Why Puerto Rico's Democratic Primary Won't Matter

By Dave Lindorff

There are a number of reasons why the Puerto Rican Democratic primary election set for this coming Sunday won’t matter, in terms of Hillary Clinton’s failed bid for the party’s nomination.

The main one is that she’s not going to get the big vote that she has been predicting.

Clinton, trailing Obama by about 400,000 votes nationwide with only three primaries to go, is fantasizing that she will win the lion’s share of one million Puerto Rican votes, which would put her in the lead for the nomination in terms of the popular vote, though not in the delegate count.

The problem with this fantasy is that Puerto Rico, a colonial possession of the US since the 1898 Spanish-American War, while famous for its passionate electorate when it comes to island elections, is not going to have that kind of turnout for a Democratic presidential primary. Indeed, local politicos in Puerto Rico are saying they will be surprised if even 600,000 people turn out to vote.

Clinton may well win the majority of those votes that are cast, but her margin is shrinking as Obama campaigns and runs ads on the island. She’s already down to a 13% lead, with 11% still undecided, and that lead is liable to shrink further, not grow. Even if Clinton kept that lead in the voting, however, if the turnout were just 600,000, she’d only pick up a net 88,000 votes. And Obama is likely to win Montana and South Dakota two days later, by large margins, erasing much of that gain again.

The other thing is, why would Democratic leaders and the all-important remaining undecided so-called superdelegates care what Puerto Rican voters do? Thanks to the continuing colonial status of the island, although its residents are all American citizens, free to travel to and from the US and to carry US passports, they are not allowed to vote in national elections, have no representation in Washington, and don’t even pay federal taxes (only Social Security and Medicare taxes). Puerto Rico has no Electoral College votes.

That in a nutshell is why Puerto Rican voters are so uninterested in this primary—so uninterested that the Democratic Party of Puerto Rico earlier this week requested that the island’s election authorities close 1000 polling stations. It wasn’t that they thought nobody would want to vote in them—they couldn’t find volunteers to staff them!

The other thing is it would not surprise me if the vote this Sunday comes out a lot closer than the polls have been predicting. For the most part, the early advantage held by Clinton has been a matter of name recognition. Clinton’s husband was president for eight years, and moreover, with half of the eight million Puerto Ricans living in the mainland US, most of them in New York, Clinton is familiar as “their” Senator. By rights, she ought to be considered Puerto Rico’s home state senator, as sure to win this primary as she was of winning New York, or as Obama was of winning Illinois.

But in fact, there are reasons for Puerto Ricans, particularly those on the island, to view Clinton negatively. Her husband, after all, helped get rid of corporate tax breaks for American companies doing business on the island—tax breaks that kept a lot of US manufacturing jobs on the island. Doubling the felony, the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, pushed through the NAFTA treaty that made it easy for those same companies, when their tax breaks were lost, to pack up and move to Mexico, since Puerto Rico also lost its advantage of being inside the US customs zone. Now US companies can make things in Mexico, where labor costs are a fraction of what they are in Puerto Rico, and ship them tariff-free to US consumers.

Puerto Ricans also do not have the same latent hostility towards blacks that some Mexican-Americans may harbor, and which the Clinton campaign so shamelessly tried to stir up in her Texas and California campaigns.

Unlike Mexican-Americans, who are ethnically a mix of white and Indigenous American, Puerto Ricans are much more a mix of white and African—a legacy of the slaves that Spain brought over to the island to replace the native Indians who were slaughtered, worked to death or who died of disease and starvation. Many Puerto Ricans are indistinguishable from African-Americans in appearance, and when they come to America to visit or live are likely to experience the same racism from whites that African Americans experience. They are not going to be easy marks for a campaign that tries to stir up racial fears or animosity.

Obama’s skin color will not be a liability in Puerto Rico. It will more likely be an asset.

Although predicting this kind of thing is always risky, I’m going to bet that Clinton will win a narrow victory in Sunday’s Puerto Rican primary—somewhere between 5-9 percent, with turnout of perhaps 550,000.

If I’m right, she will pick up a net 55,000 votes and 5-6 delegates. There are also 11 Puerto Rican superdelegates, but they will also probably split fairly evenly, at best, for her.

So no big deal—especially since Puerto Rican voters, in the end, simply don’t count.

Until the island is either made a 51st State—an unlikely occurrence since it would be a reliably Democratic state virtually ensuring Democrats of Senate and House majorities for years to come, and thus would never be admitted by Republican members of Congress, and since almost half the island is passionately opposed to such a submerging of their unique culture—or set free as an independent nation, the citizens of Puerto Rico will mean next to nothing to the powerbrokers in Washington.

The Democratic Primary is over, whatever Hillary Clinton may say or do between now and the Democratic Convention in August.

Obama has won it.
___________________
Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

digg_url = 'http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/33688'; digg_title = "Why Puerto Rico\'s Democratic Primary Won\'t Matter"; digg_bodytext = "By Dave Lindorff\r\n\r\n\r\n There are a number of reasons why the Puerto Rican Democratic primary election set for this coming Sunday won’t matter, in terms of Hillary Clinton’s failed bid for the party’s nomination.\r\n\r\n The main one is that she’s not going to get the big vote that she has been predicting.\r\n\r\n Clinton, trailing Obama by about 400,000 votes nationwide with only three primaries to go, is fantasizing that she will win the lion’s share of one million Puerto Rican votes, which would put her in the lead for the nomination in terms of the popular vote, though not in the delegate count.\r\n\r"; digg_skin = 'standard';

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Politics? Fruit Flies? Hillary?

Hanging with the young doubles life span of fruit flies: study

Agence France-Presse

05-28-08

Forget radical calorie restriction or human growth hormone. If it's longevity you are after, you may want to consider spending more time with members of the younger generation, according to an animal study released Monday.

The study was done in fruit flies and builds on earlier research showing that interaction with younger members of the species appears to be a factor in healthy aging, both in humans and animals.

For the experiment, researchers raised members of a mutant, short-lived species of fruit fly, (Sod flies) in a vial with younger members of control fruit flies.

They also paired older mutant fruit flies with younger mutant flies in separate vials.

They found that the mutant flies raised with the younger control flies lived twice as long as mutants housed with other mutants.

Subsequent testing also showed that the mutants housed with their younger, longer-lived relatives had improved physical responses and better survived environmental stresses compared to fruit flies that remained among the mutant population.

The results show that social interaction with younger members of the species confers physiological benefits at least in mutant fruit flies, said lead author of the paper, Chun-Fang Wu, professor of biology at the University of Iowa.

It's not clear from this experiment what the mechanism of action is.

Wu speculated that the social interaction with younger flies could have helped the mutant flies make some kind of physiological adaptation that compensated for the genetic defect that makes the insect particularly vulnerable to oxidative-stress induced aging.

The missing link could have implications for human health since the enzymatic mutation in the insect's genetic code mirrors deficits in a number of age-dependent diseases in humans including Parkinson's, Huntington's and Alzheimer's disease.

"This study shows that the lifespan of Sod flies is plastic and can be conditioned by social interactions, corroborating the enduring notion that human patients of certain age-dependent neurological diseases may be benefited by an appropriate social environment," the authors wrote.

The study appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

str/mk

US-science-longevity

AFP 262100 GMT 05 08

http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=6888&Section=Aging

Ok Ok. I know: Where is the politics in this?

-Well first off, thanks to dumb ass Conservatives, every bit of science has been made political.

-Secondly, with all the front runners being bashed -to the delight of the Right- I thought it might be nice to NOT help the Right.

So here goes...

Wait for it...

Someone recently took on the Right with:

"It takes a village to raise a child."

And what have we found as well?

It takes a child to bring life (an extended life) to a village.

Dave Lindorff

Dave,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • -On another thread you advance:

    When he was flying fighter-bombers over North Vietnam, he, like many in the military, imagined that he was fighting against a mighty foe (world communism, I suppose). What he was really doing was dropping bombs on a peasant country that was essentially still in the 19th or even, in much of the countryside, the 18th Century. It was also only a sixth of the size of the US. But John McCain bravely battled against this pipsqueak enemy, dropping his bombs until some of those peasant soldiers shot him down and captured him.

    -To this we have other opednews writers arguing -on Democrats.com at one point- that our troops in Iraq are TRAITORS.

    -Yet other opednews writers arguing that our troops should lay down their arms.

  • Further opednews writers argue that Americans don't have the right to advance immigration policy as a matter of the vote, but instead that we need to align ourselves with those folks in the desert trying to cross our boarder.

  • On this thread you advance more negativity about Hillary:

    Her husband, after all, helped get rid of corporate tax breaks for American companies doing business on the island...

  • ETC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm bringing in other writers in an attempt to avoid a fist fight. (Not that there is anything wrong with that ;) I hope this makes this conversation less about you and me and more about a critique of "Left Leaning Perspectives" and "Democratic Perspectives".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Democrat's argument against the first bullet point:

-The battles were not "pipsqueak", they were ferocious. Vietnam Vets need some room to breathe as do fellow conservative Americans.

-While there is no argument that soldiers have a moral obligation to discern even WHETHER to enlist, the label "TRAITOR" is so strong that the bar for counter arguments is set so low that I hope I don't have to repeat them here.

-Encouraging the troops to "Lay down one's arms" is asking infinitely more than I have seen pundits ask of themselves. (It is also not how an entity as large and complex as a civilization can work - at least generally speaking).

As to the second bullet point:

The Liberalism that this Democrat is advancing does NOT require that we take the shirt off ANOTHER man's back in order to clothe the shirtless. It certainly does not MALIGN hard working Americans for worrying about their next pay check. (Though I have argued continuously that the immegration debate is a distraction from those who really have our money).

On the third bullet point:

Here again, the perspective is one of narrowness. The Clinton's worked WITHIN a political and temporal framework. Hillary brought us infinitely closer to universal health care than either of us have. Further, eliminating those tax breaks you mentioned was a political victory for descent folks within at least one powerful context: Taxes are NOT bad. Tax breaks CAN be bad. (I understand that you, or any other author, might want to advance that IN A PARTICULAR CASE a particular politician was trying to do ill. It is wrong however not to point out the larger context in which Democratic Politics was being advanced by the Clinton's).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Humans, being what we are, find criticism difficult, so I would not be put off by evisceration. Further, whenever somebody opens their mouth long enough, there is plenty to go after. I'm not trying to find ammo however.

It is my hope that you'll consider my words: As a reader, there simply seems to be a narrower perspective being advanced on the Left than need be.

Jim

Dave, it gets really tiresome to find our...

bloggers doing their very best to avoid mentioning that Obama and Hillary are essentially tied for the nomination battle.

There are as many Hillary supporters as there are Obama supporters. Your collective one-sided stance on the issue will not wash.

The primary is going to the convention for resolution. Either leading candidate could end up being our next presidential candidate--EITHER.

Making it personal, I hardly think that the undefined battle cry of Faith Hope Change gets the job done.

Back when Hillary attempted to change our healthcare system...calling it a crisis, she was attacked in force by both Dems and Repugs. Clearly you do not remember that battle.

She also explains her plans in some detail...and has since the start of this primary season.

Obama is relying on "Faith, Hope and Change" to gain his points. All three overused words in political conversations since the days of ancient Greece. He relys on his surrogates to do the dirty work and his hands are NOT CLEAN.

Both candidates are qualified for the position, both are running in their own way, and both have about half the party behind them.

To denigrate either is non-productive. Perhaps you should spend even more time on KOS and opednews where the majority support your skewed views.

This primary battle is not yet over. Try really hard not to offend the other half of the party.

A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.

Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623

 

The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.

Hillary renegs on Michigan and Florida written agreement -

We seeem to be overlooking a very serious consequence of the dispute over the delegations from Florida and Michigan. Hillary signed a written agreement that these delegations would not count in the presidential race. As soon as this agreement became a liability she reneged on it.
A serious consequence is that no prudent person would rely on an agreement made with her. If it becomes inconvenient she will probably find some sanctimonious reason to renege.
If you were Obama would this disqualify her as a vice presidential candidate? If you were a foreign leader would you trust the word of a President Clinton?

Can we stop?

We can't really expect to influence the final voters in the primary, can we?

I hear a lot of talk about how pissed people are over the conduct of the candidates during this primary battle.

If so, can we all take a break from doing the same dang thing ;)

---

-The big two will duke it out.

-We'll have a nominee at the convention.

-We'll have to beat McSame then AND NOW.

Ah, the ugly spectre of Michigan/Florida again...

rears it's ugly head. There is no way to convince otherwise sane people that the the blame lies on Hillary alone.

The agreement signed had nothing to do with the delegates to be thrown away in either state. The agreement was that none of the candidates would actively campaign in either state.

Hillary did not campaign in Michigan or Florida.

Michigan: the ballot contained four of our Dem candidates names: Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, and Kucinich. Obama, due to his inexperience and/or political stupidity pulled his name off to gain points with the voters of Iowa and NH. Edwards followed his lead. Richardson did the same. There was no requirement for any of these 'wanna bees' to remove their names.

Who actively campaigned in Michigan? Why Dennis 'Looney Tunes' Kucinich actively campaigned in the state. Obama campaigned in Michigan using his surrogate John Conyers to do the actual campaigning. Obama's supporters were told how to vote as uncommitted. They obviously did so in large numbers. It goes without saying that some of these affected voters also voted for Edwards and Richardson.

One does not run for the presidency without having one's name on a ballot.

Hillary honored the agreement to the letter. Obama and Kucinich did not.

Florida: Hillary did not campaign but did hold allowed fund-raisers. She ran no ads and held no press conferences. She again honored the letter of the agreement.

Obama ran national ads that played in Florida. He held one impromtu press conference. He did not, again, honor the terms of the signed agreement.

This nonsense comes up with regularity on DKOS and Democraticundergrounds 'general discussion--primaries. Over and over again.

Clinton attempted to solve the problem by allowing a revote in Michigan. Obama would not agree. In order to allow a revote, Obama demanded half the delegates--which he, by taking his name off the ballot, did not earn.

Obama could not remove his name from the Florida ballot because that would also remove his name from the November ballot and from the contest completely. Politics are not Obama's strong suit. He is too inexperienced and/or politically stupid to understand what has happened.

Had Obama left his name on the Michigan ballot, there would have been no problems and Michigan's voters could have voted for him.

So, we are left with a mess. One that had solutions but everyone involved ignored them until it is too late.

The problem in both cases was caused by members of the Michigan and Florida state parties.

Don't blame it on Hillary.

A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.

Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623

 

The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.