MyDD :: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem

by Jerome Armstrong, Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:07:07 PM EST

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)

Permalink :: 121 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:11:07 PM EST

Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem (none / 0)

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

by bruh21 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:17:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC's defnately (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC's defnately (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:39:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC's defnately (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:40:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC's defnately (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC's defnately (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:52:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC's defnately (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:57:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC's defnately (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:08:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC's defnately (none / 0)

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

by bruh21 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC's defnately (none / 0)

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

by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:13:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC's defnately (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:15:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HRC's defnately (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I LOVE that Jerome predicts Hillary landslide (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:28:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:30:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem (none / 0)

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

by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:41:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:59:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's like you can't find the point of an article (2.00 / 1)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:11:24 PM EST

Re: WISE UP (none / 0)

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!

Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome

by kasjogren on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well argued (none / 0)

by responsible on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:36:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

From your rules and guidelines (2.00 / 1)

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.

John McCain

by MILiberal on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:11:42 PM EST

Yea I got warned for calling (none / 0)

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

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:17:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From your rules and guidelines (none / 0)

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

by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 10:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton's demogoguery has ruined her for the GE (none / 0)

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!

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:12:04 PM EST

Come On Now... (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come On Now... (none / 0)

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]."

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:29:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come On Now... (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come On Now... (none / 0)

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.

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come On Now... (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come On Now... (none / 0)

time heals all wounds.

And, I wrote a longer comment further down.

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:48:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come On Now... (none / 0)

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.

Zionism is Bullshit

by moonheart on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come On Now... (none / 0)

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

by HSTruman on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 07:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come On Now... (none / 0)

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. :-)~

Zionism is Bullshit

by moonheart on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 08:09:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come On Now... (none / 0)

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.

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:45:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come On Now... (none / 0)

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!

Zionism is Bullshit

by moonheart on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its not hyperbole - its how I feel (none / 0)

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.

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Its not hyperbole - its how I feel (none / 0)

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 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I really don't see much difference (none / 0)

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.

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:56:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really don't see much difference (none / 0)

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 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:06:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's demogoguery has ruined her for the G (none / 0)

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.

Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome

by kasjogren on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary has lied repeatedly and openly (none / 0)

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

Listening comes first

by Moonwood on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The leader in pledged delegates will be the nomine (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:13:20 PM EST

Re: The leader in pledged delegates will be the no (none / 0)

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!

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:19:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem (none / 0)

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 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:14:51 PM EST

WOW (none / 0)

Jerome, I'm blown away!

by Zeitgeist9000 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:15:28 PM EST

Re: Jonathan Alter's lack of brain problem (none / 0)

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.

--1jphusseinb-- she's not a monster, as far as I know--diplomat Sinbad, making the world safe--all bluster, no cattle--

by 1jpb on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:15:55 PM EST

Jerome's argument (none / 0)

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

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

John McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy.

by recusancy on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 06:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]