics I couldn't have imagined. It was crazy, maddening, and beautiful all at the same time. The results came in, and Obama had won the state.
Wow, I thought. This guy may actually have a chance.
That night, the same friend who had recruited me told me how to become a delegate. Applications were due that month, and me, being the procrastinator that I am, waited until the deadline.
I filled out a district-level application, and an at-large application, pledging my support for Obama.
The following weeks were a flurry of campaigning. Phone calls. Canvassing. Meetings. A trip to South Carolina. More wins. A loss or two. I didn't actually vote on Super Tuesday because Tennessee has early-voting. Rest assured though, I did vote!
Obama didn't win Tennessee, but due to the nature of the Democratic nominating process, he still won delegates in the state. I first attempted to become a district-level delegate, by attending the county delegate nominating convention. At the county-level, so many delegates are selected to go on to the actual district nominating convention. From there, national delegates are selected to go onto the national convention. Senator Obama had only one spot available in our district, and my chances were slim-to-none.
I didn't get it.
However, at-large delegates were still needed. These delegates could be from anywhere in the state, and again were based on the percentage of the vote that the candidate took. There were six at-large positions available, and the meeting for that took place on Saturday. The state party's executive branch decided those, and again, I did not get a spot.
But! I did become an alternate delegate! This means that I will be going to the Democratic National Convention, but chances are I will not be voting. Instead, I will be there in case one of the actual delegates is unable to attend a roll-call, or a vote. It may not be as cool a job as actually voting for my candidate, and there expenses to think about travel arrangements to be made, all sorts of things to worry about soon enough.
For now, I know this convention is sure to make history and I will be there to witness it all, in person.
Yes, I am excited!
Here's how it works. Tennessee held it's primary on February 5th, also known as Super Tuesday. After the votes were tallied Hillary Clinton won the state with 54% of the Democratic vote, compared to Barack Obama's 41%. Tennessee then assigns delegates to represent the primary results at the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in August. Those delegates will then vote in order to select the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.* However, the Democrats have decided not to utilize a winner-takes-all system, and instead selects delegates based on percentage. Broken down, this means that Hillary receives 38 delegates from Tennessee while Barack gets 26.
I want to be one of those 26 Obama delegates.
So at noon today I was at the Courthouse for the second part of that process. (The first simply involved filling out an application to be considered.) In my county, 5 candidates could continue on to the district-level nominating process. We were in luck, because there were exactly five people who had applied to be delegates at the national level. All five of us were quickly voted through and so now we will move on to part three, delegate selection at the district-level.
I'm not expecting to make it past that level, because there should be 57 candidates there and only one delegate can be selected from that group. (Senator Obama didn't fare very well in my county or district.) However, I'm extremely grateful for the opportunity to experience this part of the nominating process I never knew existed. It's all very exciting!
There are also six open at-large delegate positions to be filled, where candidates can live anywhere in the state and still be considered for appointments as delegates as well. Those chances are even more slim, but I can hope.
Regardless, this is a very exciting election year. The youth vote is turning out in powerful numbers. It feels as though my generation is standing up and making ourselves heard at last. The Democrats are making history with our two remaining candidates. I had previously decided that I'd wait til we had a nominee to get involved with any sort of campaigning but then Barack Obama won me over with his message of hope and change.
I'm more involved than I ever have been. Last month I traveled to South Carolina to be involved with the grassroots campaigning on the day of their primary. We watched the results come in and celebrated heavily. I've canvassed and phone-banked, studied up on issues and voted my heart in the Tennessee primary.
And above all, I've dared to hope.
It's going to be an interesting ride.
*This is not necessarily true. A good portion of the Democratic nominating process involves the votes of super-delegates. This practice is becoming increasingly controversial as it becomes possible that Barack Obama may end up with more delegates selected by the voters, but Hillary Clinton could still win the nomination due to super-delegates. More information on super-delegates is available here.
My Groups
-
political Updated: 34 minutes ago
-
Election 2008 Updated: 34 minutes ago
-
50 in 365 Updated: Yesterday
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
