My guess is its an attempt to downplay the Puerto Rico results, that could give a popular vote count to Clinton, and influence the DNC decision.
I don't like to say it, but the strategy of declaring victory simply as a means of influencing the narrative is very Bush 2000. On a gut level, it strikes the wrong chord with me.
always, ALWAYS, hearalding the importance of coming together as a party behind the eventual nominee. I have always said I will proudly get behind Obama if he is the nominee, and that he would make a fantastic President. But I happen to believe very strongly that Hillary is more electable against McCain and that this process needs to play out. If Obama comes out and declares himself the winner before Hillary concedes or any delegates have cast actual votes, I will be totally turned off to him. Completely. And that's putting it mildly. Take all the nasty things some of the more "colorful" Obama supporters say about Hillary around here and multiply that times 10 and that's how I would feel. I would probably hold my nose and pull that lever in Nov., but that's it. I would bow out after that and wait for 2012.
The problem with waiting until Clinton concedes or delegates cast votes, is that that means we could be sniping until late August. How would that be good for our chances in November?
if he hits the 2025 mark (the mark that everybody has been touting as the mark and was only changed Tuesday), you think that he shouldn't get to celebrate a little? What is he hits the 2209 mark assuming he gets some of those MI delegates (what the compromise was) and his allocation of the FL delegates? Is that not fair game?
combining his elected delegates with SD's who have declared, then absolutely, he is the winner. But not until. Unless Hillary concedes, which I don't forsee. If he declares himself the winner before he IS the winner, he is doing exactly what Todd suggests:
moving the goal posts and changing the rules in the middle of the game, something Obama supporters have long chided the Clinton campaign for doing
Wait a second...since when are nominations determined by when the other candidates concede? This has gotten utterly ridiculous. By that logic, I guess John McCain has a lot of damn nerve pretending to be the nominee when Ron Paul never conceded.
It's that kind of pretzel logic that produces gems like this:
So, while the Obama campaign will try to end it after Oregon and Kentucky vote on May 20, I suspect this thing will only end when Senator Clinton says it does.
No, it ends when Obama has enough delegates to be the nominee. That's how these things work.
comes to chances of winning their respective primaries really has me laughing loudly all by myself in my home office. Yea, right.
At this point, their chances are awfully similar.
Look, if you don't care about unifying the party, if you don't care about alienating potential Obama voters for November, then celebrate whenever the fuck you want. You're completely missing the point.
I'm not celebrating anything, and I have no idea what you're talking about. I haven't posted a single comment rubbing anything in anyone's face, so back off.
I find it absurd that now people are arguing that Obama is only allowed to consider himself the winner if Hillary concedes. So if indeed he ends the primary season with more pledged delegates, popular votes, superdelegates, states won, etc., he still needs Hillary's permission before he can be the nominee?
That's exactly why I mentioned Ron Paul--by the same logic exhibited in Todd's post and many of the comments, McCain is being undemocratic/illegitimate/unfair/whateve r by acting like he's the nominee when Paul never really conceded.
I'm not suggesting we should gloat about Obama's likely victory, but it's equally asinine in the other direction to demand that we all humor her and pretend she has a real shot at winning. She wants to stay in? Fine. But don't get angry at us if people no longer consider her candidacy to be viable.
(And as far as unifying the party, that's a two-way street. The Obama-bashing has been ceaseless, and to no surprise, those rants still rocket to the top of the rec list.)
I don't think Obama is concerned about the popular vote metric because it's becoming clear that most of the superdelegates don't care about it, either.
Nor should they. This was always a delegate race. If the popular vote had been the metric, Obama would have run his campaign differently. He ran a campaign to get more delegates than his opponent, and he succeeded.
Saying that the popular vote matters now is like a football team that just lost a game 31-12 saying they should win after all because they kicked more field goals than their opponents.
Of course Obama can announce victory based on the 2025 number. He may not even reach it on May 20th, but I sense that when he passes the halfway point in pledged delegates, the supers will come in large numbers.
There are two aspects of the delegates that always seem to be ignored. Nearly 20% of the supers haven't been selected yet. The still unselected add-ons for Obama states number 30 and for Clinton, it's 18. It is virtually guaranteed that 20 of Obama's add-ons will pick him, since that is a big reason why they are selected.
If you count 20 of his add-ons, 8 from the Pelosi club, give him 103 PDs for the next 3 states (compared to Clinton's 114), and then throw 26 supers to announce before 5/20 or on 5/21, Clinton would need more than 100% of the remaining supers.
Yes, Obama SHOULD declare victory on 5/20.
I think its a smart move to supercede any tendency by the DNC or the superdels to move to the popular vote consideration. It is and has been a delegate race and therefore clearly defining it as such and defining the place where you can say you have won a majority of elected delegates is a smart, strategically sound move.
The number is 2025.
Delegates. Not votes. Not monkeys. 2025 is not the year that Hillary can keep campaigning to.
It's the delegates.
Popular vote count DOES NOT count. Delegates count. Popular vote is interesting parlor discussion designed to give David Broder something to talk about. Electability isn't a metric. Winning the remaining small states -- the electoral equivilent of scrub time -- does not help the cause of anything other than the cause of giving those who are sick and tired of Clinton and her White Hard Working American power claims all the more reason to wonder what happened to her.
Because triangulating is one thing, and I recall it served them well in the past. But triangulating on matters of race is the opposite of what a hurting country needs.
This is how you plan to unify the party? By talking about Hillary Clinton's "White Power" claims? Honest to God, I could live a million years and not share a party with a bigger bunch of fucking morons.
YOU WON THE ELECTION. THERE IS ANOTHER ELECTION IN NOVEMBER. QUIT CALLING THE OTHER GUY'S CANDIDATE A RACIST ALREADY, NOTHING MATTERS EXCEPT GETTING HIS VOTE.
Why is it Obama supporters have to kiss Clinton supporters' ass? I think whatever the period of time, it ended when she made that horrible comment.
I could live a million years and be happy to see the Democratic Party lose every election if it meant having a party immune to the racial triangulation so preferred by Hillary this cycle.
She will not get her popular vote up from Puerto Rico.
It would be cool if people could actually know what the political landscape is on the island before taking talking points as fact.
Hillary and her team are dreaming.
Just yesterday her main backer on the island went on a little rant and attacked people from his own party because things are not looking good for a high turnout. Many groups (for a variety of reasons) are calling for a boycott on top of that.
Here is a link to his rant in the biggest local newspaper :
http://www.elnuevodia.com/diario/noticia /politica/noticias/populares_contra_popu lares/401965
Prats culpa a algunos alcaldes rojos de la posible baja participación en las primarias demócratas en la Isla.
Translates to :
Prats blames some local mayors for the possible low turnout in the Democratic primary on the island
Love this little nugget in his rant :
"Yo apoyo a Hillary Clinton", dijo inicialmente. "Yo las canto como las veo y veo un movimiento en unas áreas de Puerto Rico donde alcaldes, quieren desligarse del proceso"
"I back Hillary Clinton", he said. "I call them as I see them and I see a movement in some areas of Puerto Rico in which mayors, want nothing to do with the process"
