Apologies for the sparse postings here. FYI, I’m now posting on two sites — posts on politics are here at DemocraticSPACE and posts on Urban Planning and local issues in Los Angeles are at my personal website gregmorrow.ca. As you can see from my personal site, I recently ran for local council here in my neighborhood of Echo Park in Los Angeles. I didn’t win, but I finished second, an will be the alternate representative. And my wife and I are also trying to build a house (2 townhouses, actually — one we’ll keep, one we’ll rent and eventually sell off). So I haven’t put as much time into DemocraticSPACE of late. When things heat back up on the Canadian election front, you can be assured that the postings here will increase. In the meantime, I’m following the U.S. election.

Senator Larry Campbell’s Senate bill S-238 (Canadian Football Act) has to be one of the most asinine bills I’ve seen in a while. It proposes to ban NFL games in Canada and band the CFL from expanding into the U.S. The purpose? To protect Canadian culture. It’s ridiculous. The bill assumes that Canadians would abandon their favourite CFL team if an NFL team came to Canada, as though the allegiance people have had for decades to their local CFL team was only due to the absence of a better alternative. Yet, CFL football is quite distinct from NFL football (3 downs instead of 4 means it’s more of a passing game than the NFL, where running the ball is more prevalent). Moreover, it assumes that the only viable way of sustaining the CFL is to deny Canadians the right to watch the NFL. Honestly, has Canadian confidence slipped so far that we have to resort to protectionism in professional sports?

Updated: June 9 @ 7:55 PT

As it stands now, according to Real Clear Politics, Barack Obama has 1,766.5 elected delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 1,639.5 — a lead of 127 (including Florida and Michigan). Among superdelegates, Obama leads 463 to 257 — a lead of 206. So overall Obama has a 333-delegate lead (2,229.5 to 1,896.5). Here are some best guesses for the upcoming races…

As you can see, at present, it looks like Obama will end up 127 elected delegates ahead, and 235 superdelegates ahead, so overall Obama is ahead by 362. I’ll continue to update this as new polls are released. Note the new “magic number” to clinch the nomination is 2,118.

So, after 54 primaries and caucuses, including a compromise to seat Florida and Michigan at half-strength (same as the Republicans), Barack Obama has finally clinched the Democratic Party nomination. Obama’s speech at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul last night had a history-making quality to it, as Obama became the first African-American in the country’s 232 year history. And yet, despite the fact that Obama has clinched the nomination, Hillary Clinton refused to concede or to endorse Barack Obama.  In fact, she maintained that she was the better candidate.

The chances of Obama picking Hillary as VP before last night were not great, but by not conceding and stroking the flames among her supporters, she has shot herself in the foot. I see little-to-no chance of Obama picking her as VP now. The problem is, Hillary is trying to blackmail Obama for the VP spot by driving a wedge between her supporters and Obama, such that the only way they will go to Obama is if he taps her as VP. But by succumbing to her extortion tactics, Obama would look weak. So Hillary has put Obama into an impossible position.

Update (Fri Jun 6): It appears that the Clinton campaign is reversing course, signaling a more conciliatory position after many of her supporters came out harshly against her tactics, including one prominent supporter who wrote a piece called “I’m not a bargaining chip. I’m a Democrat.” It appears that Clinton has now accepted defeat. She will hold a rally on Saturday to officially endorse Obama (and will suspend her campaign). Moreover, this new conciliatory attitude towards Obama also prompted a private meeting between Obama and Clinton last night. Hillary’s new attitude certainly improves her chances of being offered the VP spot. Ultimately, Obama has to feel comfortable working with whoever he picks as VP. We shall see how this plays out…

Unlike many past primaries, we don’t have good polling data to make reliable projections about what will happen in Montana and South Dakota tonight. We have just 2 polls from each state, and each shows radically different results. Based on the limited polling we do have, we project the following:

Montana
Obama — 55.3% (9 delegates)
Clinton — 41.7% (7 delegates)
No Preference — 3% (est)

South Dakota
Clinton — 55.7% (8 delegates)
Obama — 44.3% (7 delegates)

However, because of the stark contrasts between the only two polls in each state, there is a high degree of uncertainty. One poll shows Obama up 12 points in South Dakota and another shows him down 26. Likewise, in Montana, one poll shows Obama up 17 points and another shows him up only 4 points. One thing to note: South Dakota is a closed primary (only registered Democrats can vote), which tends to work favorably for Clinton, while Montana is an open primary, which tends to work favorably for Obama.

Hillary Clinton continues to make her case to the undeclared superdelegates. The problem is, her arguments are misleading at best and dishonest at worst.

Claim #1: “I am the better general election candidate”
To back up her claim, her campaign released a set of poll data (note: PDF) last week. But in what can only be described as blatant misrepresentation, she cherry-picked the individual polls that showed her in the most favorable light, while ignoring others that showed Obama more favorably. Here’s just a few examples that compare the single poll Clinton gave to superdelegates versus the average of all recent polls (the most reliable metric), as reported by Real Clear Politics (i.e. -4 means trailing McCain by 4, while +4 means leading McCain by 4).

While Clinton currently has an advantage over Obama in Ohio, both are currently carrying the state, according to the average; yet she cherry-picked a single poll showing her winning and Obama losing. Likewise, in Michigan, she published a poll showing her tied with McCain and Obama trailing, yet the polling averages show both Obama and Clinton trailing by the same 3 points. In Virginia, she published a poll showing her and Obama tied, both trailing by 8; yet, the average has Obama trailing by just 1.3, making it highly competitive with Obama, while Clinton is far behind, by 10.4. Her picture of Missouri is also misleading; she cites a single poll showing her ahead and Obama trailing; yet the average shows that, while she currently has an advantage, both candidates are trailing McCain. Her evidence in Wisconsin is even more suspect; she shows a single poll with both her and Obama behind by 4 but the average shows Obama ahead by 2 and her behind by 3.4. Likewise, in Nevada, she shows herself up by 5 and Obama down by 6, an 11-point gap. Yet, the average shows Obama is actually neck-and-neck with McCain, trailing by just 0.6, while she is further back, trailing by 3.6.

These are just a few examples, but it illustrates the deception that the Clinton campaign is using to try to convince superdelegates that she is the better general election candidate. At best, she and Obama are evenly-matched, if not a slight advantage to Obama.

Claim #2: “I am winning the popular vote”
Yet, to arrive at this assertion, she must use creative math. First, she does not count the votes of Iowa, Washington, Nevada and Maine (this despite her rhetoric about counting all votes) — Clinton doesn’t believe caucuses are democratic. Secondly, she includes both uncontested primaries in Florida and Michigan, even though both states were flawed (neither were sanctioned by the party, neither candidate campaigned there and Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan — so literally Obama gets zero votes in Michigan, since many of his supporters voted “uncommitted” and another 30,000 or so wrote in his name and were not counted).

According to Real Clear Politics, without including Florida and Michigan or the above caucus states, Obama leads by 460,958 votes. Including estimates for the above caucus states, Obama leads by 571,180 votes. Even if you include Florida, Obama still leads by 276,408 votes. The only case where Hillary leads the popular vote is if you include both Florida and Michigan (where Obama technically got zero votes and Clinton got 328,309 votes), where Clinton leads by 51,901 votes.

Why is it that nobody in the media is making the obvious statement that both the Republicans and Democrats have stripped Florida and Michigan of half their delegates? It’s amazing to hear angered Clinton supporters say they will vote for the Republican candidate because the Democrats are only giving them half a vote, when the Republican Party is imposing the same penalty for moving up its primary in violation of party rules.

What’s clear is that the DNC Rules Committee did not handle the controversy as well as its Republican counterpart, who gave a 50% penalty right from the beginning (instead of the Democrats giving a 100% penalty, then having to reverse it to 50% yesterday). By issuing a 50% penalty from the beginning, the Republicans were able to hold competitive primaries in those states, giving them a leg up in organizations on-the-ground.

Clinton supporters might well be angry at how the Rules Committee handled the whole affair, but they shouldn’t blame Obama’s camp for their ultimate judgment, especially when there were 13 Clinton supporters on the Committee, and only 8 Obama supporters (9 were uncommitted). It was, afterall, the Democratic Party in both Michigan and Florida that make the proposed delegate allocations; the Rules Committee merely accepted those allocations and restored the full delegation at 50% voting strength (which, according to Democratic Party rules, was an automatic minimum penalty).

Given the anger over the compromise, it is clear that Clinton supporters do not understand that they’ve just restored the equivalent of her delegate gain in Ohio and Pennsylvania combined for primaries that, as both campaigns agreed from the beginning, would not count. It’s time Clinton supporters recognize that this compromise was the fairest solution to an understandably difficult situation, a situation the Rules Committee itself created by not imposing the 50% penalty from the outset.

Note: I will update superdelegates in the calculations below as they change between now and the last primary/caucus on Tuesday.

With the resolution of the Florida and Michigan now complete (giving Clinton a net gain of 24 delegates), Barack Obama currently has 2,051 delegates (1,722 elected, 329 superdelegates) to Hillary Clinton’s 1,875 (1,586 election, 289 superdelegates), a lead of 176.

If Clinton wins Puerto Rico 60-40, a reasonable estimate, she would likely win 32 delegates to Obama’s 23, a gain of 9. His lead drops to 167 after Sunday.

And if Obama wins Montana and South Dakota 60-40, again a reasonable estimate, he would likely win 19 delegates to Clinton’s 11, a gain of 8. His lead increases to 175 after Tuesday.

So after the last primary/caucus on Tuesday, Obama would have 2,093 delegates and Clinton would have 1,918 delegates. Currently, there are 179 undeclared superdelegates. Therefore, Obama would need 25 (14% of the remaining superdelegates) superdelegates to reach the magic number of 2,118 to clinch the nomination. Clinton would need 154 (86% of the remaining superdelegates) to win.