Tell 3 losing former democratic candidates Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Bill Richardson to lead by example by voting the will of their constituents: HILLARY CLINTON.
Primary fights and there final results
1968, Humphrey vs McCarthy = Nixon
1972, Humphrey vs McGovern = Nixon
1976, Reagan vs Ford = Carter
1980, Carter vs Kennedy = Reagan
1984, Mondale vs Hart = Reagan
1988, Dukakis vs Jackson = Bush
Notice a pattern?
All the more reason for Obama to head back to the Senate to gain additional experience.
THE PUNDITS Despite Hillary Clinton's big victories on March 4th, "the math" works decisively against her and the race is essentially over THE REALITY The math is simple: neither candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination and either candidate can win ******* THE PUNDITS Barack Obama is substantially ahead in the popular vote; Florida and Michigan don't count; therefore the race is essentially over THE REALITY The popular vote is virtually tied; half of Barack Obama's narrow vote advantage is from his home state; and his lead excludes Florida and Michigan ******* THE PUNDITS Florida and Michigan's voters won't be heard and their delegates won't be seated all because of complicated procedural roadblocks THE REALITY Barack Obama is intentionally disenfranchising voters in two critical states for purely political reasons, namely, that he'll lose his small advantage if they count
THE REALITY The math is simple: neither candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination and either candidate can win
******* THE PUNDITS Barack Obama is substantially ahead in the popular vote; Florida and Michigan don't count; therefore the race is essentially over
THE REALITY The popular vote is virtually tied; half of Barack Obama's narrow vote advantage is from his home state; and his lead excludes Florida and Michigan
******* THE PUNDITS Florida and Michigan's voters won't be heard and their delegates won't be seated all because of complicated procedural roadblocks
THE REALITY Barack Obama is intentionally disenfranchising voters in two critical states for purely political reasons, namely, that he'll lose his small advantage if they count
You can't remove the best state from one candidate, not do that for the other one and then say, "See, it's tied." If you took out both IL and CA (say), who would have the lead?
As for MI, no one who doesn't support Clinton is going to be swayed by adding a count where one person got 0 votes.
only by his own choice. guess it sucks to take responsibility for some folks.
this is interesting, though i can't believe the last example... um, Obama isn't disenfranchising anyone. i'm sympathetic to the arguments about MI and FL, but that ain't his fault. let's cut the crap here. this isn't NO QUARTER, ya' know. this blog is supposed to be a cut above.....
"The popular vote is virtually tied; half of Barack Obama's narrow vote advantage is from his home state; and his lead excludes Florida and Michigan."
Are you serious with this? Or is it dry humor? You are arguing that we should remove Obama's votes in his home state from the total popular vote count in order to fairly assess the extent of his lead -- while leaving Clinton's votes from New York in the mix? Accordingly to what brand of logic is this anything other than totally ridiculous?
As to the popular vote, you are right that Clinton is "virtually tied," with Obama -- if by "virtually tied" you mean "losing."
If Clinton is so deeply committed to averting the "disenfranchisement" of the people of Michigan and Florida, then why did she agree to "disenfranchise" them in the first place? There is no principle involved here, on the part of either candidate. Do you seriously believe that if Clinton had lost Florida badly, she would now be vehemently arguing that its delegates be seated? Clinton opposed seating both the Florida and Michigan delegates, until it suited her to change her position. Each candidate is doing, with respect to Florida and Michigan, what they think will help their chances. The idea that Clinton is standing on principle is ludicrous.
LOL!!! Isn't all of this numbers games so silly--LOL!!!! I mean take away this--Clinton wins' or add this Clinton wins--
I hope everyone understands that there have been several proposals for seating delegates over a few months BUT it's the Clinton's who are the ones who are blocking those proposals.
Around the time that the
STATES DECLINED to hold REVOTES
After that the proposal was made and a fair one--split the Delegates 50-50 in Michigan--the Mihigan Democratic party wanted that one--Hillary did not.
In Florida reduce the number of delegates by half and allot each candidate the halves of delegates they had won in that election. Senator Nelson of Florida was for that one--Hillary was not.
I don't want to hear one more thing about Fl and MI--BECAUSE it's all made up and for 'shock value' in a silly attempt by the Clinton's to keep her supporters all a twitter and in hopes of getting media attention
As we have seen all of this type of 'media attention' is bringing her numbers down as well as drawing more delegate attention to her silly little ways.
Alright, Solomon. Split the baby in half and therefore remove any value. I mean you are clearly the arbiter of fair.
The delegate leader who is ONLY winning the Black vote. Losing among white democrats to clinton, losing latino democrats to clinton, losing among asian democrats to clinton, losing among jewish democrats to clinton, and losing catholic democrats to clinton.
And somehow, his supporters conclude that he will win. Yes, he will win if he was running for President of the United African-American community.
But for the United States of America ? Kerry & Kennedy are getting really lonely. They want to include the name Obama in the Hall of Democratic losers.
So it's the black vote that had him win in all those states, right? North Dakota? Idaho? Utah? Kansas?
You are utterly divorced from reality, ain't ya?
You are right. It is just really bad luck for Clinton that black people are allowed to vote. If only this were 1952.
That was snark, right?
No one learns anything of use in the Senate!
You are silly. Everyone understands the super delegates are independent, the message is that they would be unwise to overturn the will of the people with that independent power unless they are ready for a huge backlash. Can you imagining if the electoral college did it? If a republican was trying to do it? Your head would explode.
Clinton would not just have to be more electable than Obama, but she would have to have a case beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama can't win the general. That is, if they wait till the convention and the peoples will is clear.
Clinton supes should declare now so they don't even have to face the question that would lead to the backlash, all the supes should. We will have our result and can stop fighting and don't have to worry about the convention backlash.
Can you see the American public turning on their TV's to see Barack Obama give a powerful and historic address to the convention and the Hillary follows and trys to blunt it?
Her approvals would be in the Bush/Cheney land.
Exactly right! Why aren't they?
Six right off hand -- Gov. Ruth Minner(DE), Sen. Daniel Inouye(HI), Sen. Barbara Mikulski (MD), Gov. Martin O'Malley (MD), Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA), and Sen. Patty Murray (WA)-- all endorsed Hillary despite Obama winning their respective states. I haven't even counted congressional districts (Are you listening Stephanie Tubbs-Jones ?) Are you really sure that you want the "will of constituents" to apply to these superdelegate endorsements ?
Hillary Clinton barely won New Mexico. I voted for her but Obama walked away with my county, Santa Fe. Richardson's endorsement of Obama seems self serving but I don't think he needed to endorse Clinton because she barely won here.
