An analysis from DailyKos: Why Wisconsin now very important

[dragonlady]

Make of this what you will. To me, is means that every one of our votes may be crucial in the grand scheme of things.

Wisconsin, Primary, 92 Delegates

Superdelegates- Obama: Rep. Gwen Moore, Gov. Jim Doyle. Clinton: Rep. Tammy Baldwin, Tim Sullivan (DNC).

Analysis: This is Clinton's last chance to turn the tide. Obama has the support of Gov. Doyle and hails from neighboring Illinois. Obama just dominated the caucuses in neighboring Minnesota last night. Nevertheless, this contest doesn't really have an innate advantage for Obama. If he has momentum he will probably win it. If he does not have momentum, he could easily lose it.

(Meta analysis: should Clinton lose Wisconsin, the pressure will be overwhelming for her to concede, even though Obama will not have anywhere near the pledged delegates to wrap up the nomination. But, if she has won some early states like Washington, Maine, and Virgina, and she wins Wisconsin, she'll probably soldier on.)

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/6/123959/6127/416/451126

[mojowork_n]

1. I just realized I still don't know which arrow I'll be filling in,

I like Obama quite a bit and was impressed when I went to hear him speak. But what's up with the American Enterprise Institute, and what was that Feingold said about him, a while back?

I still like John Edwards, but his campaign is "suspended?" What's up with that?

Then, too, those optical scanners. If I fill in the arrow for Kucinich, or Edwards, on principle, what are the odds (however small the fractional percentage) that vote won't be recorded for Hillary?

[dragonlady]

2. Optical scan is probably safe enough in the primary

The programming of the pack that goes into each machine would have to be compromised, but the packs are most likely already finished by now. Or there could be tampering with the central count. I really hope we can assume that Democrats wouldn't stoop to that in the primary. In any case, optical scan is safer than touch screen, although not perfect. You're right to be concerned, and there's a lot more to be done before our election system is verifiably accurate.

The Edwards campaign is not active any more, but he hasn't withdrawn either, for various reasons. But he's so unlikely to get the 15% threshold needed for delegates, that I've decided not to vote for him unless the nominee is completely settled by election day, which it seems almost certain won't be the case. Good luck with your decision!

[mojowork_n]

3. I just talked to a friend, who said Edwards' "suspension" is

some sort of technical legality, related to funding. To qualify for Federal matching funds his campaign had planned on, it can't "end" before a certain date. Or something like that.

Also, Edwards was the guy bad-mouthed by Feingold, too, not Obama.

I wasn't trying to suggest any democrats might be affecting vote tabulation. I was thinking more along the lines of "usual suspects", whoever (or whatever? intentionally bad software or machine design?) has been responsible for odd vote results, in previous elections. Because the Other Side would probably prefer to run against Hillary, and they're always so bulldog relentless. If they can get away with it...

I guess I'm leaning so strongly for Obama, it would take some sort of incredibly horrible event, or revelation to change the preference.

[midnight]

4. I know how you feel. But I will be casting my vote for Edwards

in the Primary, and vote for the Democratic Primary winner in the General Election.

[undeterred]

5. Invisible Ink

I heard that someone in Chicago was using a pen that didn't work and the poll workers told them that the pen had invisible ink which the optical scanner would be able to read. This happened to about 20 people.

Clinton is going to lose Wisconsin.