by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Being called an unreliable and somewhat treacherous partisan might be cool in a general election, but it won't do Tom McClintock much good in the primary against former Rep. Doug Ose in the 4th District.  McClintock, a former Gov and Lt. Gov. candidate, does not have a fan in former Republican Governor Pete Wilson.

Wilson is holding a press conference today to talk about McClintock. The press notice about the conference says Wilson will share at least one opinion about the man:

"I could never count on McClintock. He was always the first to criticize, but the last to help his team."

Ouch! Either way, Charlie Brown keeps chugging along in the Democratic race.  He'll face whichever bruised victor emerges from the GOP primary. You can find Charlie on the Calitics ActBlue page.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Cross-posted on the Huffington Post. 

The Democratic race is too close to call. It is entirely possible that the losing candidate will be supported by 49% of the voters and the delegates. It is also possible that one candidate could win the popular vote but lose the delegate contest. Amidst all this uncertainty, one thing is clear: the candidate who wins will win by a nose.

Some believe that the fight between Clinton and Obama has hurt Democrats. They are dead wrong. This is the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party in a long time.

Voter turnout and engagement is up virtually everywhere. People who have never been politically involved before -- especially the many women and African Americans who feel a strong sense of connection to the candidates -- are excited.

It has been too many years since Democrats have been wildly passionate about whom they want to win the nomination. We have a good thing going, and we need to keep it going through November. We need to keep it going all the way to the White House.

There's more...

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Now that the Pennsylvania primary has made the Democratic race even more uncertain, it shouldn't be surprising that Monday morning quarterbacks are suggesting that the California primary should have remained in June. What they forget is that the California played a pivotal role in February in the contests for the nomination for both parties.

According to Secretary of State Debra Bowen, a record nine million Californians voted in the February 5, 2008 presidential primary election. That's nearly 1.2 million more voters than the previous primary election of 7.8 million, set in 2000. In all, 57.71 percent of registered voters cast ballots in the February election, marking the highest primary turnout on a percentage basis since 1980.  Voters were heavily engaged in the February primary like they never had been in a June election.

For the first time in memory, candidates in both parties waged full-fledged, hard-fought campaigns in California. Airwaves were full of political advertisements for presidential candidates, field operations were in place in every Congressional district, and tens of thousands of volunteers hit the streets and the Internet to participate in democracy. The CNN Democratic debate -- in Los Angeles -- was one of the most watched in our nation's history, and the Republican debate also scored high. Most of us haven't seen so much presidential primary activity in our lifetimes, and California hasn't played such a significant role in decades.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

Late yesterday, the California Secretary of State’s office certified the results of the February 5, 2008 Presidential primary election and they show that a record 9.1 million Californians voted. This eclipsed the record for numbers of voters in a primary set in March of 2000 when 7.8 million Californians voted, with Al Gore winning the Democratic race and George W. Bush the Republican race in the state.

As for turnout, 57.71% of registered voters cast ballots, making it the highest primary turnout on a percentage basis since 1980. The highest-ever percentage turnout in a primary was nearly 73% in 1976.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen, California’s chief elections officer, said: “The closeness of the Republican and Democratic contests, and the ability to truly help pick the next presidential nominees, clearly motivated Californians to head to the polls in record numbers for a primary election.” That is an accurate assessment.

Bowen also said: “I hope voters, particularly people who registered for the first time to vote in the February election, will keep up the momentum and head to the polls again in June and November.” Therein lies the key to the November election.

by DFA Staff [courtesy of Blog for America]

Dan Balz at the Washington Post asks 8 questions that today's primaries might answer:

1. Will the Democratic race end with today's results?
2. Can Clinton ever overtake Obama in pledged delegates?
3. How badly will competition split the Democratic Party?
4. What will superdelegates do if Obama wins one big state?
5. Will Clinton hold her blue-collar base?
6. Will Obama crack the Hispanic vote?
7. Will McCain persuade Huckabee to quit?
8. Can you explain the Texas voting system?

Danny
Communications Director

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

Among the ranks of the growing unemployed may well be pollsters and pundits -- ALL of whom blew the call on who would win the Democratic race in New Hampshire. Not only did they predict that Obama would beat Hillary by close to double digits, but they said that, as in Iowa, women would support Obama. They were horribly wrong. Interestingly, the pre-primary polling on the Republican side was close to spot on, as was the polling for John Edwards and Bill Richardson. The numbers that were wrong were those for Hillary and Obama.
 
What happened Well, it seems that 15% of those who voted made up their minds Tuesday. In the pre-primary polls, Obama lead Hillary among women by about 3%. Yet, Hillary ended up securing a 13% advantage over Obama among women who voted. If women made the difference, why did they break so late for Hillary? I suspect that the new found sisterhood solidarity grew out of intense frustration over the endless playing of the footage of Hillary "crying." Younger women, who were not energized by the mere notion of a female candidate were mighty pissed off at the fun male pundits had with Hillary's display of emotion. Those of us with two X chromosomes know all too well what it is like to have men make light of our emotions, frustrations and feelings. These male pundits did for Hillary what she could not do for herself -- they made gender a defining and important issue.

There's more...