MyDD :: Obama steals NV, TX, MO

Obama steals NV, TX, MO

by Sieglinde, Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:18:59 PM EST

Spin cycle: take a look at the map of Obama wins in his campaign website. You'll see that rising "O" symbol stamped like cattle brand on those states that Obama allegedly won, bathing them in the kind of celestial light normally reserved for depictions of holy images and saints.

According to that map (look for it in the BO.com website), he won 27 out of 41 states, including Texas, Nevada and Missouri. But just like the foundation of his candidacy, this is one big, fat lie.

MR. OBAMA, YOU DID NOT WIN TEXAS. You lost the popular vote. Nevermind that you're walking away with more delegates. You got more delegates because of those caucuses, which are fundamentally undemocratic. We don't want to hear that kind of talk, after we Democrats suffered through the same judgment in 2000, when our candidate Gore won the national popular vote but Renquist and Scalia stole it for Bush. The will of the popular vote must be upheld.

MR. OBAMA, YOU DID NOT WIN NEVADA. Like Texas, you lost the popular vote. You may have walked away with one more delegate, but a majority of Nevadans chose Hillary Clinton to be the next president over you. This is indisputable.

But you seem to love that pledged delegate argument in pushing the fairy tale that you won both Texas and Nevada. If this is so, then you should be consistent with MISSOURI. While you won the popular vote count by the tiniest margin (1%) in that state, both Hillary and you walked away with the same number of 36 pledged delegates. By this count, and by your perverted measure of victory, you didn't win Missouri. You tied Hillary in pledged delegates.

Stop the fuzzy math.

The press is also noticing this fantastic claim:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/obama-website-c.html

Is this how Obama will win our nomination? By claiming fake victories, and fudging the math?

Tags: primary, Obama, Texas, Nevada, Missouri (all tags)

Permalink :: 74 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 1)

It seems to me that if winning the nomination means winning the most delegates than winning a state would also mean winning the most delegates.

by WellstoneDem on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:23:16 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

So he didn't win Missouri then.

Why's he claiming a victory there?

by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:25:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For the same reason that Clinton (none / 0)

claims a victory in New Hampshire.

As I see it, the popular vote acts as a tiebreaker if the delegate count is tied.

John McCain

by MILiberal on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For the same reason that Clinton (2.00 / 1)

Clinton only claims victory where she wins the popular vote. This is a distinction.

by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:46:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama never claimed a tie in NH (none / 0)

He acknowledged that Clinton won there.

John McCain

by MILiberal on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:47:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

He is trying to keep everyone's hopes up.

by JustJennifer on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:27:58 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

I'm a pretty strong Obama supporter, and I'm sure this would upset me if Clinton did the same thing. Is it diary-worthy? I have a harder time seeing myself going that far, but then, I might have a different view of how often diaries should be written.

by dan s on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:31:23 PM EST

we have to let hillary's supporters blow up steam (none / 0)

losing sucks. think about how you felt in 2004. that's what hillary's supporters are going through now. hillary spins the narrative to her benefit, john mccain does, as well -- no one who's honest with themselves can be surprised that barack does it, too. once again, hillary's supporters -- who undoubtedly believed the "she's inevitable" meme, need to go through the anger and grief periods before they can accept barack as the eventual nominee. please be patient with them; we will want their support in the fall...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Never (none / 0)

He will NEVER have mine. N...E...V...E...R. I spelled it slowly so you get it and stop your patronizing snide comments about we'll come around ad you'll need us! Ain't gonna happen with my vote. You BO thugs hav successfully alienated thousands of democratic voters. WAY TO GO!

Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"

by JHL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

republicans will be glad to have you... (none / 0)

and i'm sure you'll feel better. B. E. T. T. E. R...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:00:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: republicans will be glad to have you... (2.00 / 1)

that's a way to earn friends and influence people. You BO maniacs are unbelievable... You all actually remind me of the BUSH Jr. Admin... no dissenting voices, no dsagreement, just straight LOYALTY at any cost. I will refrain from typing a flip off of you in other language, but... take your toys and go home!

Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"

by JHL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

look... (none / 0)

the reality is that some of hillary's supporters here are conservative democrats (perhaps even republicans) and pro-war democrats. if it hadn't occurred to you that not all of the ardent supporters of one candidate won't support the other, now it has. so your declaration of non-support deserves the reaction it got. so what? oh, well. this is the big leagues, and no one is irreplaceable. i have no idea how to placate someone who imagines their support is absolutely vital to a president's election...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:37:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: look... (2.00 / 1)

I do not believe that my 1 vote is "so vital" to the election. However, BO lost my vote long before all th recent spin crap and his uniter and bring everybody together mantra began to crumble. That just reinforced my own decision about which candidate I would vote for in the upcoming PA primary. BO, his arrogance, childishness, lack of any coherent ability to speak for himself instead of using Patrick's speeches, inability to NOT fumble all over himself when he's not reading from a teleprompter, and talking out of both sides of his mouth---uniter---I'm going negative--bring a change in the tone to DC nonsense, lost me when he snidley declared that he could get Hillary's votes but she could not get his. So much for his BS rhetoric. He's no different that the suits who have been grooming him... Bill Bradley (who I used to admire and once considered voting for), Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and Ted (I got away with vehicular homicide to be a "distinguished" Senator for my career" Kennedy. What do these suits have in common? They are ALL losers in the BIG dance. Out of the bunch only Kerry even got beyond the primary to be the Dem nominee. And tell me... where are Bradley and Daschle today? And how did Kerry and Kennedy make themselves visible from obscurity? Propping up an empty suit who has yet to demonstrate he is ready to take on the job of CIC and President of the United States. End of story. He lost me at "arrogance avenue."

Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"

by JHL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:04:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Never (none / 0)

why not? do you care to explain why McCain is better than Obama?

by marcotom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:05:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Never (none / 0)

as this primary campaign has unfolded I see equally distasteful options in both of them. McCains are obvious. BO's have come to light every day. He is rrogant, a lier, cocky, does NOT handle pressure or critism well, is underqualified, speaks of nothing substantial, a is way over his head. I wouldn't want a democratic president in th WH who is looking to appoint LUGER and HAGEL in an administration! Get real!

Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"

by JHL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:10:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Never (1.00 / 0)

liar? That is a strong charge and one you cannot substantiate. The rest are more or less Clinton talking points, mostly the "speaks of nothing substantial" is clearly wrong and has been proven so many times. Hence, there is still hope you will see that once you take your primary glasses off.

by marcotom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:25:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Never (2.00 / 1)

NAFTA. Talking out of both sides of his mouth on Iraq... can't speak off teleprompter. Now I'm going to say it... Flip off and take your moronic, immature comments with you. Go troll somewhere else.

Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"

by JHL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Never (none / 0)

JHL,

could you explain to me, with links and evidence, just when and how Obama has lied:

--on NAFTA (taking into consideration the most recent reports);

--Iraq;

--teleprompters (oh, that's right, using a teleprompter isn't lying).

Please, I want to know. Give me one solid, verifiable instance of Obama lying.

Here, I'll help you out. Today, when discussing the remarks of an Obama surrogate on Iraq, Senator Clinton said: "This is the latest example of promising the American people one thing on the campaign trail and telling people in other countries another. We saw this with NAFTA as well." http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/pol itics/blog/2008/03/clinton_takes_on_obam a_on_sama.html

But the facts show that no such thing happened with NAFTA. The story has been continually debunked and, as everybody here knows, redirected towards Clinton (too bad the media hates her so much and is running with this story 24/7).

Clinton KNOWS the NAFTA story is false, but she continues to run with it. Why?

Why is she lying?

Come on surrogates, answer the question. Why is she lying?

by vadasz on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

But I thought he was going to change the way things are done in Washington. Catch a train to reality people. He is a snake oil salesman and you are all in line to buy it. Sad, very sad.

Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime

by gunner on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Oh, come on. Do you say the general election is unfair because they use the electoral college instead of the popular vote?

The media causes this problem by reporting who won by the popular when the win is always based on delegates, similar to the general election. I think they do it because they want to get the results out faster and popular vote is more quickly available. But it's irrelevant except for determining the delegates. In the US we don't go by popular vote. For a long time I've thought the media has confused the public by doing that. Then the public is all confused when the other one got the delegates so is ahead. The winner really is reported incorrectly.

The system has been this way for a long time. Maybe you're new to politics.

by Becky G on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:32:38 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 1)

What about Missouri? Don't you understand that a tie is not a victory?

Maybe you're new to the real world.

by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:34:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

there, there... (none / 0)

i feel your loss...

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 1)

"Oh, come on. Do you say the general election is unfair because they use the electoral college instead of the popular vote?"

Yes, I do say that. But what's more important, using the popular vote in each state for the primaries is a much more realistic representation of what would happen in the general election. In the general election, where the states are winner-take-all, Obama's victories in red state primaries won't mean much and his losses in the big key democratic-leaning states will be deadly.

If the Dems pick Ob based on these primaries, they'll be in for a shock in November.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:45:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 1)

Sounds like sour grapes from a campaign who has run under a failed strategy - that of targeting delegate rich primaries, and ignoring caucuses.

It's not Obama's fault that Hillary's ground game is so abysmal.

by goodnbad on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:34:13 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 2)

What about Missouri? Don't you understand that a tie is not a victory?

Maybe you're new to the real world.

by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:34:37 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 1)

In the real world, we have things called rules for elections.

These rules are set out in advance so that all parties can use those rules to design their strategies to win.

Seems to me that in the real world, Clinton proceeded under a failed strategy.

by goodnbad on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

please explain when hillary has had to play... (1.00 / 2)

by the rules. why on earth would you imagine she would start now?

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:39:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

OK, so why is Obama telling the superdelegates to go to the winner of the pledged delegates tally?

Is that part of the rules? If Hillary gets more superdelegates and therefore the nomination, regardless of the pledged delegates tally, is that fair under the rules?

You scream "RULES RULES RULES" when it benefits you, but then once the superdelegates flock to Hillary after anticipated wins in Pennsylvania and Kentucky and Indiana and West Virginia, then what would you say? The superdelegates are free to choose whichever side-- there's no rule about that.

by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:41:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 0)

He hasn't TOLD the SuperDelegates to do anything.

You know, I hear this statement alot from Clinton supporters, this "Obama is TELLING the SuperDelegates to vote using X, Y, or Z".

It seems to me that there is an inability on the part of Clinton supporters to see that there are TWO issues at hand.

1) SuperDelegates can vote in any way they want, using any method or reasoning that they so choose. That is the rule. They are not, by rule, obligated to vote any certain way. Obama supporters understand this, and we accept this.

2) However, we believe that there are certain factors that SuperDelegates should CONSIDER when deciding how they exercise their completely discretionary vote. We don't feel that they should throw darts at a board. We don't feel that they should pick the candidate who's name they think sounds the coolest. We feel that they should vote along more rational lines, say - who won the pledged delegate tally.

Nobody is seeking to change the RULES, to FORCE superdelegates to vote any particular way. Do you now see the difference?

by goodnbad on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:08:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 2)

Right, they should consider factors that Obama dictates ... otherwise, there shall be consequences. Isn't that his campaign's threat? That there will be legitimacy questions, if Obama doesn't win the superdelegate contest?

You're right that Obama doesn't dictate how they should vote ... he just threatens the legitimacy of the process if it doesn't turn out in his favor.

by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:37:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

There WILL be legitimacy questions. The effective result will be that tens of millions of people will have voted and then a few hundred "special" people will reverse that result. Pretty illegitimate looking.

Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."

by brimur on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (1.75 / 4)

what train. BHO does not play by the rules. He says that SD should listen to the districts - fair enough - Why cant he say that to his SD's- Kerry, Kennedy, Patrick ( his co-chair), Janet Napolitano ( I am just giving some of BHO high profile endorsements) to switch to HRC.

Maybe he needs to say that he spin the democrat abroad and say he won the whole world.

by indus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:37:26 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 2)

They gave up on that tactic quickly, not because it was democratic, as it actually was (moreso than what status they have now), but because they quickly realized that if SD's voted the way the people in their states did, Clinton would easily win the majority.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:42:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

You sure are bad at reading minds.

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

by 1jpb on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:49:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 0)

Not correct on two counts:

1) Add up the numbers. A known associate of yours (kos) has: 330-325 Clinton for states that have already held their contests. And this is with Texas, New Hampshire, and Nevada in Sen. Clinton's column. While she wins the SDs that way, this margin is less than her current 45ish SD lead.

2) A bit obscure, but 76 of the superdelegates are Unpledged Add-on Delegates (UADs). These AUDs, for the most part, are going to vote for the winner of their state's primary/caucus. Because of the states' weightings, this system (dating to 1988) slightly favors Sen. Obama. I'm guessing he nets about 10 SDs from this. (For a great, wonkish read on AUDs, see FlyOnTheWall's post on TPM Cafe.)

Result: state-by-state allocation of SDs is a roughly 50/50 split, and, given the pledged delegate situation, would be decidedly good for Sen. Obama.

Not that I mind much -- Democrats are building a wave that will crush the GOP in November (assuming Obama & Clinton don't tear each other down too much).

by Twin Planets on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:21:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

FL & MI.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really (2.00 / 0)

Did you know that if you count all the straw polls, RON PAUL IS THE FRONTRUNNER FOR THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY IN THE WORLD IS THE MEDIA NOT REPORTING THIS SUPER-IMPORTANT STORY?!?!?!?!

John McCain

by MILiberal on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Seems like a different issue to me, although admittedly both states have SDs.

Just curious -- are you in favor of revotes, Jerome? (Personally, I'd be OK w/ caucus or primary in MI. Undecided on FL, which seemed more "democratic", whatever that means in this primary/caucus season!)

by Twin Planets on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

That's not even true. Of the states that have voted so far, if the super delegates had voted for the popular vote winner, Clinton would only be up 5 SDs, 330 to Obama's 325. Yes, she would have the majority as you said, but not "easily," as you also said. Besides, Obama had a legitimate chance at Texas, so he could have actually come out ahead on the whole "super delegates follow the will of the voters" thing.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3 /7/0190/93691/842/471056

So basically, you have no idea what you're talking about and are just making things up to conform with your anti-Obama bias. You see everything he says or does in the worst possible light.

by bmk589 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

The tally is inaccurate.

Some DC and VA superdelegates live in those states because of their work in the national party. They don't really represent those districts the way, say, Barbra Boxer represents California.

For instance, why would Donna Brazile care about how VA or DC voted (wherever she lives, I don't know) when she casts her vote as a superdelegate?

This is a made-up calculation. Not accurate at all.

by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:58:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

I agree, the rules allow the super delegates to vote however they wish, using whatever criteria they wish. I don't think anyone is trying to change the rules to mandate that super delegates vote with their state. I think the point is that the super delegates should include whoever won their state as one of the criteria in making their decision, not the sole criteria. If they determine other factors outweigh that, fine.

But the tallies are not technically inaccurate. Demconwatch has Donna Brazile as an at-large super delegate from DC. So if someone is, in fact, arguing that super delegates should vote with their state, then when doing hypothetical tallies, Donna Brazile's vote should be included with the rest from DC.

by bmk589 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:17:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

That's not even true! Have you ever done the math? Kos did the math today and came up with a very different result - I hate to say it, but it's all rhethoric, no substance coming from you.

by marcotom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:01:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 1)

Yep, it's dishonest. He claims to have won Nevada and Texas while losing the popular vote but getting more delegates, and claims at the same time to have won Missouri while getting fewer delegates but winning (barely) the popular vote. Does that make you dizzy?

It reminds me of his interview with Politico where he said we should not count Florida because counting their 1.7 million votes would break the rules, and a minute later saying that we should break the rules and not count the superdelegates because that would be undemocratic.

The guy is a piece of work. And now that I've seen his new ad, where he has people religiously singing his name, I really think they've all drunk the Kook-Aid. He's in it for personal power, at any cost.

by PlainWords on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:39:10 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Now you can really feel for Al Gore.

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

by 1jpb on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:41:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Sounds like politics as usual to me. The BO fans are just afraid to admit that they have been hoodwinked. Sooner or later they will see the light. I noticed some of them over at Dailykos are getting quite depressed about their guy.

Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime

by gunner on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:58:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

I sometimes wonder how people could hate Obama so much, he really doesn't give you much reason for it. People are singing Clinton's name too, HILLARY, HILLARY, HILLARY! That does not seem to register in your biased mind.

Your facts are also wrong, you might like it or not, but his map is consistent. Popular vote breaks the delegate tie - thus NH goes Clinton and Missouri goes Obama.

by marcotom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

You do know that Bill Clinton wrote the rules for the Texas Caucus, don't you?

by interestedbystander on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:24:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Is that really true? I know he worked for McGovern in the general election in Texas, but I'd love to see evidence that he wrote the rules. (Btw, I'm an ardent Obama supporter, just interested in fair information)

Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."

by brimur on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama lies (2.00 / 1)

Obama Lies. He lied about NAFTA, now he is spinning false story about Hillary and NAFTA. He lies about his victories. He lies about his positions. He lies about Iraq.

by moi moi on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:39:50 PM EST

Re: Obama lies (none / 0)

Evidence, please.

What lie did he tell about NAFTA?

What lies has he told about his positions?

Please post links.

by vadasz on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 3)

What about NH?

Obama got more delegates there too, do they feel that is just too shameful given how they lost there?

Anyway, this is the sort of thing that hurts them more in the long run, as it undermines their whole premise that process means more than people do.

Obama: I won the process.
Clinton: I won the most votes.

The latter will hold much more sway with the SD's.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:39:51 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 0)

Funny, it doesn't seem to be swaying them right now; what exactly is it you think they are all waiting for?

Clinton has not won the most votes, btw, and you know it; Obama is currently in the lead.

by Cycloptichorn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 1)

But this popular vote tally may shift to Hillary's favor after PA, IN, KY, WV, and PR.

Let's wait for the final tally. I have a feeling Hillary will come out with the majority.

by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:47:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Odd, you left NC and OR and MS and WY off of that list; all places where Obama should win.

by Cycloptichorn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:40:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Obviously I only listed the states that Hillary will win. And their total population is more than the states I left off the list.

Moreover, it's looking more and more like FL and MI are going to have a chance for a re-vote.

FL in particular should secure Hillary's lead in the popular vote, after all is said and done.

by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:44:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

I'm sure you believe that the HRC campaign using the Michigan votes in their total is really an upright strategy for calculating votes.

That's sad.

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

by 1jpb on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:44:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Right, I left out New Hampshire, from which both got 9 pledged delegates each.

New Hampshire is also included in Obama's tally. The state is also bathed in the celestial light, presumably coming from the holiness of St. Obama.

by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wrong... (none / 0)

you have mistaken vermont for new hampshire.

"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton

by bored now on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:08:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Obama didn't win "the process." He won the delegates who will nominate him.

by Drummond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:08:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 0)

Why the bitterness?

by howardpark on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:08:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

As Al Gore will tell you, the popular vote isn't how you become 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 Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:40:32 PM EST

Obama WON NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 0)

To quote Penn himself, "this race is about delegates". This is the standard set by the Clinton campaign right after Iowa.

The only tie breaker if both get the same number of delegates would be the popular vote.

Obama thus won both Nevada and Texas. Obama further wins MO in a tie breaker and Clinton wins NH in a tie breaker.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

by Walt Starr on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:40:55 PM EST

Re: Obama WON NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Walt,

thank you.

I know Hillary's supporters want to find reasons to stay encouraged, but . . .

Obama leads in the popular vote;

Obama leads in the pledged delegate vote;

Obama leads in the overall delegate vote;

Obama leads in the number of states vote.

And Hillary has no chance of catching up in any of those categories.

So by what reasoning can it be said that more people want her than want him?

None is the answer. None is the reasoning, and none is the number.

Understand this fanatics, we don't want Hillary.

by vadasz on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:56:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama WON NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

With wins in PA, IN, KY, WV, and PR, and with the increased chances of a re-vote in FL and MI, then there's a possibility that she'll at least catch up in the popular vote.

by Sieglinde on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 08:53:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 0)

Hearing HRC people complaining about how politics is mean and doesn't seem fair is priceless.

Thank you for this diary.

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

by 1jpb on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:47:31 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (2.00 / 1)

There's no such thing as 'winning a state' in the democratic primary. It is a false construction with no value whatsoever, except in states that apportion a few delegates to a candidate who wins the popular vote.

The Democratic nominee is the candidate that gets the most delegates (as long as it's 2025 or more) at the Democratic convention. Get that? DELEGATES.

The popular vote might have some objective meaning, and superdelegates have every right to consider the popular vote (which Obama also leads) along with anything else in making their decision -- but strictly speaking, in the race for the Democratic nomination, States don't count, and the popular vote doesn't count. DELEGATES count.

And by that measure, if Obama wants to say that he 'won' a state because he won more delegates, despite the fact that the very concept of 'winning a state' is fallacious, he has a better case than Hillary if he won more delegates in that state.

John McCain the flip-flopper...

by chinapaulo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:53:50 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

MR. OBAMA, YOU DID NOT WIN TEXAS. You lost the popular vote. Nevermind that you're walking away with more delegates.

And nevermind that Bush walked away with the presidency in 2000. Heh!

by Drummond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:07:07 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Spin cycle: take a look at the map of Obama wins in his campaign website. You'll see that rising "O" symbol stamped like cattle brand on those states that Obama allegedly won, bathing them in the kind of celestial light normally reserved for depictions of holy images and saints.

Well, what do you expect? Isn't that exactly the way "The One's" website should look? That web layout is designed to give you Tingly Leg Syndrome. The first and most notable sufferer of this disorder, of course, was Chris "I'm a massive douchebag with a lame, embarrassing mancrush" Matthews. Scientists are working on a medicinal cure, but the only thing that seems to work so far is a sound smack in the face and a heavy dose of reality (both hard to come by at a typical Obama rally).

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:19:51 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Who gets to decide what it means to win a state?

by mattw on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:56:15 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

Here's a very telling description from someone who was at a Texas caucus. I hope Obama does keep touting the delegates he's won at caucuses. Eventually it will be clear to everyone just what that means about his campaign and his supporters. Texas and Washington state are excellent controlled experiments in fairness and representative voting.

http://messengerm.blogspot.com/

On to the Convention Floor!

by oh puhleeze on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:01:16 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

I just find it funny that Obama supporters say the "will of the people" is what matters, yet when Clinton gets the most popular votes, its useless because Obama got more delegates in NV and TX. Hypocrisy at its best.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:05:15 PM EST

What? (none / 0)

I too prefer primaries to caucuses, but I fail to see how playing by the given rules, established by the state parties and legislatures and overseen in part by the DNC is "stealing" a state. From where I sit is looks like an intelligent and strategic examination of the rules as they are and then proceeding to maximize your advantages in a manner consistent with those rules.

Daley stole elections in Chicago and it is now clear that LBJ stole his election to the senate in 1948. That is stealing. Winning caucuses may be undemocratic but it is not stealing.

Your title is refuted in part by your own post; you conclude Obama won the popular vote in the Missouri primary and they received the same number of delegates. How again is that a theft? Your logic earlier is that if delegate counts do not accord to popular will then it is stealing.

I love how Tapper's blog is "the press".

"We live entangled in webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC

by Trond Jacobsen on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:20:37 PM EST

So Hillary can nto even win a caucus. (none / 0)

How sad.

-- be excellent to each other

by kindthoughts on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:00:42 PM EST

Re: Obama steals NV, TX, MO (none / 0)

So what actually constitutes a "win" in a party's nomination process? When this process began, I saw the MSM awarding "wins" to each candidate and thought to myself, "wtf?". Is the primary run like an electoral college with the winner taking all the delegates if he/she won the popular vote?

I knew this was not the case so again, "wtf?" I quickly realized that this was simply the MSM's method of creating an exciting contest to keep us glued to our what? TV sets?

It so much easier to assign "wins" and "losses" than to say "okay, the Virginia vote has been completed. Sen. Obama ended up with X votes and Y delegates while Sen. Clinton finished the night with B votes and C delegates." yawn

You can see why this happens? The reality is that the number of delegates assigned is the determining factor here. But, as shoved down our throats by the MSM, the winner of the popular vote is deemed to have "won" the state.

Regarding the content of your diary...you sound like a whiny mid-schooler with a serious axe to grind.

Is it Obama's fault how the delegates are divied up? What would you, as a candidate prefer in this system, winning the popular vote or winning more delegates?

Regarding Obama's states map of wins/losses...don't you have some more important to obsess over?

by desertjedi on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:21:58 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.