Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

It amazes me how many inaccurate articles and blog posts state that Clinton 'just can't win' the pledged-delegate battle. Well guess what?  Neither can Obama!  It takes a deep level of self-deception to believe that Obama, or Clinton, having a lead in the overall total of pledged delegates, despite failing to get to the level of the number needed to secure the nomination, is secure the nomination. For Obama especially, who could wind up with 50 more delegates than Clinton. So what! That means he wins despite falling short? What nonsense.

In particular, Those like Jonathan Alter stand out. Clinton, he dreams, could win 16 states in a row, from here on out, and she still won't win. Alter has really become an village idiot for Obama; he needs to just stop-- somone put him out to pasture. Where have I overlooked the nominating rules that state that the pledged delegate lead is enough to secure the nomination?  We all know that the selection of the delegates, in many of these states, is highly undemocratic and at times, downright offensive in its methodology of exclusive politics.

As far as the rules go, there is no indication at all that a pledged delegate lead should mean anything more than a bunch of other quasi-measurements that could be used to secure the nomination via super-delegates. Why not the popular vote? Why not who won the most votes among Democrats alone? Hell, why not just opt for the Electoral Vote?!?! I don't know, but I am sick of reading from idiots that say they do, and can't want to tell.

Who knows how this will wind up, but I'll tell you this much, the ones who say its finished are the ones who are kidding themselves and trying to pull a big lie on everyone else.

Here's my predictions:

Ohio: Clinton wins by double-digits in Ohio, +12. This is huge, and out on a limb. You cannot lose Ohio as a Democrat and expect to win the White House in 2008. If Obama is not able to garner more than 40% of the white vote in Ohio, it means he's got big electability problems. Delegate-wise, Clinton gets more but so what.

Rhode Island: Clinton wins easily, + 9. RI is a lot like MA, and we know how that turned out. Clinton would need to turn in a 20% route to gain an extra delegate, she won't.

Vermont: Obama +12. I love that socialist state, best skiing in the land. If he can make it +13, he'll gain an extra delegate.

Texas: Clinton +2. I wish I didn't have to predict this state. I'm going on a hunch that the latino vote is higher than that black vote. If that turns out to be the opposite, than it's Obama who's likely going to win the state. Delegate-wise, Obama still should come out with a handful of a lead.

The skinny on it all is if Clinton wins TX and OH, it further solidifies the notion that the super-delegates are going to glue these two candidates together for the general election.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

121 Comments

Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

Out of curiosity, which  campaign would you rather be right now?  

Also, do you think HRC would take the VP slot if Obama wins the nomination and it's offered?  I'm not sure that she would.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

I would rather be the campaign that wins out right. Is there one present in this race?

by bruh21 2008-03-04 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC's defnately

Thank you for really fleshing out your opinion.  You do realize PA also has proportional, rather than winner take all, delegate allocation, right?

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC's defnately

Oh, I think everyone "gets" that point.  Some of us simply think that a pledged delegate lead is nonetheless quite important.  Time will tell who is correct.  I'm quite comfortable with that.

Your graphics, by the way, are incredibly annoying and distracting.  They take up huge amounts of space on every thread that you comment.  Can you shrink the image at least?

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC's defnately

Ohhhh- so now I get it. Your argument was never that you would win by the rules, but that you can select the rules that matter and win by those rules?

by bruh21 2008-03-04 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC's defnately

Nope, I'm perfectly comfortable with the rules that exist.  Superdelegates certainly could back HRC despite Obama having a pledged delegate lead.  That's certainly a factually accurate statement.  I just don't think it will happen.

Remember, my question was which campaign would you rather be right now.  I've never said that the race is over, as have some others.  I'd just rather be the campaign that's currently in the lead.  Is that somehow controversial?  

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC's defnately

Yes, because it produces just as much illegitimacy especially with the level of annomosity being flung around by the two camps. You don't get it do ? You are creating a double standard, and that sort of thing pisses people off. You are essentially arguing CLinton must play by the rules, and not hurt the party even if she wins the popular vote and barely is behind in delegates, but Obama doesn't have enough delegates to win out right. That sort of argument is a  bad one to make unless you are supporter of Obama , which I am not. I am also not a supporter of CLinton. If she loses, she loses. But I had been assuming you meant Obama had a chance at enough delegates to reach 2208, and until now had not processed the manipulation of language going on here.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC's defnately

I'm not advocating anything that's contrary to the rules.  I'm talking about who should be considered the favorite at this point.  The operative word being "favorite," not winner of the nomination.  I am actually also a process person and won't consider the race over till someone gets the magic number of votes.  That will require convincing supersdelegates to vote for Obama, and I think the metrics we're talking about will aid him in making that sell.  And, I would add, making such a case to the superdelegates is completly within the rules.  It's why they exist.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC's defnately

This maybe yoru argument,b ut its not the argument that many Obama supporters have been making here and else where when I've lurked reading what they were saying.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC's defnately

To be clear- they have made superdelegages per se "illegitimate" That's been the argument until now.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC's defnately

OK, fair enough.  As you noted, that's not my argument.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC's defnately

I appologize for assuming we were having this conversation within the context of all the other stuff I've seen written on the subject. My assumptionw as wrong.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: HRC's defnately

No worries.  There are lots of folks around here and it's often difficult to remember what supporter of who said what in the past.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 02:30PM | 0 recs
I LOVE that Jerome predicts Hillary landslide
Since Jerome hasnt been correct more than once or twice in this primary season, tonight is sure to be a good one for BHO. On behalf of America, thankyou Jerome.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-03-04 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

HRC. Going to be a tough next few weeks for Obama with the press kiddy gloves coming off, the rezko trial, and trying to explain to people why he couldn't' knock Clinton out third time around.

HRC will have a tough time also, but I think the combination of events surrounding Obama will only worsen, while Clinton's, barring tonight's results, could considerably lessen.  Right now she in the trenches, in constant fighting mode, but a little of that ridiculous term 'momentum' could help her to be able to relax a bit more.

by apolitik 2008-03-04 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

You would seriously rather be the campaign with a pledged delegate lead that, mathematically, can't be overcome?  Interesting.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

Yes. I think, more important than total delegate counts, is a public perception of candidate. If obama's continues to slide as the gallup and rasmussen polls show, than, that has a much larger impact not only on future races but on what kind of resolution comes into play at the end of this thing and which candidate benefits more.

Therefore: Advantage Hillary.

by apolitik 2008-03-04 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

advantage Hillary, based upon perception, before she's even broken her 11 state losing streak?  OK, if you say so.  But I'm not sure how a few narrow wins in states she used to lead in by 20 points cancels out 11 losses in a row and a significant pledged delegate gap.  

Who knows though, time will tell.

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

All of my argument, as I said, pointed to a few hypotheticals.

Say what you want. History shows races nearly always tighten as primaries come closer, especially in large states.

by apolitik 2008-03-04 01:59PM | 0 recs
It's like you can't find the point of an article

if your life depended on it.  Alter's point is that she will NEVER win 16 in a row and even if she did, she'd still be behind.  Obama will be up significantly more than in this rosy Clinton scenario.  Read Bowers, your old friend.  This thing is mathematically over.

Clear?

by responsible 2008-03-04 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: WISE UP

Are you seriously new to the internet?  Leave the caps lock at home.  Sentences are sentences, not paragraphs.  Please stop replying to every post with the same cut and paste.

In conclusion, update your debate style to 2008 where we to each and not at each other or go back to a 1998 BBS.

KTHXBAI!

by kasjogren 2008-03-04 04:28PM | 0 recs
well argued

by responsible 2008-05-09 04:36PM | 0 recs
From your rules and guidelines

Users who are bashing or attacking any other user on the site, including authors of diaries and frontpage postings, will be banned. Candidates and politicians are fair game (but that doesn't mean you can use inflammatory language against candidates).

Titles of diaries should not be inflammatory, call out other users or the site, and will be deleted if not edited out. Likewise, users who cannot write comments without excessive inflammatory language will be banned.

by MILiberal 2008-03-04 01:11PM | 0 recs
Yea I got warned for calling

Susanhu the next Matt Drudge - but I guess its okay for Jerome to trash people - so much of Direct Democracy.  

by Moonwood 2008-03-04 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: From your rules and guidelines

Alter is not a user here, feel free to call him an idiot too.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-04 05:17PM | 0 recs
Clinton's demogoguery has ruined her for the GE

with many people.  She has practiced the same kind of hate mongering that the Republicans do.  I don't want anything to do with it.  I have been a Democrat since I worked for McCarthy in "68" - I have never seen a Democrat use the dirty underhanded tactics the Clinton's have used this time.  Its disgusting!

by Moonwood 2008-03-04 01:12PM | 0 recs
Come On Now...

I'm an Obama supporter too, but lets tone down the hyperbole.  This hasn't been the fun, pleasant and nice primary HRC talks about but it's hardly the worst either.  And either way, the party will be fine.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Come On Now...

In a GE McCain would turn her argument for being elected against her.  He has a much better and longer record on foriegn issues and domestic legislative experience (even BHO has more experience changing minds and building coalitions to pass difficult legislation than HRC.)  McCain would just run clips of HRC from this primary and say, "I have more of everything she says is important."  On the war, he'll say, "she was for it when it was the popular decision, now she's against it when opinion changed, she can't make life and death decisions without her finger in the political wind, and that will lead to [insert fear mongering here]."

by 1jpb 2008-03-04 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Come On Now...

We don't disagree regarding who the stronger candidate for the GE is.  But there's no need to exagerate the divisions between Obama and Clinton.  At the end of the day, we're all still Democrats.  That's my only point.

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Come On Now...

Things like the HRC team planting the fake madrassa story are hard for me to forgive.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/o bama.madrassa/

It also, makes me question other things, e.g. not being emphatic about countering the Muslim lie on 60 minutes.

And, honestly I don't have a huge problem with McCain.  He seems like a nut, but he is hedging on his promise to keep the Bush tax cuts, I think his concern about deficits would win out.  And, while I can't trick myself into thinking he'd end the war in Iraq.  I can convince myself that HRC could end up keeping us there, her position has changed (maybe temporarily) over this campaign to better reflect the Democratic base.  The only thing I know for sure is that HRC doesn't derive policy from core principles, her effort to pass an unconstitutional flag burning ban is indicative of her triangulating to gain power for the sake of gaining power.  No thanks, I'll take the nut (who be open to pissing of the right since he doesn't seem fixated on more than four years), or stay home.

by 1jpb 2008-03-04 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Come On Now...

Well, stay home if that's how you feel.  B/c a vote for McCain is a vote for 100 years in Iraq, to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," crazy ass Supreme Court Justices (J. Stevens is 87), privatizing Social Security (McCain officially came out in support of that this week), and continuing GWB's failed economic policies.

Primaries are hard, and I don't love HRC either.  But she's about 1,000 times better than McCain accross the board.  You should vote for her if she wins the nomination.

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Come On Now...

time heals all wounds.

And, I wrote a longer comment further down.

by 1jpb 2008-03-04 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Come On Now...

You can't reqally believe that 1jpb is a democrat based on his posts.  He sounds like a died in the wool repub.  He is advocating voting for the repub over the democrat.  McCain has absolutely nothing to say about the economy, in fact he doesn't know all that much about it.  As for health care, McCain has no plans whatsoever.  Saying that Hillary can't make a case against McCain is like saying that the War is the only issue.  That's a repub stance.  Real democrats know that there's more going on than the war only.  Much more and you can't ever trust a republican.

by moonheart 2008-03-04 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Come On Now...

Well, I obviously agree with you in terms of the GE.  Picking McCain over either of our candidates is simply ridiculous.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Come On Now...

I agree.  I've seen a bunch of comments advocating 'my candidate or no one'.  I don't for a minute believe that McCain is in any way shape or form a progressive.  I do however understand that both BO and HRC are center left democrats. Neither is exactly as left or progressive as I consider myself, but they are a far cry from the conservative McCain.  And as far as I am concerned, conservatism means 'conserve my wealth and the hell with everone else'.

IMO it's our job to make sure that our representatives represent our views, that we keep the conversation in the democratic party as progressive as we can; not our job to elect 1 particular person 'or else'.

Anyone that says I won't vote for the nominee if it's not mine is not a true democrat, they are a democrat for the day.  :-)~

by moonheart 2008-03-04 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Come On Now...

November is a long time away, so I'm sure my sentiments of the moment can change.  But, it really bothers me when I find that the the HRC team started the madrassa rumor.  

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/o bama.madrassa/

Principles and core convictions are very important to me, I don't know what drives HRC other than the acquisition and maintenance of power.  The Clintons have shown that they govern by selling out to the Rs in order to maintain their own power (even as the Senate, House, governorships and state governments lose Democratic leaders.)  So, I would argue that HRC is more appealing than BHO if someone is against progressive ideas.  For example, why did WJC and HRC support the Newt G well fare reform rather than a form that still involved major changes but still kept sight of core progressive values.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editor blog/034

The bottom line is that I want (and deserve) to be convinced I should give my vote.  When your vote becomes guaranteed, your issues are guaranteed to not matter.

And, for the record, I have voted for Rs in the past (although I was never a Bush supporter, and I even predicted Bush would go to Iraq before he was elected.)  But, if I was interested in a conservative agenda I would be support HRC instead of BHO.  And, the truth is that it's votes like mine that choose the president.

by 1jpb 2008-03-04 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Come On Now...

I am not familiar with Insight magazine, but I am perfectly well aware that The Washington Times is a right wing rag.  I wouldn't take anything printed there as truthful.  You cited yourself that someone connected with her campaign denied instigating the Madrassa story.  I would like to believe that that is true, considering that it is NOT progressives that would like to push the Muslim theme.

I don't vote for R's in any way shape or form.  The anti choice stance of all R's that I know prohibits me from voting for them ever!

I believe Hillary has been working for votes, if you don't choose to vote for her, that's on you.  If you can't see the difference between her and McCain, no one will be able to convince you differently.  

Neither Obama or Hillary is ideal, but are both a damn sight better than any Repub!

by moonheart 2008-03-15 11:33AM | 0 recs
Its not hyperbole - its how I feel

and what I have witnessed.  Hillary is hurting the party and it may be permanent.  I know many people who will never vote for her who are long time Dems.  

by Moonwood 2008-03-05 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Its not hyperbole - its how I feel

Hey, feel your feelings.  I get it.  But IF she wins the nomination, and I still don't think she will, you're going to be faced with a choice.  At that point, I'm simply suggesting that you should take a deep breath and really think about what the ramifications of voting for the GOP would be.  If not on you, then on lots of folks out there who literally cannot afford a defacto third term for GWB.  Which is exactly what McCain would constitute.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-05 07:52AM | 0 recs
I really don't see much difference

Hillary is a lying demagogue - McCain is an war monger - so is Hillary.  The only reason to vote for her is the court - but at this point she has conducted the most destructive campaign I have ever seen from a so called Democrat.

by Moonwood 2008-03-05 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I really don't see much difference

Well, the Supreme Crt is pretty important all by itself.  Literally important enough to vote for HRC over McCain.  And that's not even taking into account the lower federal courts, which decide most issues.  

Additionally, she's infinitely better on economic issues and health care as well.  

Anyway, enough about this.  Hopefully you won't be faced with this choice at all if we work hard.  But if you are, at least take a second to really think about the impact of your choice on the general public.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-05 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton's demogoguery has ruined her for the G

I am a full on Obama guy and I would say the "attacks" from the campaign so far have been rather tame.  The vitriol the surrogates put out on the other hand is nasty.

by kasjogren 2008-03-04 04:30PM | 0 recs
Hillary has lied repeatedly and openly

she has no shame.  She learned Rove tactics well. I will have nothing to do with it.

by Moonwood 2008-03-05 07:51AM | 0 recs
The leader in pledged delegates will be the nomine

It's not written in any rule book.

All other outcomes will destroy the party, and the grownups will make sure that never happens.

by Cyt 2008-03-04 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The leader in pledged delegates will be the no

And that is why we have superdelegates, to not matter.

Look at all those superdelegates who have been foolishly endorsing Clinton and Obama, not realizing that their sole duty is to vote for whoever wins the pledged delegates!

by Steve M 2008-03-04 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

I admire your nerve to be so forthright in such a volatile polling climate, but with the possible exception of Vermont, I don't anticipate any blowouts. I don't expect a winning margin of more than the neighborhood of 5%.

by Retired Catholic 2008-03-04 01:14PM | 0 recs
WOW

Jerome, I'm blown away!

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-03-04 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

What do you think about HRC netting 18 delegates today (which is about what she may get), when you consider BHO netted 18 delegates from WI and HI?

It is undeniable that HRC is in a very big delegate hole, and there aren't enough places where she can dig out.

by 1jpb 2008-03-04 01:15PM | 0 recs
Jerome's argument

is that the super delegates will over turn the pledged delegates.

Yes it is possible but it is suicide for the party.

by recusancy 2008-03-04 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

Test: Would Obama get 2208 delegates if Clinton stays in the race without the inclusion of superdelegates? ALso with the inclusion- does he get the magic number? Far be it from me to point this out, but I am curious because it turns all of this own its head to ask why Clinton must leave the race is Obama doesn't get the number of delegates needed to win according to the rules?

by bruh21 2008-03-04 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

Per Alter's argument... the magic number for pledged delegates is 1,634 not 2,208.  Whoever gets to that number in pledged delegates will have the majority.  So if someone gets that number or higher and loses then that means the super delegates overturned the will of the voters.

In exit polling today 66% of people said they want the super delegate's votes to mirror the peoples.

by recusancy 2008-03-04 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

How many people in the exit polls think delegates are a better measure of "the will of the voters" than the popular vote is?

by Steve M 2008-03-04 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

Ok...  Then use the popular vote totals instead of delegates.  Obama's up by almost 1 million there.

by recusancy 2008-03-04 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

Uh, that's without counting Michigan and Florida, right?  Whether those delegates count or not, I'm not aware of any ruling that says the actual voters who went to the polls cease to exist.

I'm also not aware of any math that says Hillary can't be ahead in the popular vote by convention time, which is why there's always so much focus on the pledged delegates from the Obama side.

by Steve M 2008-03-04 02:19PM | 0 recs
No

Including FL/MI.

by scvmws 2008-03-04 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

If that's the stated party rule fine. If not, you just stepped in it. I don't play. But don't worry I can assume many will be more than willing to bend their principles to win even while claiming to be about principles.  Basically, you are no more honest than Clinton was with her attempts to minute the FL and MI issues. You lose me with this one. Until this diary, I didn't understand the game was as much about manipulation on yourside as theirs. I am still agnostic, I don't care who the candidate is. But you definitely are playing fast and lose if the rules are that a candidate must achieve that 2208 rather than 1634 rather than your changing the rule to suit your candidate mid stream.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

The point is, yes... neither can reach 2208 with just pledged delegates.  They will need superdelegates to reach that number.  But if the super delegates go for the candidate with the smaller number of pledged delegates then Obama supporters will see it as the elite over turning the will of the people.  It is what it is.

The rules are that the super delegates can go with whoever the hell they want.  I'm just saying it's suicide to go with the candidate with the least pledged delegates and popular vote.

I don't know why that's hard to understand.  If the pledged delegate count is within like 5 then ok...  it's up in the air.  But if there's decent lead by one candidate then I would say that that candidate has one over the will of the people.  And the supers and back that or not.

by recusancy 2008-03-04 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

Oh, now I understand you perfectly well- you are basically a manplative little person who thinks you are talking to someone who doesn't now understand your game. Let's imagine a scenario: So if clinton has the popular vote, but Obama has more delegates, the super delegates should go with the delegate count? Why exactly is that?

Okay- I'm loving you all twisting this pretzel for me. Until today. I've stayed away from this because I didn't full understand or cared an assumed Clinton was just desperate. Now, I am seein gyou for what you are.

Now that you are explaining it more, I am realizing it's just b/s designed to bully Clinton out of the race without providing any justification other than you want to chang ethe rules to favor your candidate. I don't care about just this race so I look at what you are doing is more destructive to the party than anything else.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

Maybe instead of calling people little you should read:

I'm just saying it's suicide to go with the candidate with the least pledged delegates and popular vote.

by recusancy 2008-03-04 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

You are correct. I missed your placing that in the middle of the paragraph in the middle of your post. However, I do still want to get another point of clarification- are you saying that despite the arguments of the last few weeks that I've seen repeatedly here by a number of Obama supproters- super delegates are now okay to use for the purposes of  winning the nomination- if so- this is a shift of position at least from what has been said before.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

The rules state that you have to have the 2208 (or whatever the number is)... so yes.  They will need supers.

But it's really a moot point because they will go with whoever wins the majority of delegates and pop vote.  They aren't stupid.

The whole point of my original comment is to say that Jerome is wrong in thinking that they would vote for someone who doesn't have the majority of delegates and popular vote.

by recusancy 2008-03-04 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

The whole point I am making is the change of rules in mid stream. Jerome is right with regard to how the argument up until this diary has been frames by many Obama supporters. Ie, Clinton has no chance of winning and that she must use trickery by using the super delegates so she should drop out for the "good of the party." Implicit in all of this and often explicit was the notion that Obama could win without the same sorts of gaming to get to 2208. There was no mention of well because he would have a delegate lead,but enough to win out right. There was none of this "the partyis smarter than this." Its all cute, and I may have even agreed with it but for the fact I since that its a new argument being  made mid stream. This blows the superdelegates are per se illegitimate argument out of the water. Thats the argument thats been making the rounds.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

Its not a rules change.  Hillary can stay in all she wants.  The point of Alter's article was that, math wise, it is going to be incredibly hard for her to close the delegate gap that exist right now.  There isn't enough delegate rich states left.

So the chances of her having the majority of delegates or getting even close is quite slim.  There would need to be a sea change in the race from what is going on now.

Not sure what the rules change your talking about it.

Did you read Alter's article?

Here's Marc Ambinder saying the same thing.

I can't explain it any more then that.

by recusancy 2008-03-04 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

I am referencing the overaching thrust of the political argument  made rather any particular skirmage. You keep trying to point to the particular tree, and I am looking at this in terms of what has been argued against Clinton up until now. You can certainly say you are now saying X or that this person is now saying X, and as I said to another poster, the problem is (99 percent of the electorate won't notice, so why care what I think at all?) that's not exactly the argument that's been implicitly been made up until now. Put another way, ask the average person whether they understood in this argument , if they paid attention to it all, whether they thought Obama wouldn't have the necessary delegate count for the nom without super delegates and I am not sure they would have gotten that you meant- "well but he will hav emore delegates, and that's good enough."

by bruh21 2008-03-04 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

I don't think anyone is actually arguing against your point.  Of course the supers are, in a literal sense, going to decide the election at this point.  It's simply a matter of conjecture, on both sides, as to what metric the uncommitted supers should use to decide who ultimately wins.  

I happen to think Obama will win both the total popular vote and the pledged delegates.  Given that, I would favor the supers supporting him.  But they're obviously free to do what they want.  What metrics do you think they should look to?  

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

Uhm- that's bs. Maybe not in this particular diary you aren't arguing personally against what I am saying. But I have been lurking for weeks with regard to this issue of superdelegates because I honestly didn't fully understand the point. Now that I do and now that you (the plural you) are being called on it, now you say "well but we meant this all a long." Maybe so, but before the argument laid the issue totally on Clinton as if she was some psycho trying to ruin the party. I admit I was low information on this, and I find your manipulation (again plural) as  a group worrisome.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

OK, I guess.  But I'm not actually a member of any "group."  I'm just a guy who happens to support Senator Obama.  And you can feel free to look through my comments.  I've simply never made the argument your assigning to all Obama supporters.  

by HSTruman 2008-03-04 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

Maybe so, but I do find it odd that the argument is now morphing to this new argument. Indeed, I know you are different people, but its clear that for weeks the argument has been Clinton has no chance of winning, and that Obama will knock Clinton  out of the race because he has the delegate counts, but she does not. BUt the truth isn't- he doesn't either.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

To turn that head back, I'd suggest that if HRC were in BHO's position there would long ago have been unending calls for him to get out.  So, if anything, HRC has been fortunate to lose this many states and delegates with barely any talk of her getting out.

I think a lot of people were holding off until today because "it's the Clintons" and nobody wants to underestimate or cross them (and people genuinely like them, even if they don't see a Clinton II presidency).  But, at some point the kid gloves with regard to pressuring HRC may come off.

by 1jpb 2008-03-04 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

You are confusing me with someone else. I don't support Clinton. I didn't agree with her manipulations in FL or MI. I am a process person. You are trying to change the rules mid stream if I understand the rules properly. That's all I care about. You lost me with this diary because its clear yo u  are being as manipulative as she ever was.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

That will never happen.

by desertjedi 2008-03-04 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome's argument

Yes.  I know.  But Jerome thinks it will so he's calling out Alter.

by recusancy 2008-03-04 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

The last time I tried predicting New Hampshire I went with the heard off the cliff of silly predicyions.  Anyway, I think Hillary will win both of the biggies tonight (Ohio & TX) but Obama will be very close in the nightly delegate count once the dust has settled.

As long as I'm going out on a limb I fearlessly predict that this thing does NOT go to the Convention.  Deadlocks don't happen much in two person contests.  North Carolina on May 6 could end it.  It's a significant state.

Viva Vermont!

by howardpark 2008-03-04 01:17PM | 0 recs
I think his point (Alter) is that the supers

are not going to tilt the election towards the person trailing in pledged delegates, and that as the race continues on that the difference is not going to narrow. Of course there are other figures to look at (popular vote, etc) but at the end of the day, like someone above points out, that these are more likely to push people to put them on the same ticket, rather than to use it as a factor in giving the nomination to Hillary.

One factor I think is constantly overlooked is the idea that many would rather have Obama at the head of the ticket for down ballot purposes.

This is going to be an exciting night either way.

by highgrade 2008-03-04 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I think his point (Alter) is that the supers

Hmm...where do more people want to see obama as the top of the ticket?

You can't go by states because then you'd get into a a particularly sticky argument. So you go national and ummmm....clinton now leads national polling by 2 percent or they are relatively tied.

basically that's too subjective a criteria to push anyone over the top.

by apolitik 2008-03-04 01:26PM | 0 recs
I'm confused. You're suggesting that...

super delegates who are running down ticket will pledge to Obama - even if their state voted for Hillary?

Why would someone who needs his/her home voters to be returned to congress tick off those very same people?

I'm serious in my question - I don't understand the process as well as others...but why would anyone do that?

by Shazone 2008-03-04 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

The new spin: Neither Obama nor Clinton has "teh math" to win.

by Skaje 2008-03-04 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

Thank you.

Simply thank you.

This primary season has made more than a few brains of normally respectable people go out to pasture for love of one candidate or another.

I appreciate mydd for being one of the more levelheaded blogs out there.

by apolitik 2008-03-04 01:23PM | 0 recs
Hillary supporters love it here
It's an insular cocoon of an island in the otherwise somewhat level-headed netroots community.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-03-04 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary supporters love it here

Ah yes, the level-headed netroots community that considers Hillary a racist bitch.

by Steve M 2008-03-04 01:28PM | 0 recs
methinks thou dost protest too much
millions of netroots lefties accusing Hillary of being what a "racist bitch"? i think not.
by Ajax the Greater 2008-03-04 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: methinks thou dost protest too much

You're entitled to your opinion, but other people can read too.

by Steve M 2008-03-04 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: methinks thou dost protest too much

It is interesting to read posts by epoeple who assume you can't read whatever else they have said in the past. It's like they think they are a talking head on CNN.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary supporters love it here

Wow. Damn. Tone it down. Where does my comment suggest I'm a hillary supporter?

I'm just responding to the breath of fresh air that was in jerome's writing. It was a nonpartisan , no bullshit way of looking at the primary season. That's something I used to find on the netroots more. Now, I find more comments like yours.

by apolitik 2008-03-04 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary supporters love it here

what it really is is a breath of fresh air in a net roots that has suddenly become lock step and rigid.  A lot of Hillary supporters have left other blogs and come here because they feel more welcome.  On some of the others it's a very hostile environment to be a Hillary supporter.

by moonheart 2008-03-04 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary supporters love it here

You violate the FAQ of this website by troll rating simply for disagreeing and you also lack the character to explain why in a comment.  Regardless of whether you are an Obama or a Clinton supporter, by doing so you are creating an atmosphere of negativity.  Your attitude is precisely what loses elections for Democrats.

by johnnygunn 2008-03-16 03:19PM | 0 recs
Thanks Jerome

I have been saying similar things off the blogs. It will be the super delegates that determine this thing. It may come down to a shotgun wedding.

by kevin22262 2008-03-04 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

what are you talking about?

"that Clinton 'just can't win' the pledged-delegate battle. Well guess what?  Neither can Obama!"

if he ends up with more pledged delegates, he wins the "pledged-delegate battle."

then, people who are saying this, are also saying, in so many words, that the superdelegates will coalesce behind the winner of "pledged-delegate battle." THAT is the only point at issue.

by along 2008-03-04 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

I think a relative 100 delegate discrepancy in delegate counts when both of the candidates are going to be far off the 2025 needed will not matter. For instance, the delegate counts have long since been shown to be a screwy system which has a lot do with complicated geography --so why would people listen to that?  

I think, more importantly other factors will come into play: like total popular vote, number of democratic voters, etc....

by apolitik 2008-03-04 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

that's what I'm saying is at issue. you think the superdelegates might not coalesce behind the pledged-delegate winner--they might take other factors into consideration. I agree that they might. A lot of people don't. That doesn't make them srong or brainless.

The short history of Democratic superdelegates tends to support the idea that they do in fact fall in behind the pledged-delegate leader.

If one candidate did lead in pledged delegates, and the other in the overall popular vote, then I imagine there would be a real impasse. That has never happened before in the primary.

by along 2008-03-04 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

I think it's so close though that there will still be a fight over it. Simply because these people are pledging their 'super' support (if you will) behind a candidate because they truly do endorse them. I imagine that if they think they can reasonably influence the race without screwing with the party, they will.

by apolitik 2008-03-04 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

plu·ral·i·ty plʊˈrælɪti -noun, plural -ties.

1.    the excess of votes received by the leading candidate, in an election in which there are three or more candidates, over those received by the next candidate.

2.    more than half of the whole; the majority.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-03-04 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

That's nice. But I like the fact that the people who denounce any mentioning of the DNC counting Florida or Michigan's votes are the same people who don't seem to think Obama has to win 2025 to clinch the deal.

by apolitik 2008-03-04 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

¿Que?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-03-04 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

Lol. wrong thread. My apologies.

by apolitik 2008-03-04 02:03PM | 0 recs
They will revote MI and FL

Revotes in MI and FL will factor in very big.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-04 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: They will revote MI and FL

could you lose that stupid picture sig please...

just asking...

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-04 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: They will revote MI and FL

....aaaannnd yes it will.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-04 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: They will revote MI and FL

...aaannd I agree with you completely on your other posts, so maybe the picture sig thing works. Seriously, you are spot on the 'math' arguement is stupid. First of all they will have a revote in FL and MI, but after that if Clinton wins tonight then it will be because of the NAFTAgate screwup and the Resko debaccle. Both those things will continue to plague him. It will not be a good month for Obama and, guess what?, that matters.

BTW I was thinking I'll pick some sort of warrior image like for my sig:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

...doing battle for truth against the corporate media monsters.

Whadda ya think?

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-04 02:27PM | 0 recs
Alter is right

The party is very unlikely to choose the candidate with the lower pledged delegate total. Right now Obama has a lead of 150 or so. If Clinton does not close the gap to below 50-75, its unlikely.

The only for Clinton to win is to with the help of superdelegates, but they are going to support Obama.

The probability that Clinton will be able to get within 75 pledged delegates is mathematically very low. She has to win states by large margins and she has never done that. Obama on the other hand does.

The party wants her out. They will not get their wish, but it will start attacking her as she attacks him and hurts his general election chances.

by optimist 2008-03-04 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Alter is right

Wow, now there's a breath of fresh air...spelling it out the way it will actually play out.

by desertjedi 2008-03-04 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Alter is right

"The party wants her out."  

Can I ask where you get the data to state what the party wants?  I have seen a lot of support for Hillary.  If she didn't have support, she actually would be out.  There are a lot of die-hard democrats that are rooting for her.  Don't they count?

by moonheart 2008-03-04 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Alter is right

Oh Yeah, I forgot to add, a lot of the super delegates are the party 'workers'.  Don't the large (in fact larger) number of them that are pledged to Hillary count as the 'party'?

Considering the large number of super delegates that are supporting her right now, your contention that the party wants her out does not hold water.

by moonheart 2008-03-04 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

"best skiing in the land".... in Vermont?! The dumbest point in a very dumb post.(see Lake Tahoe or SLC) You must be outa your mind.

by hawtlanta 2008-03-04 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

Jerome, you need to start shutting your mouth.  It's going to rip this party apart, and after tonight, you'll look a fool.

by foxsucks81 2008-03-04 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

Wow, the "tear the party apart" argument has officially jumped the shark.

by Steve M 2008-03-04 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

I thought the whole point to the internet and progressive blogs is so that we can hear a large number of differing points of view.  Who are you to tell someone to shut their mouth.  Is that what we have to look forward to in the future?  Is that what this party is going to be all about.  Lucky for us you don't get to choose who gets heard and who doesn't.

by moonheart 2008-03-04 02:54PM | 0 recs
The Big Bangs yet to come

Even with this scenario (which is very optimistic for HRC) Jerome is talking about a tie among delegates awarded March 4: Ohio matches Texas, and Vermont matches Rhode Island. And for Obama, a draw is as good as a win. There just aren't enough states left for Clinton to catch up.

There are two big shoes about to drop in the coming week. First, Tom Brokaw reported yesterday that he was told by an Obama campaign official that they have 50 -- yes FIFTY -- superdelegate endorsements in their pocket, waiting for the right moment to announce. That would give Obama the lead in both pledged delegates AND in superdelegates, and a combined lead in all delegates in the +170 range. With only 611 delegates left to be chosen.

Second, Obama has not yet announced his February fundraising totals. Clinton raised $35 million, and the Obama camp has said that their number will be "substantially" higher than that. Most projections put the number over $50 M, some put it over $70 M, and one on Daily Kos (okay, okay, it was mine) put it at nearly $80 M.

This one-two punch will be seriously crippling to the Clinton campaign. I expect Obama to announce both within a few days of today (March 4). And that's why fighting Obama to a draw today (as early exit polls indicate) just won't be good enough for Hillary.

I like her, and I admire her. I would have been proud to vote for her in the GE. But she's lost this one.

by KeithPickering 2008-03-04 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Bangs yet to come

That's not at all what Tom Brokaw reported.

by Steve M 2008-03-04 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Bangs yet to come

well, he said "someone very close to the Obama campaign." But I would expect Brokaw to be very sure that the information was accurate, reporting it as he did while on air with Terry McAuliffe.

by along 2008-03-04 02:04PM | 0 recs
by KeithPickering 2008-03-04 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Bangs yet to come

I don't want to get into parsing words, but you're drastically overselling this.  They do not have 50 people just "waiting for the right moment to announce."

by Steve M 2008-03-04 02:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Bangs yet to come

Wait, so now I am really confused, were not many Obama supporters arguing that Clinton shouldn't win based on the Superdelegates, but now we hav eyou hear arguing that Obama should win based on Superdelegates? Did I misunderstand your point. Also, exactly what does fundraising have to do with delegate counts or for that matter the price of tea in china? Is this the kitchen sink approach to analysis?

by bruh21 2008-03-04 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Bangs yet to come

I'm not saying Obama should win on superdelegates alone. Nobody should win on superdelegates alone. But Obama is winning and will win on both fronts. What's unfair about that?

by KeithPickering 2008-03-04 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The Big Bangs yet to come

Because he must win by 2208 delegates. to do other wise, changes the rules to favor a candidate.

by bruh21 2008-03-04 02:19PM | 0 recs
Jerome's predictions looking stinky

VT off by at least 20.

by sam2300 2008-03-04 02:18PM | 0 recs
Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light

Ohio: Clinton +12 / Rhode Island: Clinton + 9. / "Socialist" Vermont: Obama +12 / Texas: Clinton +2.

Well, I suppose we'll see who has a "lack of brain" by the end of the evening.

I wonder if OpenLeft will do a post calling you out for demonizing our political base in the northeast as "socialists"? A three point swing in Texas and they'll be "socialists" too, perhaps.

by scvmws 2008-03-04 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

Hillary will not win as many pledge delegates as Obama period! Also, Obama ( minus MI & FL) is waaaaayyyyyy ahead in the  popular vote and there is no way the DEMOCRATIC party will  allow a person that doe not win the popular vote to get the nomination.... it's already over!

by bettie11 2008-03-04 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

These predictions don't look objective, but more like a wish list. Jerome, why don't you just say "this is what I hope will happen". I don't see what prior information would lead you to these conclusions, and the exit polls are showing these predictions to be way off the mark. Who would have guessed that Obama is doing better than you predicted?

by tractor 2008-03-04 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

so then jerome supports the notion that superdelegates should counter the will of the voters?

gg jerome

by Lazeriath 2008-03-04 03:04PM | 0 recs
race and grammar

Jerome, thanks for counteracting the shill (this must be done to shills no matter who they are pulling for...)

Obama's +14 in VT.  Woohoo!!

But the main reason I'm commenting:  Latino/a, like Asian, is a proper adjective that must be capitalized!!  I know the egalitarian impulse is to follow the same rules of capitalization as black and white (and avoid the silliness of Black and therefore White)... but those are the rules.  No one writes "pakistani" for example.

I HATE seeing people do this!!!  :)

by Cloudspitter 2008-03-04 03:15PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads