The 6-foot box sat inconspicuously on the floor of Time Warner Cable Arena last week. But convention officials say what it represents will save them a lot of money.
The box represented the position of what will be the convention's stage, a made-for-TV set with a rising podium for prime-time speakers.
The end-zone configuration puts the stage at one end of the basketball floor, not at center court like past conventions. Organizers said the change will allow more seating. Kerrigan said the arrangement will save money.
Instead of the four usual nights, Democrats will only be in Time Warner Cable arena for two nights, with the first night cancelled and the fourth night moved to Bank of America stadium. And is anyone really going to be watching? Will Hillary speak? (she might have to resign first). Michelle Obama? Biden? Yes, Elizabeth Warren, or even Gabby Giffords if she were up to it, would be exciting keynoters. But there's no reason for Democrats to spend a lot of money on arena construction for just two nights of preliminaries.
So yes, there will be more seats. But if you've ever been at a rock concert in an arena with the stage at one end and you on the other, you know they better have some pretty big video screens.
Now that the State of the Union is done, I have two initial reactions.
First, President Obama's specific proposals pre-empted Mitch Daniel's attempts to put forward a centrist Republican alternative.
Second, I am really wanting to see what happens on Thursday. Can you imagine the attempts to evade the question if the Republican field is asked whether Social Secuirty benefits should be reduced for the wealthy and the wealthy should have to pay higher premiums in a debate in Florida. Governor Daniels's proposals will be disavowed in ten second flat.
Some details on the setup for Obama's acceptance speech:
At Bank of America stadium, the stage will be set up at the 50-yard line. There was no thought about building it in the end zone - the NFL season will be under way and pulling out the goal posts is too complicated. -Charlotte Observer
And for the media, some issues to work out:
Moving the acceptance speech to Bank of America Stadium brings its own problems to logistics experts. They will only have a narrow window of time to move their equipment out of the arena Wednesday night and into the stadium before it is shut down for a security sweep, which lasts hours. ... TV logisticians have to decide whether to bring twice as much equipment so each venue can be wired or to make the move overnight. Either option increases the complexity for broadcasters.
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/01/21/2940741/networks-liking-value-of-charlotte.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/01/21/2940741/networks-liking-value-of-charlotte.html#storylink=cpy
This is the chart of the most up-to-date South Carolina returns. If you click on it, you'll be able to read it better.
Do you see what I see? Add 494 +1161 +213 +2491...if my math is right, you'll get 4359. Which is about two-thirds of 6324.
What you're then looking at is that Stephen Colbert (as Herman Cain) got more votes than Michele, Jon, Gary and Rick together. It's also more votes than the estimated attendance at the joint Cain-Colbert rally last Friday. And yet, no one is talking about it...
Sure, we don't know how much of that vote was for Cain and not Colbert, but likely not much. (Remember what Any Borowitz said: Perry dropped out, endorsed Newt, Cain endorsed Newt's lifestyle...sorry, I digress.) Seriously, Stephen Colbert is very much against Citizens United, and has put his money where his mouth is. He also has testified before Congress (then on the subject of migrant workers). Certainly Colbert is not running for the presidency, much as Ron Paul is not: each is endeavoring to sound a message. Colbert is, despite his on-air persona, the furthest left wing of any of the candidates, real or imagined.
Before you think that someone who has made his living from comedy cannot be a voice for intellectualism, or, um, a US Senator, I give you Al Franken.
But still, I'm concerned about the fact that Colbert's 5th place finish was not mentioned by any mainstream media outlet. It goes along with all the other stories they don't cover: like the Occupy Movement (except when people are arrested) or the Chester-Upland School District (which has won a recent reprieve through the end of the year, but is part of a 3-town area that is going to end up like a giant ghost town over the next 10 years) or any of the other political stories that indicate what is really going on in America today.
A few lone voices in the wilderness have been arguing that none of Iowa's delegates should be projected for candidates yet, as the multi-tiered caucus process gives us no confidence in any estimate of delegates. Just look at what's being reported:
AP: 12-12 (was 13-12 for Romney before Santorum was declared the winner) CNN: 7-7-7-2-2 (Mitt, Santorum, Paul, Newt, Perry) NBC: 11-11-3 (Mitt, Santorum, Paul)
What a mess. But Ron Paul, in a press release yesterday, shows that his campaign understands:
After tonight, only 37 delegates, or 1.6 percent of total delegates, have been awarded.
And how does he come with up 37? Easy: New Hampshire: 12, South Carolina: 25.
Paul's team, who will be going after caucus delegates hard, know that the Iowa delegates are still up-for-grabs. And they do that knowing they could instead use CNN's numbers and claim 7 delegates for himself, which would be his biggest haul to date.
Now if only the mainsteam press would get it right also.
The very first thing we learned was that the mainstream media knows NOTHING about actual delegate counts. Nor the delegate selection process. Luckily for all of us, we've got Matt and Oreo who actually do know everything about the process, and present the only truly honest and correct numbers around. (Yeah, I don't know what they know...they are really super...no pun intended.)
We also learned that the process is going to go on for a while, and creates some interesting opportunities which showcase the difference between them and us. Remember that one of the main reasons the GOP changed its primary rules was because of the enthusiasm generated by the Democratic primary process in 2008. The 2008 Democratic process made not just for a more excited base, but also a stronger candidate in the fall. That might have worked for them except for four things.
Republicans like order, falling in line (as opposed to falling in love, as Chris Matthews always says), and giving the nomination to "the next guy".
Republicans are, for the most part, haters and thus respond well to rhetoric, dog-whistle racism (and other dog whistles), and media hatred. Regular-guy-and-gal-on-the-street Republican voters are so hateful towards Obama that they care more that their candidate will put up a good fight than that he has any chance of winning.
The party is fractured, as we've been telling you for years, so "coming together" is tough.
There actually is no enthusiasm for anyone running, except Ron Paul, which is a separate thing altogether, and we'll get to him in a bit.
So we have had three contests and three winners. The fight goes to Florida which is the first really expensive market. Don't get me wrong, the Super Pacs have spent big money - but it will take even bigger money in Florida: it's four pricey media markets. And a much bigger state, meaning much higher robocall and lit costs. AFSCME is spending there, though:
It's brilliant because not only does it hurt Mittens, the week he's going to have to release his tax returns, or pay a huge political price for not doing so, but by tying Mitt to Scott, it hurts the Republican brand across the board going forward.
The three Republican candidates are seriously damaged: Mittens by his own hand (and his own financial records), Newt and Rick by their lack of organization, dwindling funds, and the fact that neither of them presents an actual challenge to President Obama, a fact not lost on the establishment Republicans. Ron Paul isn't competing in Florida. He'll show for the debates, but his base is his base, and he is NOT running for the Republican nomination. Have you noticed that he remains pretty much unattacked, especially by the Romney folks? Paul will work Nevada, Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho and a few other places. He'll end up with enough actual delegates to earn a place on the podium at Tampa, where he can either cause trouble, or just use that large stage to further weaken whoever the Republicans eventually settle on as their nominee. Remember that once Florida is over, there's not much going on until 6 March because the "contests" in between are either non-binding or part of a process that will last for months in each state as the delegates rise from precinct level to county to state.
Newt and Rick are really hobbled by their lack of organization: neither is on the Virginia ballot, and there are ballot access issues in other states. You gotta play to win. There is an opportunity in some of the states whose ballots are not yet set for favourite sons to get on those ballots. (Are you surprised that there are no favourite daughters? Don't be, the GOP hates women, too, as anything other than barefoot and pregnant.) This further dilutes the delegate pools that Mitt and Ron can have going into Tampa. The Indiana primary isn't until May, for example, and New Jersey isn't until June. Mitch Daniels, anyone? Chris Christie? Not to mention Florida, where 10% of the ballots for the 31 January primary have already been cast absentee, or 200,000 of the expected 2 million voters, and almost half a million were requested. Organization was important. But in the final analysis, Florida is filled with seniors and Hispanics, with whom Mitt doesn't resonate, and yes, anything can happen.
And let's not forget Karl Rove and his cronies in DC: they have, for the most part, accepted Mittens as the last best hope against Obama in November, and they will do anything to stop Newt if he continues doing really well.
The Republicans have the one thing they can't stand internally: dissension in the ranks. The in-crowd isn't able to control the voters. Normally, they do that through the churches, but the in-crowd world view isn't selling since the rise of the teabaggers. Being the party of the 1% isn't selling this year, either. It's fun watching the implosion, but we need to start thinking about what will rise from their ashes.
Winner of each CD - 2 delegates, total of 14 delegates
Winner
Statewide - 11 delegates
Gingrich
CD 1 - 2 delegates
CD 2 - 2 delegates
Gingrich
CD 3 - 2 delegates
Gingrich
CD 4 - 2 delegates
Gingrich
CD 5 - 2 delegates
Gingrich
CD 6 - 2 delegates
Gingrich
CD 7 - 2 delegates
Gingrich
7:00: Gingrich wins statewide. It willl take a while to get the CD results, but with a big victory, the only question is whether Romney picks up a CD or 2.
8:25: CNN has given Gingrich 1 CD, just don't know which.
8:40: CNN has given Gingrich 2 CDs, but all signs looking towards a clean sweep.
9:50: CNN has given Gingrich 5 CDs. 9:55: Gingrich up to 6 CDs.
And who said superdelegates wouldn't have an impact on the 2012 Republican race:
The Republican Party of Iowa decided to issue its Friday night statement affirming Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucuses after an evening conference call requested by one of the Pennsylvania senator’s prominent backers on the state central committee.
Republican National Committeewoman Kim Lehman, a leading Christian conservative who endorsed Santorum, told POLITICO she called for a meeting of the party leadership after seeing the Iowa caucus results consistently reported in uncertain terms. -Politico
Lehman remains Santorum's only announced superdelegate.
So here's the latest South Carolina polling data, click on it if you want to see the exact poll numbers over time:
And that doesn't include Herman Cain, he's no longer a poll choice, but he might actually pull 1 - 2% because of Stephen Colbert. You wouldn't think that would matter, but ever since the 8 vote imbroglio threw all of the Iowa counts under the bus, and given the closeness of Newt and Mitt, it just might.
What a weird political year. Think back to 2008, or 2000, or any other year where there was a contested Democratic primary field. We just don't do what these idiots do...we talk issues at debates, we never have gone for the kind of base negativity that these guys do. Face it, they're just mean, on top of being hypocrites, tools of the rich, and just plain wrong on virtually every issue. They're so concentrated on being rotten to one another that they forget the basics, like getting enough signatures to actually get on the various primary ballots. They certainly know that voting laws are state-based, but hey. Will there even BE a Texas primary? Read this to see how that court case is sorting out. Or not getting solved.
So it's South Carolina today. Based on DCW polling, we actually know who'll win. But the blood bath is going to be fun to watch anyway. See the picture to see some of the reasons our side will win.
So here's what I'm thinking about on this snowy day: first, now that Mitt has only won New Hampshire, if he loses South Carolina, does that just prolong the agony, or might it make a brokered convention even more likely? I think it makes a brokered convention more likely, which might be good or bad depending on who is chosen. The nice thing about all the Republican blood-letting is that they are doing a lot of the heavy lifting for us.
But what I'm really thinking about is Iowa. Their track record in picking an eventual Republican nominee is worse now since Santorum never had a chance of capturing the nomination. Their Democratic record is better, but still not a gimme. Now it turns out they can't even count the votes correctly, and when they recount and come up with an answer, they say "tie"???? Tell me again why they get to go first? By winning Iowa, Santorum proved that retail politics really matters in Iowa: he was the only one to move there for 2 years and visit every county, twice. Will that matter in four years given the growth of the internet and the constant debates? And if the opinion of the 6% of Iowans who actually show up at the caucuses is generally wrong, doesn't that give credence to moving to one of the better primary plans? Like regional primaries?
It will be a nail biter tonight. Feel free to use the comments if you want to guess at what the finally tallies will be.
The Iowa Republican Party late Friday declared Rick Santorum the winner of the 2012 Iowa caucuses.
...
In a statement released just before midnight Friday, though, the party officially declared Santorum the winner.
“In order to clarify conflicting reports and to affirm the results released Jan. 18 by the Republican Party of Iowa, Chairman Matthew Strawn and the State Central Committee declared senator Rick Santorum the winner of the 2012 Iowa Caucus,” the party wrote. - Washington Post
Today, by an 8-1 vote (Clarence Thomas being the 1), the Supreme Court rejected both the position of the challengers and the position of the State of Texas and told the District Court in San Antonio to start over on its maps with a handful of days to get them done before Texas would have to push back its primaries again.
The short version of the holding is that the current interim plans are tossed. The Supreme Court said that, even though they are not cleared yet, the latest plans enacted by Texas should have been considered by the District Court in drafting the new lines. However, the Supreme Court rejected the position of Texas that the new lines were presumptively valid.
The complexity in this case is that the lines have not yet been cleared for use under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and the San Antonio District Court is not the court that will hear the pre-clearance case. The San Antonio District Court is the court that will hear the Section 2 challenge.
In a typical Section 2 case, with a pre-cleared plan, the District Court can only order an interim plan if it believes that it is likely that the challengers will succeed, and can only then alter the lines as necessary to fix the potentially problematic districts. And for the Section 2 complaints, the Supreme Court said that the same rule should apply in the drawing of an interim map.
For the Section 5 complaints, the Supreme Court established a different rule. As the San Antonio District Court will not be the one hearing that case on the meritis, the Supreme Court said that it would be inappropriate for the San Antonio District Court to decide the likelihood of the success of such claims. Thus, instead of having to believe that the Section 5 complaints will succeed, the San Antonio District Court should merely decide if there is a "reasonable" chance that they could succeed (in other words, do the complaints raise a real question for the Washington District Court to decide).
It should be noted that these two different standards may even out. It is much easier to prove a Section 2 violation than a Section 5 violation, so the lower threshhold for the viability of a Section 5 complaint might not matter.
So what practical guidance did the Supreme Court give to the San Antonio District Court. Not much. The bottom line is there are three rules to follow, and the rest is a shooting in the dark.
First, the District Court should not create a non-Voting Rights Act policy preference that is not found in the plan drawn by Texas. For example, the Texas Legislature's plan does not consider current precinct lines to be a significant consideration. Generally speaking, the failure to follow precinct lines does not dilute minority votes or represent a step backwards on minority voting power. So, the District Court should not change a district line merely because it believes that precincts should not be split.
Second, those parts of the map which are unlikely to be invalidated should not be altered except to the extent necessary to fix other parts of the map. For example, given the population composition of East Texas, it is unlikely that there is a colorable challenge to this part of the map, especially for the state house. Thus, the court-drawn map should give deference to the plan adopted by Texas.
Third, changes to those part of the maps whic the District Court believes are problematic, the court may re-draw those areas to remedy the potential problems.
The ball is now back with the District Court to redraw the maps based on this "clear" guidance.
