by Dan Groberg [courtesy of Blog for America]

Regardless of which candidate you may support for the Democratic Presidential nomination, a number of positive signs that point toward a strong future for the Democratic Party have emerged over the past several weeks.

by David Dayen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Cheryl Ede, a Congressional candidate in CA-50 (Bilbray), just informed me that she has signed on to endorse the Responsible Plan.  This is the third Congressional candidate in California to endorse the plan, joining Ron Shepston (CA-42) and Debbie Cook (CA-46).  By the end of the weekend I expect several more.

It's time for Nick Leibham to sign on as well.  This is a intelligent and important set of policies that will create a legitimate mandate to end this war, not a vague nod toward a "new direction" in Iraq.  Plus, it will seek to repair the broken institutions that led us into this disaster in the first place.  The candidates that have signed on nationwide seek to represent some of the reddest districts in the country, some of the bluest, and everything in between.  There is no reason for a candidate who wants to best represent the Democratic Party not to sign on.

by Charles Harker [courtesy of Blog for America]

The country is clearly heading in a bad way. From the economy to our reliance on foreign oil, a lowering of the standard of living. We must energize and try to act on the ideas we need to right our way. The Democrats can lead the country back to prosperity.

by Jeff Morris [courtesy of Blog for America]

  We've heard a lot lately about how significant the super delegates might be in determining the Democratic Pres nominee. A super delegates vote on the average, is the equivalent of 9,538 voters. Many of the super delegates are veterans of the "old school" wing of the Democratic party. The longer you have been an established figure in your party, the better for where you stand with these super delegates. Advantage...Sen Clinton. Hillary is the longer standing established figure.

  Sen Obama has captivated his many supporters with his message of change. He wants to bring a new way of doing the peoples business to Washington that will cut through the partisan divide. Obama's campaign speaks of  the need for a new direction both in Washington, and in the direction America has been heading the past seven years under Bush. Sen Obama's message also includes a call for some much needed change in the old school wing of the Democratic party. This is the wing of the party that often goes to the middle ground, and always concedes to Bush in the end. 

   (Click Read More for the rest of this post)

by chuck nasmith [courtesy of Blog for America]

After McGovern  and the anti war convention choosing him lost in the general election, the Democratic Party decided to have Super-delegates so the Party, not the people ,could control future surges by  anti-war delegates. The Democratic Party must ban super delegates if they want to represent the people, and not the special interests. Is this what Democracy looks like ?  Super-size Democracy, not war.

by Be_Devine [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Those who know me know I'm a grumpy old man trapped inside a young but aging body. And so here goes my Andy Rooneyesque comment.

In the 2004 Nevada presidential caucuses (held on February 14th), a total of 9,000 people caucused in the entire state. No, that was not a typo. No, I did not forget some zeroes. 9,000 people.  Yes, a total of 0.3 percent of Nevada's population bothered to show up to decide who their party's presidential candidate should be.

Some argue that by moving up the Nevada caucuses, the turnout will increase.  For example, the Nevada Democratic Party says it expects "three or four times" that number. (Hazaaa!!! 36,000 people!)   Even if that optimistic projection comes true, that's still only 1.5 percent of the state's population.  That tells me that the only people who are going to show up to caucuses tomorrow are the die-hard supporters of a particular candidate , not a representative sampling of the state.

So, please tell me, why do we care what 9,000, or even 36,000 people in a politically apathetic state have to say?

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

The February 5, 2008 Presidential Primary Election could see a majority of those voting doing so by mail rather than showing up at polling places on election day. The Field Poll has just released an extensive survey of over 4,500 Californians, comparing those who have signed up to receive permanent mail ballots with those who have not.

There are enormous implications here as to how campaigns will--or should--be waged, the demographics of those who are permanent VBM (Vote By Mail) registrants, challenges for the Democratic Party of this state to get the vote out because many more Republicans have taken advantage of permanent VBM than Democrats and the state's non-partisan/others who tend to lean Democratic.

This will change not only how we watch the unfolding election returns on election night and into the next day, but it will affect the timing of mail and media with voters having about four weeks to cast their ballots by mail (or dropping them off at their polling place on election day), how voters might be affected by "bounces" from Iowa and the early primaries, and probably in unforeseen ways.