MyDD :: By the numbers

By the numbers

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:37:27 PM EST

While Obama supporters remain extremely worried about Clinton's chances of winning, and her state of campaign finances, I can't help but recognize that the call to shut down the nomination battle before all the votes are counted, hopefully a position held by a vocal minority, is unfortunately reminiscent of the Bush supporters mantra against Gore in Dec of 2000.

I also can't help but notice that Clinton does seem to have much better chances than Obama in the upcoming races:

Pennsylvania - Clinton by double-digits
North Carolina - Toss-up
Indiana - Toss-up, no recent poll
West Virginia - Clinton by double-digits
Oregon - Toss-up, no recent poll
Kentucky - Clinton by double-digits
Puerto Rico - Likely Clinton, no recent poll
Montana - Likely Obama, no recent poll
South Dakota - Likely Obama, no recent poll

It's not until the last two states, in Montana and South Dakota, that Obama supporters can point to what should be a sure win, but even those contests are primaries, so will not be the caucus blowouts of before, the MT primary is open, and the SD one is closed to Democrats. The only MT poll was from last Dec, showing Clinton leading at 29 percent.

Prior to MT & SD, which should be considered Obama states, the states of NC, IN, and OR appear the pure toss-ups that either candidate could win. There haven't been recent polls in either IN or OR. One for IN in Feb showed Obama at 40 percent and leading, and one for OR showed Clinton at 36 percent and leading.

From any neutral standpoint, the upcoming contests do show a strong winning narrative potential for Clinton. I can see how an Obama partisan, looking at the potential of Clinton coming off of big wins in TX & OH, and riding into potentially winning all 6 of the contests in April & May would be scared enough to try and shut it down.

And Clinton seems to finally turned it around on the finance side:

It's good to see what's been a laggard campaign operation finally turn to asking their small donor supporters to step up. For anyone that has the future of the Democratic Party in mind above their individual candidate, they'd see this as a good thing too.

I'd advise the Obama supporters to be calm. Neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. You should also be informed that the rules do not say that, therefore, the candidate with the greatest number of pledged delegates is the winner. Besides, if Clinton does have a good couple of next few months, there's a likelihood that she'll be able to point toward having the pledged delegate lead, when counting the states of FL & MI. The popular vote also remains very much up in the air, especially if Clinton racks up very high win percentages in PA & PR, also when counting the states of FL and/or MI.

This will have to be settled by the rules committee and the Super-delegates, but even before that, there's still votes to contest and count. Enjoy the democratic process.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Permalink :: 334 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 2)

Personally, I think it's still all delaying the inevitable. I don't think, even with the Wright controversy, Obama's campaign will be seriously impaired, and if you think the superdelegates will override the popular vote/majority delegate count, I'd advice you to think again.

But, you're right, we'll just have to wait and see.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:41:00 PM EST

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 1)

The point is not that Sen. Clinton won't win a substantial number of the remaining contest. The point is that she won't catch up with Obama in pledge delagates and popular vote. Now as Politico pointed out yesterday, if Clinton thinks the Superdelegates are going to say to the AA candidate and all his supporters, "you don't get the nom," she's in a state of denial.

That leads me to the point everyone has been making. Clinton is killing the chances of Obama defeating McCain by attacking Obama's electibility. If she truly cares about the Democratic party, she will drop out after June 7 and campaign like hell to repair the damage she's done with her campaign's statements: McCain and I have a lifetime of experience; Obama has a speech. Who do you want answering the phone at 3am? It would be good if two people who love this country were competing in the fall.

by happycozy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:03:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

you republicans are not going to attack Obama?? Obama has been attacking Hillary for about year now?? Disenfranchising MI and FL makes the nomination illegitimate!!

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But its obvious that she has major support (2.00 / 3)

And I just don't see how Obama could win without those big states, and without buy-in from so many people.

People like him, but they don't have confidence in his ability to lead this country yet.

Maybe in a few years they might, if he challenges himself to do much more with what he's got, but not now.

Kennedy had six years in the House and eight in the Senate when he ran for President. Obama isn't even close. And he has not really been an engaged Senator.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Ep isode.aspx?sched=1242
Confused by the 'Bailout' Lies?
Listen to NPR's The Giant Pool of Money

by architek on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:32:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But its obvious that she has major support (2.00 / 1)

Winning a primary has no correlation with winning the stae in a GE.

by HSTruman on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:03:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But its obvious that she has major support (none / 0)

PA has narrowly gone blue in the past two elections in the GE. She will win PA with a big margin (double digits). Her coalition outlined in the excellent diary on the EC, shows that her coalition is strong in PA. Add that PA is a lean blue state, her changes are very good that she carries PA in the GE.

However, that is not the case for Obama, especially when he loses the primary by double digits.

by anya109 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But its obvious that she has major support (none / 0)

This "Clinton has won the big states" argument is truly flawed and I can't believe Clinton is basing her candidacy on it. Whoever the democratic nominee is will get states like CA and NY. As for PA, OH, and FL, they've been trending Republican, and it doesn't matter if it's Clinton or Obama--a Democrat won't win those states.

The GE is a whole different set of circumstances, so you can't determine who will win the GE based on whether or not s/he won the big states in her/his respective primaries. And we know that Republicans and Independents will not vote for Clinton in the GE.

by happycozy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:41:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But its obvious that she has major support (none / 0)

Losing a state in primary has a lesser corelation to winning that state in GE

You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat

by indydem99 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:03:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But its obvious that she has major support (none / 0)

big states?!

Oh you mean like NY which goes blue EVERY TIME

California which goes blue EVERY TIME

Ohio which will go democrat this time regardless of which one gets the nomination.

Florida which won't go blue anyway.

That big state argument doesn't pass the sniff test.

The real advantage is in nominating a candidate that can expand the map. Virginia and North Carolina are opportunities to do that on the East Coast. New Mexico (can be made more reliably blue), Colorado, Nevada, and Montana, & (not this cycle, but eventually) Arizona. These are the places to look. We probably would never have noticed if it weren't for the 50 state strategy showing us. That's why the big state strategy is obsolete and short sighted.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 1)

If Obama cared about his chances of beating McCain, he would stop blocking the revotes in MI and FL.

It is Obama that is crushing the Democrats chance of victory in this election.

by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

Most polls seem to be indicating that any Democrat will win Michigan while losing Florida to McCain, whether the primaries count or not.

Quite frankly, I'm quite comfortable writing off Florida from the start if it means not going through another 2000.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

Obama "would stop blocking the revotes in MI and FL"!!!!!

I'm infuriated that Obama would do such a thing. I'm going to write a letter to every paper that misrepresented what happened in MI and FL as soon as you post the bullet proof source you have that he is behind this. For example, the LA times wrote this complete fallacy:
"Florida Democrats scrapped plans Monday to redo the state's presidential primary, turning to national party leaders to find another way to resolve the political stalemate over the disputed January nominating contest."

Your assertion means they MUST change the opening sentence to "Barack Obama is blocking plans to redo the state's presidential primary."

As far as MI is concerned, this needs a revision as well: "state lawmakers adjourned Thursday without acting on a bill to authorize a do-over of the disqualified Democratic presidential primary held in January, effectively killing any new vote."
In your world, this should be changed to "Barack Obama effectively killed any new vote in MI."

I'll keep checking back for that bullet proof source you are going to post to backup your assertion that Obama is "blocking the revotes in MI and FL."

</snark>

by sharpfork on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:06:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you're really eraching (1.66 / 3)

Maybe double digits in PA.

MAybe, and it still won't be enough.

Toss-up in NC because of a single poll? That's really reaching.

Obama will exceed 1627 pledged delegates by May 10.

Watch the Super delegates, Jerome. The party is getting sick of the infighting and want to see the fight taken to McCain. This will be put to bed within 6 weeks, max.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:43:21 PM EST

Yup. (2.00 / 1)

Knew this was coming - a "don't worry y'all" from Jerome. Well written, but very sad. I feel like I'm at a funeral now on here. She gave it a good try, but it's all but over. She's done, and no amount of feel good posts is going to change that. The SuperDelegates will never ever ever overturn the will of the voters. She will never catch up, she can't. She had her chance in February, and it didn't happen. Sorry, but no amount of what ifs is going to change that.
I don't know why Jerome despises Obama so much .Did something happen that we don't know about? What is going to happen to MYdd when Obama seals the deal in the next few weeks? Will this site be renamed MyMcCain? I ask that in all seriousness. Most of the HRC supporters on this site said they will vote for McCain over a Democrat in the GE.

This site makes me sad.

I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.

by TheFullBerry on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:05:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yup. (2.00 / 1)

And still you come running here to share your sad outlooks? You must be a sad person who loves being sad all the time.

People who lack self confidence and self respect always point out how others should move aside so they can survive. Basic human psychology. Is that lack of self-respact and self confidence widespread within Obama camp?

by Sandeep on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wah. (none / 0)

thanks for your attempt at pop psychology.
lol.

I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.

by TheFullBerry on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:11:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What does that buy you? (none / 0)

Why not let all THE PEOPLE get a chance to weigh in?

Why does what "the party" want trump the people having their say? (And I don't even agree with your characterization of "the party".)

Isn't that what it's all about - being progressive and all - letting the PEOPLE have a say in things?

Seems to me that a near 50-50 contest means a LOT of people may be a tad disappointed if Hillary drops out, especially now.

There are polls saying they will stay home or not vote if Obama is the nominee - how is not letting them have a say going to improve that situation?

by Larissa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I have been watching the SDs (none / 0)

HRC picked up three more last week including the venerable Jack Murtha. This thing is far from over.

by bluestatedude on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have been watching the SDs (none / 0)

I only counted two.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:10:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

62 for Obama and 5 for Clinton (none / 0)

Since Super Tuesday.

Huge disparity.

Massive.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

by Walt Starr on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 2)

Well, I don't think this is over and I'm not calling for Senator Clinton to get out of the race -- she can still win, so that's rightfully her decision -- but I think you have overstated Senator Clintons chances. Three of the states you listed clearly favor Clinton. You rate another three toss-ups, which I would quibble with but won't. Two favor Obama. I'm not sure how that, in its totality, supports your characterization that "I also can't help but notice that Clinton does seem to have much better chances than Obama in the upcoming races"

Again, I'm not calling for Clinton to get out of the race and I'm not pushing the idea that the race is over. It will be over when it's over. But I do think you have consistently put forward the absolute rosiest picture for Clinton. You could end up right -- who knows what will ultimately happen -- but I think its time to stop pretending that such a scenerio is either likely or represents a neutral view on what will happen.

by HSTruman on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:44:43 PM EST

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 2)

I think NC is still leaning Obama; but, a strong showing in PA can give, dare I say it, momentum? In IN, with the support from Bayh, I think Hillary will pull it off. Finally, Obama may exceed 1627, but that doesn't mean that superdelegates will flock, because FL and MI are not resolved.

by American1989 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:45:13 PM EST

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 1)

We got over a month until Obama. The worst thing for Clinton about Obama was time- she was always playing against the clock. The more time Obama had campaigning, the better he performed. We'll see if that'll still hold true.

Serious question- Is This Snark?

by ragekage on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

The clock-love has reversed itself. Obama is trying to shut this down now before he has yet another loss in a big state and before it becomes obvious that supers are concerned (he can't promise ALL of them VP slots) and are waiting to join him or (even worse) start peeling away. The trend now is for his positive polling to drop, his negative polling to rise, and for more and more people to question his character, experience, and "unity."

Most Hillary voters are holding on not just because we see a real chance she can still pull this out, but because we also recognize that the Wright videos ensure that Obama cannot win the general (no matter what you think of Wright or Obama's relationship with him or the fairness of republicans running the ads). The ads they will run with those videos are total killers for the general election.

Clearly Obama's campaign recognizes that Hillary can still win or they would brush her off as a pest instead of actively pushing to get her out of the race. Instead, they are actively courting supers, actively campagining, and doing everything they can to push the idea that it is over and that she should drop out.

Yet again, their actions and their words are completely at odds.

by ricosuave on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:45:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

I've never seen Democrats wish failure on the front runner as much as I do now.

I hope you come around after the primaries.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

Predicting a loss is not necessarily wishing for a loss.

That said, I think you need to realize that Obama has not only worked hard to earn the emnity of Hillary supporters (and longtime fans of Bill Clinton, for that matter), but he has given lots of us pause to wonder if he is presidential material. You might we willing to excuse his relationship with Wright or Rezko because he is your guy, but I don't have to fight that cognitive dissonance.

Just try and watch the "riding Lewinsky rough" sermon from the mindset of someone who has respect and admiration for Hillary, and then imagine how you would feel about Obama when he first dismissed it, then said he simply didn't know about it, and then said that he had heard those kinds of statements, was appalled by them, and did nothing about them.

So let me be clear: I am hoping for Obama to lose big in the upcoming states so that the supers will not hand him the nomination. I am hoping he loses the nomination.

I believe, not hope, that he will lose the general election. I believe the Wright videos are deadly in the general election. I take no joy in that fact, but I take less joy in in the circular firing squad that the democrats are forming to hand him the nomination.

by ricosuave on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Self-fulfilling prophesy (none / 0)

I have a hard time believing that you honestly think Wright is an end-gamer for Obama when Bill Clinton made 140 pardons on his last day in office, many of whom were controvercial, and many of whom were convicted in White House scandals, including Whitewater.

If those aren't enough to sink any Clinton's involvement, then Wright, who is well-meaning if misguided, shouldn't be able to sink Obama, who hasn't done anything wrong himself and has, in fact, diffused the issue already.

What I want people here to do is stop clutching at straws in your arguments about Obama's electability. It's sad and it doesn't forward the debate or help Clinton at all. Stick to promoting your candidate's good aspects and debating policy (if you can find any major differences).

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

Sigh. Youz guyz and the momentum thing. It may feel good. The media loves it. It makes it all seem good. But momentum doesn't win her the nomination. It just makes her, and you feel like everything will be okay. It won't.

She needs to leave with her dignity intact. I hope she can do that.

I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.

by TheFullBerry on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

I'm sure she appreciates your concern.

by JimR on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:36:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

Last poll in NC showed Obama WITH A ONE PT LEAD. iT'S INTERNAL'S SHOWED HIM WITH 72% of AA votes. He has consistently been getting 88-90% OF THE AA VOTE. tHIS VOTE MAKES UP 35% of the democratic primary electorate in NC.

by BDM on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:05:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

yup. he should win N.Carolina by at least 12 points. anything else would be a disappointment. and as good as the demographics look for Hillary in Indiana, I don't see her winning it. Northeast, IN should get him over the hump. Also, count the Illinois ground game to penetrate Indiana in the coming weeks and things look pretty good for Team Obama in these two states.

by alex100 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

Figure Obama to gain 10 points in each of the upcoming states by the time the voters go to the polls. That's what happened in Ohio and Texas as Obama reduced the familiarity gap with Clinton. That means PA will probably be close to a 10 point win for Clinton and Obama will win NC by 10.

by CA Pol Junkie on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

i don't think that he can make up the gaps he did earlier in the campaigns but I would not be surprised to see him cut the PA deficit to 10 by the time the election rolls around. for one, Clinton has tarnished his reputation somewhat. secondly, most people should have a pretty strong understanding of who Obama is by now.

by alex100 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:23:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

And what about Guam? Actually after May 6, there isn't a lot left. If Hillary wins all three (PA, IN, NC) then she earns the right to stay in the race.

by mikelow1885 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 08:12:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Curious about something Jerome... (none / 0)

if it gets to the convention or even before....can't the Superdelegates all get together and have a secret ballot with just the two names on it? Is there any rules for the SDs?

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:46:35 PM EST

Re: Curious about something Jerome... (none / 0)

yeah. let's do that. backroom secret deals and secrecy. Let's destroy the Democratic Party some more with this kind of sleazy garbage.

I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.

by TheFullBerry on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:08:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not secret. But like another primary vote... (2.00 / 1)

only with all the Superdelegates.

It's an election, not an auction.

by cosbo on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:20:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not secret. But like another primary vote... (none / 0)

This idea has been floated, though I forget by whom (Biden?): hold a "superdelegate primary" in June or so, after the last primary, to get everybody on the record and prevent this from dragging out through the summer.

by jere7my on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:36:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Curious about something Jerome... (none / 0)

No, there aren't any rules for the SDs. They could end it today if they wanted to. The fact that they don't, in the face of obvious party friction, leads me to believe that they aren't that enamored with the front-runner.

by JimR on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Curious about something Jerome... (2.00 / 1)

The superdelegates are not monolithic, and many are politicians themselves whose own political fortunes may be linked to whoever becomes the nominee for good or ill. If your thought is that they are holding back because they are concerned about Obama, your premise raises a number of questions.

First, there are many delegates who have already committed to a candidate. Clinton was quite efficient in rounding up superdelegates with her "get on board with the inevitable winner" argument last year, and with the many superdelegates who rose to their current status from jobs in the Clinton White House or political operation. Since Obama started winning, though, the overwhelming number of those who have committed to a candidate have gone to Obama. He's close to parity on superdelegates and well ahead in pledged delegates.

Second, it is hard to say what motivates superdelegates to remain neutral. Most of the superdelegates are themselves politicians. They are going to think about what's best for them. Generally politicians tend to keep their options open as long as possible to avoid pissing off constituents.

Third, the uncommitted superdelegates may not be waiting for anything other than to see what happens in the rest of the contests. Rather than having a concern about either of the candidates, many may just want to have the regular process done with before deciding.

Finally, it would seem to me that Clinton's whole strategy would be a lot more sensible if there was any indication that there is a groundswell of support out there among the supers. While superdelegates have every right to vote their conscience (for politicians this generally means "their self interest") they usually want to do what's safest -- what will lose the least votes and make the fewest of their constituents angry.

There would have to be some very serious concerns raised -- one hell of a lot more serious than some soundbites of embarrassing things a preacher has said -- for these pros to throw over the side the person who got the most votes and delegates, especially when throwing him over the side would be a slap in the face to African American democrats.

If the message could reasonably be spun that a black man won the nomination, and then a rich white woman got the mostly rich white superdelegates to toss out the win and give it to her, the repercussions up and down the ticket could be catastrophic. Democrats depend on black voters to win, because they lose among whites. I don't see a scenario forming where dumping Obama would not result in black voters staying home on election day. And if his ties to a black preacher like Wright is the basis, it's essentially saying that the problem is African American culture broadly that is unacceptable.

by Headlight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:23:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Curious about something Jerome... (none / 0)

There's also the fact that the Clintons are big time power players and you don't want to get on their bad side.

If Gary Hart were anywhere near as influential as Hillary Clinton, 1984 could have turned out quite differently. The supers wouldn't have all flocked to Mondale, that's for sure.

Look at how they treated Richardson. This guy is their friend, a trusted ally, and yet he's called "insignificant" and "Judas" when he makes a tough decision to go with the candidate that speaks to him and he thinks can win the general.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:00:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 2)

But for the benefit of the Democratic Party, don't you think Obama should drop out of the race. The residents of middle America and the deep south are not going to get past the Wright videos. Rezko may be too abstract but Obama's speech, for all that was good about it, did not put to rest that he spent 20 years in that church with Wright as his minister.

And what about the allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior of Richardson? This is a worry to me, and I'm sure it will be to many other Democrats. See this from Clemons, last January?
http://tinyurl.com/25nt2j

by aroundtheblock on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:50:51 PM EST

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 2)

Nice try....the idea that someone would question Richardson's so-called "sexually inappropriate behavior" (an obvious jab at Obama...) in a campaign that features Bill Clinton front and center is HILLARious.

We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)

by Newcomer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:54:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

I just read a hilarious post elsewhere about the affiliation between Obama and Richardson.

"Hopey" meets "Gropey"

And for millions of us, we will say NOPEY!

by aroundtheblock on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Concern troll much? (2.00 / 2)

Check out McCain.

by you like it on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh dear (2.00 / 1)

I wonder how likely it would be that this would've been brought up had Richardson not endorsed Obama.

Anyway, get with 5 minutes ago, Rezko and Wright are old news. You need to trump up some new scandal.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh dear (2.00 / 1)

Rezko is not old news and non Democrats will not be forgiving about having a very special interest buy Obama's house with him.

A special interest that got a multi million dollar land deal by paying the government $1 with the help of a letter from Obama.

No not dead just waiting.

Wright video? Still on you tube...wait till its on the general airwaves with the MO I am just now proud of America in a TV add...

No not dead just waiting.

The GOP WANTS Obama as our candidate.

by DTaylor on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Norman Hsu (none / 0)

If Rezko is a problem, then he certainly is.

Check out McCain.

by you like it on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:42:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh dear (none / 0)

Okay, again. Obama bought the house legitimately, and Rezko bought an adjoining lot. That's it. Obama had the money because he has written two bestselling books. Both Chicago newspapers, who know every detail of the case over the entire length of time that it's been an issue, cleared Obama in the Rezko thing, one of them being very conservative.

The McCain campaign COULD bring it up, but then that would invite Democratic 527s to look into the fact that he's been giving huge contracts to Airbus while having ex-Airbus lobbyists on his campaign staff. That's a loser for him.

The Wright video is still on YouTube, but more and more videos of other sermons are coming onto YouTube every day that show more of what Wright is really like, or show the controvercial bits in context, which makes it clear that he's not an America-hating radical.

You know what's also on YouTube? "A More Perfect Union." Over 3 million views in 5 days. The issue isn't waiting, it's dead.

But, I suppose, McCain COULD make a big deal of it, but that would mean that Democratic 527s would have free reign to hammer him on anti-Catholic John Hagee ( http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanU A ) and anti-gay Rod Parsley ( http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tViqufbk7I 8 ). This is a loser for McCain, too.

If the GOP had wanted Obama as the candidate, they wouldn't have had their cat's paw, Rush Limbaugh, get 260,000 dittoheads to vote for Clinton in the primaries.

Unless you're saying that the Republican party is remarkably inconsistant compared to the Democrats... and that I can't really buy.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh dear (none / 0)

The denial is just dripping off your post here. You can list all the reasons you want why you don't think Rezko is a big deal, but the gist of the story--that the guy on trial for corruption helped Obama buy his house and that this is confirmed by Obama himself--looks really bad. Tailor made for a 30 second ad, including Obama himself saying it was boneheaded.

You can try to equate Wright and Hagee (and I grew up with Hagee and went to high school with his daughter, so you don't have to tell me how bad he is), but there is no comparison between their relationships. The video of Wright yelling "damn America" will be a killer ad in the general election, perhaps added with a clip of Obama from his speech with the "I can't quit you" part of the "I'm both for him and agin' him" waffle. Again, almost as if Obama designed it for 30 second republican spots. The only reason you saw this stuff on Fox news now and not October is because they were getting "scooped" by ABC.

The Republicans are not going to withhold their fire against Obama just because there is some tit-for-tat countercharge. The fact that you think that some sense of Mutually Assured Destruction will keep them quiet is so naive as to almost be cute. These are the folks who invented scandals like the swift boat junk, the lowering of a lake, the saffron robe scandal, the Mena drug connection, etc. They don't even have to make these two up and they are going to grind him into the ground with them.

There is still time and the (daily increasing) possibility that we can have a better vetted ($60 million taxpayer dollars spent to show she is clean!), better prepared, and stronger candidate as the democratic nominee.

by ricosuave on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh dear (none / 0)

Okay.

You win. I have given up all hope that Obama will win the general election.

Thankfully, I would rather lose doing the right thing and fighting for it every step of the way than to give in to the fear tactics that you espouse.

I suppose we'll all look back on this someday and collectively think, "damn, why didn't more people support Obama then, before it was too late? Maybe all of this horror could have been avoided... Oh, wait, I remember, there was something to do with legally buying his house with a shady guy and he had a bit of a crazy preacher. Well, I suppose you have to stand for something. That was worth perpetual war and a Second Great Depression."

Really sad that it turned out like this.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Attack Ad: Clinton Donor Mug Shots (none / 0)

Plenty of those, it would make a nice montage

by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:40:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh dear (none / 0)

I guess if you still hold the idea that he is some groundbreaking and fantastic new amazing guy, you might look back on it like that. The rest of us will just see him in a bucket with Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry--except that in this case we had a better choice that might have let us win and be proud of our candidate at the same time.

by ricosuave on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:38:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh dear (none / 0)

Funny thing about those guys. They all lost. Obama hasn't lost yet.

We can still help Obama win.

Hard work and a good attitude is what it takes. Don't let negativity get you down, and don't let people dwell on besmirching a good person for no good reason.

Kerry's campaign failed because he wasn't willing to defend himself and his supporters weren't all that excited. Obama's willing to defend himself, but it falls to us to be excited supporters.

So let's get to work!

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:14:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh dear (none / 0)

Sorry to burst that bubble again - Hsu also gave to Obama and introduced other financial backers to his campaign.

by anya109 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:26:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rezko and Wright (none / 0)

Rezko may be a non-starter but NPR was having a field day with Wright today on "Wait, Wait."

Wright is not going to go away just because you want it to. Republicans are salivating at the thought of replaying those videos over and over.

That pretty speech was well-regarded but it didn't do a thing to allay concerns about Obama's judgment, never mind his total lack of a record on the hard stuff.

by creeper1014 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:37:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're entitled to your opinion, but... (none / 0)

nearly 70% of americans disagree with you.

http://donklephant.com/2008/03/21/cbs-po ll-obamas-race-speech-helping/

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:57:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rezko and Wright (none / 0)

Here's an instance where having the long primary will help our nominee in the general election. Bear in mind that Bill Clinton had a similar brush with facts coming out about his past in primary season, in the form of Gennifer Flowers. For most politicians, having a woman accuse them of carrying on a long term affair while serving as governor would have been the end of the presidential campaign. But Clinton met the issue head on, going on 60 minutes and making a frank admission that his marriage was not perfect.

Obama has confronted a similar incident. His pastor has some nutty views, but he did not cut his ties to the pastor or the church. Much as Hillary Clinton decided to stick with Bill despite some uncomfortable knowledge about him (i.e. that he slept around), Obama stuck with a pastor even though he occasionally said some outrageous things.

Of course, a notable difference between the two is that Obama responded with a frank, adult speech that opened up a dialogue on race, while Clinton deceived the country by denying that he had an affair with Flowers, which he later admitted in court documents.

But the value of this is that it is getting aired early in the process, rather than in October. Clinton was able to knock down allegations of womanizing and filandering as old news, since he'd aired his dirty laundry in January and February.

Similarly, by October Rev. Wright's views will be old news to everyone. The press will have a hard time reporting anything new about Rev. Wright's views 6 or 7 months from now when Obama is the nominee. The people who will still be talking about Wright by then will be the people who wouldn't vote for a democrat anyway.

by Headlight on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rezko and Wright (none / 0)

In Obama's speech he admitted that he did hear Wright's comments, so the speech revealed that Obama lied about not having heard Wright's comments before.

Obama made a speech on race to save his skin. Race came up before in this election, during South Carolina for example, when Bill Clinton was accused of being a racist because he said that Obama's claim to be against the war from the start was a fairy tale. Race came up when Obama's camp accused Hillary of denigrating MLK's achievements. He didn't make a speech then, but his campaign DID send out a memo that accused the Clintons of being racist. Why did Obama only speak up about race when it benefitted him? Why did race get brought up when they needed to point the finger--at the Clintons, at the so-called "Archie Bunkers" in Ohio, at typical white people who cross the streets?

The people who talk about Wright, not in the general election, but years to come, are the people who are disgusted with "God Damn America" and with the lies that he spread about the US government. They won't just be people who won't vote Democrats. They'll be people who love this country who find that the words cut right into their hearts.

by sarang on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:33:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 3)

disgusting. disgusting. disgusting. how low will you go? your attempts to now smear richardson just reek of desperation. sometimes i feel like I"m at redstate.com when i read the garbage posted here. this site can do more damage to our party with this kind of garbage than any right wing site could hope for.

I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.

by TheFullBerry on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 2)

Obama talking points

1) I love Obama

2) I am concerned that you don't love Obama

3) Your non love for Obama disgusts me

4) If you don't give Obama the nomination we will riot at the convention and not vote in the general.

by DTaylor on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what the? (none / 0)

are you talking about. you sound somewhat unhinged. how that has anything to do with my post is puzzling. bizarre.

I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.

by TheFullBerry on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:14:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

5) It's sad... so very sad.

by JimR on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

"Obama's speech, for all that was good about it, did not put to rest that he spent 20 years in that church with Wright as his minister"

Polls say otherwise:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/2 1/opinion/polls/main3958295.shtml

A CBS News poll taken two nights after the speech showed that 69 percent of registered voters who heard about or read about the speech felt that Obama "did a good job addressing race relations." 71 percent felt that Obama had effectively explained his relationship with the controversial reverend. An equal numbers of voters, 14 percent, saw themselves as more likely to vote for Obama after the speech as saw themselves less likely to vote for him, while 70 percent of voters felt that recent events had made no difference - a marked swing from numbers before the speech.

by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:15:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

Yet he continues his downward slide. Curious.

by ricosuave on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:17:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

If by "downward", you mean "upward", yes.

by CA Pol Junkie on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:29:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

Yes, I think he should. He obviously doesn't care that much about the Democratic party.

by JimR on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 2)

Hillary Clinton will not win Oregon. Trust me Jerome.

by tom32182 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:50:53 PM EST

Something More (none / 0)

Oh man, tom...you gotta provide something more than "trust me" to be taken seriously here.

Maybe that works at the Daily Obama but not on this site.

by creeper1014 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:52:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama will win Oregon by 15+ points (none / 0)

It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama

by Lefty Coaster on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:42:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about if we let the people vote? (none / 0)

Instead of speaking for them, why not let the primary season run its course?

by Larissa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

That reminds me, I got a "trust" Obama sign from Iowa, it must come in the drink?

OR could a wide open race. If you have some thought that thinks otherwise, speak up.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 10:26:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Awesome diary Jerome! (2.00 / 3)

Mark my words: Florida and Michigan will be counted. They are simply too important. There won't be any other choice.

allprogressives.com

by Scan on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:50:59 PM EST

They sure will (2.00 / 2)

As soon as Clinton concedes or Obama is ahead by enough that they don't matter.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:59:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They sure will (none / 0)

It sure is funny how Florida and Michigan can only count when Obama finally "wins."

What about counting them now? If you think they should count, then make them count now so we can move on.

by njsketch on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They sure will (none / 0)

There's nothing to count. Unauthorized primaries that nobody campaigned in don't make for votes that can be counted. SO unless they revote both there is nothing to count. The delegations from these states will get seated once a nominee is decided on but they will not count towards deciding who the nominee is as they never had actual voting with the candidates on the ballot and campaigning.

by wasder on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They sure will (2.00 / 1)

So why is Obama blocking the revotes?

by DTaylor on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:02:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL. (none / 0)

The sweet small of desperation in the morning. Sorry , even with FL and MI she still loses.

I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.

by TheFullBerry on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:17:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They sure will (2.00 / 1)

As I understand it Obama does not have the power to block the revotes. As the frontrunner he clearly has more to lose and less to gain than Clinton does from having an actual primary in each of those states but he has said he will abide by the decision of the DNC. He is not blocking but he is not going out of his way to get a primary in Michigan and Florida, the same way that Clinton would if she was in the lead. There is nothing sinister in his position on this. Those state parties chose to disobey the national party and hold unauthorized primaries. This is not Obama's fault. But as I said, there is currently nothing to count.

by wasder on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They sure will (none / 0)

Is this you?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/18 4931.php

http://www.yawnmccain.com

by enozinho on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:01:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Awesome diary Jerome! (none / 0)

If they are counted as is it is a net gain of 121 pledged delegates.

If we were to assume a 60/40 split then it is a net gain of 63 pledged delegates.

by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It should never have gotten to this point (none / 0)

Why Howard Dean thought he could "play uncle" with the citizens of Florida, is beyond me. There are times when drawing a hard and fast line in the sand serves no one - anyone could have anticipated that it would come to this, therefore it was something to be avoided. And sometimes, you have to lose a battle to win a war.

by Larissa on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:55:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 2)

Its funny how when Clinton was the presumptive (and entitled) nominee she held double digit (often in the 20s!) leads across the US. It would be great to see a comparison of 2007 polls and the results now. Point is, Obama has not even started campaigning and I cant think of a SINGLE instance where HRC campaigning has given strengthened her earlier polling...In places where she won (14 states) I believe she was WAY out ahead in all of these (if I am wrong, correct me...I am spitballing a little I admit). In the states that Obama won, he had to come from behind.

Obama is ON MESSAGE right now and his rallies (a la Oregon) are back on track. By the way - HE WILL BEAT CLINTON BY DOUBLE DIGITS IN OR and NC, that is a promise.

This post is just a little silly and doesnt really take into consideration the way the primary has progressed.

Obama is down now - a little - but with huge endorsements, campaigning, etc. I think we will see similar patterns. He - of course - will not win 10/10 but I think it will be a split or better. We will see.

Finally - can someone explain PR to me, why is it acknowledged (by everyone it seems, even Obama supporters) that PR will go to HRC? Just wondering.

We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)

by Newcomer on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:51:32 PM EST

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

Because people are silly, and they think "HRC does well with Hispanics. PR is inhabited by Hispanics. Therefore HRC will do well in PR."

They forget that Hispanics aren't 1 group of people. Puerto Ricans are concerned with different issues than Mexican Americans. To lump them together is ignorant. e.g. PR is concerned with becoming a state or not becoming a state. They aren't concerned about a border fence and illegal immigration.

Also, the Governor of PR has endorsed Obama. So he has institutional support there.

John McCain believes "Women shouldn't have a choice."

by jturn17 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Because Bill Clinton Pardoned PR Terrorists (none / 0)

They don't talk about that, but clinton pardoned a bunch of Puerto Rican terrorists. That would come up in the GE.

by bernardpliers on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:39:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (2.00 / 1)

It's premature for either side to be calling for the other to step down.. which has been happening a lot. Even before the Wright controversy, some Clinton supporters gleefully pointed to one thing or another to demand that he step down.

To bolster these ridiculous demands from both sides, many commonly say "they won't get my vote and this many other people I spoke to say the same!" It's childish, it's like saying "if I can't have the last cookie I'll stomp on the last cookie! Wah."

Can't we Democrats agree and disagree in a respectful manner?

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

Be fair. Clinton supporters only demanded he step down after the Obama team led a massive she needs to stop democracy be damned we shouldn't have to count the votes. History will not be kind to the Obama campaign on so many issues.

by DTaylor on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

Really, did Obama's camp call one of Hillary's endorsees "Judas" too?

by chewie5656 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:23:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the numbers (none / 0)

I wish we could. As a young voter who WAS proud to be a Democrat, I wish this whole mess hasn't started. I was so excited about the prospect of a woman and AA running for presidents before the fighting happened, but was cruelly disappointed by the conduct from Obama's camp--race baiting, plagiarism, calling voters "Archie Bunkers," insulting Hillary Clinton in so many ways...

For me, it's not about getting the last cookie. It's about voting for someone who has the strength, leadership, experience, and integrity to be commander-in-chief. What I see in Obama is the ability to make a good speech, but that's it. With the way the Obama camp has been acting even before he has any certainty of becoming the nominee, much less the president, I believe it will be the downfall of the Democratic party if he does become president. This is not to mention the rookie mistakes that will very likely happen. Therefore I cannot afford to vote with my party for the good of the party and the country.

by sarang on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:39:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't even go there... (2.00 / 4)

Comparing this to what happened in Florida in 00 is inaccurate and offensive.

Check out McCain.

by you like it on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 12:53:22 PM EST

Re: Don't even go there... (2.00 / 1)

Why in 2000, almost all the votes in Florida were counted. This time Obama is trying to throw out all the votes. I think it's much worse.

I don't think she should be bullied by anyone to back down. It is an equal rights issue, whether you want to see it that way or not.

by MediaFreeze on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting framing you have there (none / 0)

The rules that both candidates agreed to were that Florida and Michigan would not count. Obama is not trying to throw out the votes. All the candidates agreed to do that beforehand. Its not fair to pin this result entirely on Obama.

Its also ironic that you bring up equal rights since that was the justification the Sup. Court used to stop the Florida recount. I guess the meaning of equal rights can be twisted to give you whatever result that you want.

Check out McCain.

by you like it on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 01:56:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting framing you have there (none / 0)

America is a democracy. Those are the only rules I agreed with. 1 vote 1 person. Obama wants to go back to fractional votes for those who can't spend as much time caucusing (Texas and Washinton state) or complete non-democracy in Florida and Michigan.

by DTaylor on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:09:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL. (none / 0)

What are you talking about? English please? Thank you for your time.

I support our nominee President Barack Obama - and the Admins can't stand me, so I can't rec or rate. This is very mean if you were to ask me.

by TheFullBerry on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting framing you have there (2.00 / 1)

This is like those people who shout "first amendment" when they're kicked out of a restaurant for making a scene.

THIS IS A PARTY NOMINATING PROCEDURE. It's rules are different than a federal election -- that is, each party makes its own rules. The DNC made the rules that Florida and Michigan broke. The punishment was stripping them of their delegates. Rather than go back to their later days (which ironically would have made them count all the more...) the primaries went on.

The candidates agreed not to campaign or promote these primaries. They gave their words to the Dem. voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc and to the DNC and to all Democrats.

Just because you need the votes doesn't change the rules. Obama is no more wrong to oppose a re-vote than Hillary is to make sure superdels stay independent.

Would-be leaders should be kept to their word. We've had 8 years of lying, and frankly a little too much lying during the previous 8 years.

And comparing this to Bush in 2000? Ridiculous. Bush was trying to circumvent the rules that allowed Gore recourse to make sure the votes counted. The rules were dodged, the court overturned the state supremes.

In this case, counting the votes that the rules say should not count would be circumventing the rules.

The comparison isn't in whether or not votes are counted, the comparison is whether or not candidates follow the rules. In that case, Clinton -- not Obama -- is the Bush.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Candidates Agreed They Wouldnt Count? (none / 0)

I believe you are wrong on this.

The rules that both candidates agreed to were that Florida and Michigan would not count.

The candidates agreed not to campaign in those states. Please provide support for your contention that they agreed Florida and Michigan would not count.

And by "support" I mean a valid link to a reliable source...not your own personal interpretation of what the agreement meant.

by creeper1014 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:50:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Candidates Agreed They Wouldnt Count? (none / 0)

They agreed not to campaign or participate in those states. That was the pledge they signed.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/08/31/letter_to_candidates.html

Can someone win delegates if they don't participate in the process of their selection? Maybe, but that's a pretty bizarre interpretation. That's like saying that someone can win an Olympic medal even if they don't participate in the Olympics. Pretty silly.

Check out McCain.

by you like it on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:04:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Candidates Agreed They Wouldnt Count? (2.00 / 1)

The question now is not what Obama or Clinton get out of it, but what the Democrats of those states get out of it. Your Olympics analogy is flawed in that it assumes that this is a personal contest between the two of them. This is an exercise to determine who the voters want. Ignoring the voters from two states is not the way to determine that.

As for the rules, they outline several methods for letting these delegates be seated at the convention, and they do not in any way require these states' delegates to be banned. They have clauses that anticipate some number of the delegates being seated.

One in particular stipulates that the candidates cannot campaign in the states (though they can raise money) or they lose delegates from those states. Since Obama broke the rules for campaigning in Florida, are his supporters here willing to admit that (by the rules) he should get NO delegates from Florida if any are reinstated through other rules?

My theory is that the Obama downward spiral will continue, Hillary will get a big boost in PA along with strong showings (if not outright wins) in NC and IN. Supers from MI and FL will get seated (following other rules) and will join the chorus for seating the rest of those delegates from those states. Hillary will be high enough in pledged delegates that enough supers will be able to support her to push her over the top without looking like any kind of back room deal or major shifts have occurred. There will be no floor fight, no drama, and no math difficulties. Obama's campaign will end not with a bang, but a whimper. Obama will get to make a speech at the convention, and it will be widely hailed as fantastic and inspiring.

That's my theory, at least.

by ricosuave on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 04:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What the voters want... (none / 0)

How do the faux-primaries demonstrate what the voters want? My state had two candidates on the ballot. One of them, Dodd, had already suspended his campaign. That is not a fair contest.

If one does not participate in a contest, one does not reap the benefits from that contest. That is simple logic.

Both the letter and the spirit of the pledge that the candidates agreed to pointed toward neither of those contests counting.

You are certainly entitled to have any theory you like about what will happen.