Deal with defeat

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:05:25 AM EST

I'd humbly suggest, to all the Obama supporters that join us here on this blog, that if you can't stand the heat of the West Virginia primary, you stay out of the kitchen. While I'm at it, I also suggest that you refrain from accusations against West Virginians as being racist, or you'll join the other 6 previous users here, whose offensive comments were deleted on Friday, and that were themselves banned from the site. This is a political junkie website, we thrive on primary and election coverage. When Obama blew out Clinton in Wyoming, it was blogged excessively here, both in the run-up and the day of the event coverage, and it'll be the same way with West Virginia. You don't like that?  Fine, its a big wide blogosphere, go find a blog that has its head in the sand. Are the ground rules understood?

In WV, Clinton is blowing Obama away in numbers that she has not been seen since Super Tuesday. And while Obama supporters have claimed that the her voters will move over to support Obama in the GE, this poll doesn't quite show that happening in WV:

The MBE poll also looks ahead to the fall election against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain. Of the Democrats and independent voters surveyed, Clinton shows up better against McCain in West Virginia. 62% of Democrats and independents indicated they would vote for Clinton over 24% for McCain. In a head to head matchup between Obama and McCain in WV, Obama received 37% support compared to McCain's 35%.
And that's not even including the Republicans. If I could submit a question to Ted Kennedy, it'd be: "Why can't Barack Obama connect with the voters of West Virginia like JFK did?"

Seriously, why not? And as you can see from the poll numbers above, it has nothing to do with the adoration of Clinton that would turn over to Obama were he the nominee. And think about it, if your knee-jerk answer is that they are racist-- are you really saying something that you think Obama and his campaign can't say, or are you saying it because of anger and frustration?  Racism is ignorance, but unfounded accusations of racism are just as low on the scum-radar.

Obama will be making his only visit in the week leading up to the  primary, on Monday. Clinton's been there all week-- she's trying to run up the score.

The following week, Barack Obama has planned a party to claim the nomination in Portland, based on his own campaigns measurement. He can say whatever he wants, but it's an insult to intelligence to believe it until it happens by the rules. As Howard Dean has said many times, MI and FL are going to be resolved and seated. Obama has now agreed with that position. Like it or not, the working number of delegates is 2209. There's not a rule that says if you get a plurality of the pledged delegates, you win.

The Obama campaign will declare that there's never been a candidate denied the election who had the most pledged delegates. True. But has there been a candidate denied the nomination whose had the most votes?  I don't think so. But neither of those metrics matters. 2209, or whatever the number is after the resolution of MI and FL happens to be, is all that matters. Until then, we don't have a nominee.




Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 460 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 8)

Honest question Jerome: when you are talking about 'total votes', are you including MI (and not giving any Obama's uncommitted votes). Because if not, he's not going to lose 'total votes', and if so, well you've certainly lost my respect.


by gcensr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:10:02 AM EST

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 2)

There are a number of scenarios that have Hillary taking the popular vote.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horsera ceblog/2008/05/not_quite_yet_1.html


by slynch on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:26:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 3)

Good for her.  Unfortunately, while I respect that metric, it's not how we elect a nominee.


by reggie44pride on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:35:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 1)

We?  Who's we?  You mean I'm not included in the decision on how a candidate gets elected?


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:42:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 2)

Was there a primary or caucus in your state?

They you had as much a say as anyone. And no more than anyone else.


by BlueinColorado on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:46:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 2)

Do not confuse the person with a discussion about DNC rules.

As much as I think they are bullshit, and trust me, they are (c.f. delegates netted from Idaho versus PA or OH), it doesn't change the fact that Obama won by the rules.


by reggie44pride on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:53:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

won what? (2.00 / 1)

are you imaginging things?  He has not won and getting the most pledged delegates when you do not meet the number 2209 is not winning. Sorry about that.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:42:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your sig. it burns! (2.00 / 4)

Teresa, please do not expect any positive discussions about race/identity politics/anything with that sig.   It infects every thread its on.   It is what Jerome was admonishing us not to do about WV.  Please lose it.


by drowsy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:38:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yes, but he only admonishes (2.00 / 2)

Obama supporters who sow division (and they do need to be admonished.) The Clinton supporters are given free riegn for all but the most egregious offenses.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yes, but he only admonishes (2.00 / 1)

Try Dailykos, you may like it there.


by doyenne49 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: won what? (none / 0)

Actually, I believe the DNC has set a lower threshold because FL and MI are NOT included at the moment.  That may change pending decisions made at the end of this month.  I have also not heard Dean or anyone else for that matter state the the solution necessarily means that the delegate total needed for the nomination will be what it would have been had FL and MI not violated the rules (which were agreed to by all campaigns).


by marcirish on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:45:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: won what? (none / 0)

Actually, I believe the DNC has set a lower threshold because FL and MI are NOT included at the moment.  That may change pending decisions made at the end of this month.  I have also not heard Dean or anyone else for that matter state the the solution necessarily means that the delegate total needed for the nomination will be what it would have been had FL and MI not violated the rules (which were agreed to by all campaigns).


by marcirish on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:46:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

Winning is having 2209 delegates. There is no rule in the book that says winning is getting majority of the delegates.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:25:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is that number you have (2.00 / 2)

according to the current rules or the motorized goalposts?


by bookish on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:11:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

please go to kos (1.00 / 1)

with questions like "motorized goalposts".  trust us, they'll love you there.


by desert dawg on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 1)

Actually, you have it exactly wrong.

Winning is getting the majority of the delegates. 2209 is the number required to get the majority if MI and FL are seated fully and no new super delegates are created, and no super delegates lose their status (by death, leaving office, or being stripped of voting status by the Rules Committee).


by letterc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:22:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

Respectfully, FL and MI are not seated as yet.  We don't know what the outcome of the discussions will be in terms of how the delegates from these two states will be handled.  


by marcirish on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:52:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

I don't disagree. My point was that the comment I replied to claimed that the requirement for victory wasn't getting the simple majority of votes at the convention, it was getting a specific number of delegates, 2209. That claim is exactly backwards.

It is possible that the rules committee or the credentials committee, or a floor vote, will mean that FL and MI are seated in full. If so, then 2209 will be the simple majority required, but that number has no significance in the rules. If one of the super delegates steps down an hour before the vote, then the number required to get a simple majority will change.

My guess is that the eventual settlement looks like the one MI proposed, and involves seating a full delegation with full voting rights (but a rearranged delegate proportion), so the 2209 number is likely to be the simple majority required, but that wasn't what I was arguing with.


by letterc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 3)

WTF?  There are millions of voters still left to express THEIR opinions.  What's the problem with giving them the same right you and I had?

It might not change the eventual results, but it sure as hell would make them feel like they had a say in it.  Cut them off, make them feel like their votes are not appreciated or valued, and you've got a whole other issue ahead of you.

Just stupid.  What IS the problem with you guys wanting to deny the rest of the states to have their input in the process, especially since it is so close?

It's not like Hillary is trailing 30, 40, or 50% behind.  If she were, I'd say you have an argument.  But that's not the case.

Let the people vote, okay?  Isn't that what we're all about as Democrats in a Democracy?


It does not take many words to tell the truth Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
by Gabriele Droz on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:54:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 6)

NOBODY IS ADVOCATING ANYTHING THAT WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM VOTING!

Please say it with me............

Nobody is advocating anything that would prevent them from voting.

Some of us are saying that making a big deal out of the last six contests is a bit silly since, mathematically, Senator Obama would have to be hit by an asteroid to lose at this point.

Republican voters are still voting in their primaries.  Nobody cancelled THEIR primaries, and their contest has been a foregone conclusion for awhile.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:01:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 2)

Photobucket


I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson
by obamaovermccain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:08:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

He made a big deal of winnig those undemocratic, dienfranchising caucuses.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:30:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because that is how it works (2.00 / 1)

The Democratic Party selects its nominee based on the number of delegates won.   Ergo - winning delegates, by a caucus or a primary, brings a candidate closer to winning.


by Virginia Liberal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:29:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 2)

Funny. Hillary Clinton, nor her supporters, had any objection to caucuses till she started losing them. She proclaimed Iowa's status sacrosanct and spent.... how many millions? Mark Penn had a large food budget, IIRC...trying to win them.


by BlueinColorado on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:34:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Opposition to caucuses isn't related to Hillary... (none / 0)

Blanket statements like yours ("Hillary Clinton, nor her supporters, had any objection to caucuses till she started losing them.") are by definition wrong because you treat "supporters" as a monolithic block when in fact "supporters" in this case are millions of individuals Some of us (including non-Hillary supporters as well) have been opposed to caucuses for quite a while. In my case, my opposition goes back to the words of Howard Dean in a Canadian interview that was later dragged out to ambush him and cause him to pledge his fealty to the Iowa caucuses in order to remain viable as a candidate. What did Dean say in that 2000 interview? (Free link.) NY Times: 2000 Tape Shows Dean Maligning Iowa Caucuses
Four years ago, Howard Dean denounced the Iowa caucuses as ''dominated by special interests,'' saying on a Canadian television show that they ''don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people, they represent the extremes.'' ... ''Say I'm a guy who's got to work for a living, and I've got kids,'' he said on the show on Jan. 15, 2000. ''On a Saturday, is it easy for me to go cast a ballot and spend 15 minutes doing it, or do I have to sit in a caucus for eight hours?'' A moment later, he added, ''I can't stand there and listen to everyone else's opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world.''
For me, Dean had it right back then. And I bet my bottom dollar that Dean feels exactly the same way today. But it goes beyond just caucuses. It goes also to monstrosities like the Texas "primacaucus" hybrids where people who are able to take time out to turn up twice in the same day get their single person votes counted for 150 percent of the masses that turned out to vote in the primary. The best thing that the Democratic Party could do in the future would be to totally eliminate caucuses and help the states find a way to fund full day primaries with all the apparatus of the state's ability to run the coming general election behind them.
by Romberry on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:04:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Okay (none / 0)

The fact remains that Hillary Clinton never had a problem with caususes until she started losing them. and lets's be honest: Neither did the vast majority of her supporters on this site, including and especially the ones who are whining the loudest about them now.

It's one more rule change that she (and they) wants in order to win after the fact.


by BlueinColorado on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:47:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 1)

"He made a big deal of winnig those undemocratic, dienfranchising caucuses."

And well he should.  It's what will win him the nomination.  If Clinton could have done better there she wouldn't be staring defeat in the face a week from Tuesday.  


by Headlight on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

Yet Bill Clinton played by the exact same rules and won the nomination.  So don't give me the caucus nonsense.


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:49:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 5)

Please at least be honest enough to admit NOBODY is stopping anybody from voting in the remaining primaries.  But when the whole punditry class has realised this thing is over and have moved on to the next phase, there is not a damn thing you can do about it.  Clinton's only hope was the superdels, and they are flooding to Obama.  She tried hard to change the narrative - didn't work.  She'll get her blow out in WV - good for her, I mean that - it won't change a thing.


by interestedbystander on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:07:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (1.40 / 5)

Actually obama's campign is calling WV voters and telling them their votes do not count and they should stay home.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:32:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 3)

Prove your charge. Your record of accurate statements hasn't been too encouraging.


It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel
by Sumo Vita on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:30:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 1)

No they are not.


by interestedbystander on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:49:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 2)

WTF?  There are millions of voters still left to express THEIR opinions.  What's the problem with giving them the same right you and I had?

um..... you didn't mention "millions of voters still left". You specifically said I.

You mean I'm not included in the decision on how a candidate gets elected?

Interesting that you mention yourself when you're not editing your words, and then mention those millions of other voters you're Oh So Very Concerned about when the absurditity of your egocentric (me-centered) argument is pointed out.


by BlueinColorado on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:11:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

no, we elect them with pledged delegates and superdelegates.  Neither candidate will win with the pledged delegates.  Both will have to rely on the superdelegates.  The superdelegates may very well use the popular vote as a guide.  And, although they shift from person to person, they don't vote until the convention.


by slynch on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:18:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

listen Obamabuddy (none / 0)

neither is any spin put forth by Obama.  The super delegates will decide and they will take all kinds of things in to account, who has the most votes will be one of those things.
In fact the ONLY argument Obama will have is that he has more pledged delegates and that is not enough.
This idea that he is going to win any red states, particularly enough red states to make up for OH, Pa and FL, is just plain silly.
For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:39:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The only thing? (2.00 / 1)

Actually, I think Obama's larger grass roots organization and fundraising power is probably a really big (perhaps the biggest) factor.  If Clinton was really running away with it in the polls, She might have an argument for the SDs, but they both poll rather well, so I don't see the supers breaking her way and giving up Obama's ground machine / donor base.


by protothad on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh noes! (none / 0)

A loss of respect? From an anonymous nobody on a blog? Ouch! You really hurt him!


Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
by anna belle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:36:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Take WV and KY (2.00 / 3)

Obama is obviously going to lose there.  He will be lucky to get 30-40% in either state.

It DOES NOT MATTER.  After Oregon, he will still be ahead in pledged delegates, and the popular vote as tallied by adding the PV in ALL SANCTIONED CONTESTS.

This is over.  If Clinton somehow pulls off a coup by super delegates, we can kiss the white house and congressional majorities good bye for twenty to thirty years (if not longer)

After Oregon, Obama will be the presumptive nominee.  At that point, Jerome and everybody else had damn well better get on board.


She was against seating MI and FL before she was for it.
by lojasmo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Take WV and KY (none / 0)

damn well get on board!

lol, or else what?  you'll be really really really mad?

get over yourself.  your favorite politician has to earn votes just like everybody else.  he doesn't own them just because you think he should.


by hitchhiker on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or else you're not democrats. (none / 0)

And my 'favorite politician' is currently chair of the DNC.


She was against seating MI and FL before she was for it.
by lojasmo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:40:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Deal with defeat - Hmmmmm you deal with it (none / 0)

n/t


by dearreader on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

there is more voting to do. We need to wait and see, and if Obama calls his Mission Accomplished ahead of the convention or ahead of being the only one left if Hillary gives up, he'll lose more than he'll gain.  She's doing great, and the only way Obama can have a sure win is to bully her out. Claiming he's won and that she's trying to deny him his destiny won't help him, even if he does end up with it.  


by anna shane on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 2)

My response to an article in the LA Times today, May 10, 2008, implying that West Virginians won't vote for Obama because they think he's a muslim, or they won't vote for a black person.

Dear Mr. Braun,

This is in response to your article, "West Virginia could spell trouble for Obama" in the L.A. Times today.

As a very progressive woman (yes, older), I resent the implication that the only reason that people won't vote for Obama is that they are rural bigots.

Below are some of the (definitely not all) reasons I won't vote for Obama. I"m a college professor and life-long Democrat. I have voted for Democrats in every election since 1964.  This time I may very well vote for McCain and I'm not alone.  I grew up in LA and NY and I know how insular those places are (the rest of the country is just a flyover) and since reporters, in general, I'm sorry to say, seem to have no clue about what the actual sentiments are of the people they presume to speak for in the country, I thought I'd let you know my views, which I know are widely shared.

I think Obama is a corporate/mob-linked trojan horse.  Nothing could make that clearer than the way the corporate media is trying to shove him down our throats. But I have other reasons for thinking this.  Obama says whatever he needs to say.  He changes his story whenever convenient.  He uses the words of others, including their inflections and even pauses. He steals policies and even jokes from others (see the many Youtube videos available on this topic).  He is a total fraud.  But he's charismatic and, of course, can use identity politics to discredit his critics. Yet he will abandon the progressive agenda once he wins. He's never really stood up for or accomplished anything-except for voting for (for instance) giving the oil companies a huge tax break in 2005 (and then accusing Clinton and McCain of being in the pockets of the oil cos. in 2008, even though they both voted against that bill.  He was for universal one payer health insurance when he was running for the U.S. Senate (see video on YouTube) before he was against it and before he ran "Harry and Louise" ads that were identical ( including the clothing of the actors) to the ads used by Big Pharm to kill Hillary's universal health care plan in the 90s.  He wanted to discredit Hillary's new plan which requires mandates, which the insurance companies hate. The Wall Street Journal  (Monday May 5, 2008 front page) has an article titled "Obama Says Teamsters Need Less Oversight."  This article explains why the Teamsters are backing him. He wants to do away with an independent review board "set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union." Then there's his support for Blackwater. Says he sees no reason to oppose them and his support for Supreme Court Justice Roberts, seeing no problem with him and not wanting to keep Supreme Court Justices off the court simply for "ideological reasons."  He only voted no on Roberts because his political advisor told him it wouldn't fly in the Dem. Primary (this was on Obama's own website).

Then there is the misogyny of the media and Obama's followers. He has a very thin skin when it comes to accusing his critics of racism (an absurd charge against the Clintons), but never bothers to stop his followers online or the MSM (especially MSNBC -"the all Obama all the time network") from making horribly misogynist comments.  They call Hillary a bitch, a cunt, a "Fucking Whore," and that's okay.  Well, guess what? There are millions of women in this country who will not vote for Obama just for this reason alone. We take this personally and our response to the MSM and the DNC, for that matter, this November, will be loud and clear.

I will vote for McCain rather than this fraud. If I'm going to have a Republican jerk in the White House, I'd rather have a real one than one pretending to be a Democrat, whose policies (solving the "social security crisis" anyone?) are no different from those of GW Bush.   Our party is being taken over and, if this happens, then Nader is right. There will truly be no difference between the corporate owned parties and all third parties and progressive policies will be shut out.

How anyone can delude themselves that this guy is a progressive is beyond me.

When the corporate media blatantly takes sides, you can rest assured that the public interest is not what they care about.


by derridog on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fight Sexism! Vote McCain! (2.00 / 2)

[The media and Obama's followers] call Hillary a bitch, a cunt, a "Fucking Whore," and that's okay.  Well, guess what? There are millions of women in this country who will not vote for Obama just for this reason alone.

You're upset because Obama hasn't stopped the media and bloggers from making misogynistic comments, so you're going to vote for the guy who called his wife a c*nt instead? Way to take a stand against misogyny.


by jdusek on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:36:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fight Sexism! Vote McCain! (none / 0)

Maybe you could read my whole letter before you comment.


by derridog on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No one has called their wife a cu*t (none / 0)

Complete fiction, it never happened. This was anonymously sourced, and appeared in the Huffington Post as a hit piece against McCain.

If it did happen, it would have been featured on the front page of the NYTimes, USA Today, and on the Today Show.

So please keep the discourse on truthful plane and stop spreading these lies. Some Dems like me, we do like McCain's character and we will defend him against these kinds of smear tactics.


by o2befree on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:06:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 1)

You could vote for Nader or just leave the President spot unchecked. Please don't vote for McCain.


by vision63 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what derridog said (none / 0)

amen.


by desert dawg on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:41:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 17)

I think the title of this post basically fits the dictionary definition of "irony." English majors want to chime in?


by SupremeCourt on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:11:03 AM EST

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 8)

I'm trying very hard to be generous on the subject.  I suggest we all do the same.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:16:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 2)

As they say, irony is like getting in a car crash because you were trying to put your seat belt on.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:20:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 1)

Touché.


by SupremeCourt on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:23:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 5)

Speaking of car crashes, can you think of a bigger wreck than being almost handed the nomination of plutocratic grounds as Clinton was, and fumbling on the 1 yard line?


by reggie44pride on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:33:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Breaking: (2.00 / 4)

This just in. In a landslide, Hillary has won the great State of Denial.
Thank you David Letterman
by ImpeachBushCheney on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:23:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking: (2.00 / 3)

Conan O'Brien stole that "state of denial" joke from Letterman, almost word for word.  Also, he has Letterman's old job and will be competing directly with him (hosting The Tonight Show) starting next year.

Coincidence?  I think not.


by semiquaver on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:34:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you (2.00 / 1)

to turn in your metaphor license. Or else provide me YouTube footage of a car crash that involves a fumble at the 1-yard line, which would actually be pretty cool.


by ZombieRoboNinja on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:44:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sir It is time for your latte! (none / 0)


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:36:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 4)

English majors are too busy swirling wine and getting their "novel" published to waste time here.


by reggie44pride on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:33:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 1)

LOL!


2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.
by BPK80 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:50:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 1)

trying to get that novel published.

It's a cruel world out there . . .


by vadasz on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:24:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 4)

Not an English major, just an enthusiast.  But this is a decent, if imperfect example of dramatic irony, where a speaker says one thing earnestly (i.e. without sarcasm), but his audience recognizes the opposite to be true (or, more commonly, recognizes some crucial fact that dramatically changes the truth of the original statement.  Put plainly, they are "one step ahead" of the speaker.

No dis intended, just being a nerd.


by semiquaver on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:30:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

LOL! My thoughts exactly. I thought this site had seen the light. Instead it is just more clutching at straws. Sad really.


by kitebro on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:21:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 9)

Enjoy it.

Everyone's entitled to one last hurrah.  Maybe two.  Nothing wrong with going out well, and I don't begrudge you folks that.

I was a big HD-DVD supporter.  Well, my format of choice lost.  It sucked.  They still released I Am Legend in HD-DVD.  And it's glorious.

One for the road.  Nothing wrong with that.  Have fun primary day!


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:11:19 AM EST

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 1)

Heh, I'm still in cassette world with my old toyota, and have the kids hooked on an old record player in the house.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:15:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

Yeah, well, my HD-DVD's will last a lot longer than do cassettes.

A lot longer indeed.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:18:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

Well at least you've moved on from 8-Tracks


by shalca on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:20:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

I never did have 8-Tracks, skipped from 45's to the cassettes when I got to start driving in the early 80's.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:27:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

I've got an old iPod i'd like to send you.


by Tatan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:40:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

I actually still own what I would assume is a working 8-track player (I mean, it was working last time I checked, and I can't imagine why it would have quit working since then).

For that matter, I still have four working Commodore Amigas in the house. But those are a lot newer than the 8-track player.


by Ray Radlein on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:57:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

Everyone's entitled to one last hurrah

Even Roger Clemens?

LOL


by reggie44pride on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure he's had more than one already.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:38:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 1)

he's had more than one already

teenager or hurrah?


by reggie44pride on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:55:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 2)

Yes.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:02:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 1)

lmfao


by reggie44pride on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:12:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

that's one of the dangers... (none / 0)

of being an early adopter.

I didn't go near cds for years for the same reason.


by neutron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:21:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

lol (none / 0)

your triumphalism is going to look pretty stupid if the super delegates are smarter than the Obama camp hopes.  Anyone can see that Hillary is a much better GE candidate.  Hopefully the party will not go willingly to defeat with Obama just because the eggheads and guilty white liberals (same thing often) wish it to be so.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:48:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

All of them (none / 0)

or just the two-thirds plus she needs?  Would that we were all as smart as you Teresa, but I don't think so.

Obama effectively won the race in Wisconsin.  Since then I've mostly been watching Clinton supporters squirm.


by corph on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:21:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

May I humbly suggest that we are not picking an electronic product of choice, but a possible president of the United States.  Maybe some Obama supporters don't take this as seriously as I do, but this is not a game or a popularity contest.  Why on earth would you say something like that?


by SandyS on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:57:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

Sandy, it is a popularity contest.  I hate to break that to you, but it's true.  


by zadura on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:50:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

But Dean's win in Vermont was a game-changer!!!!!!!!
by Jay R on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:35:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (none / 0)

damn good.


--++++Stay Gold, Ponyboy!++++--
by amde on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:11:46 AM EST

Good work, Clinton. (1.90 / 10)

I'm glad she finally realized the value of running up the score in relatively uncontested contests.  

This will let her get a nice victory in order to prompt some fundraising to work on her enormous debt (I'm still trying to figure out what happens to her general election funds when she drops out... can they be used for her debt if she's not going to run for president on the Democratic ticket?).

As for the racism issue; it seems to me to be a valid issue on an academic level. I don't agree with it being used as something to disparage the residents of West Virginia as a whole, but having a black candidate does suggest that there's certain demographics that will never ever vote for him.

On the other hand, we constantly have veiled racist attacks on Obama, especially after Clinton's recent remarks.

Anyway, I'm pleased with Clinton's progress in West Virginia and Kentucky.  Hopefully she'll be able to drive up Democratic voter enthusiasm.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:14:34 AM EST

Re: Good work, Clinton. (1.40 / 5)

oh yea because Obama with his stupid little caucus states that a Democrat will never win, like Wyoming, Idaho and Utah, and Kansas were not "running up the score" in uncontested states. Why would Clinton expect Obama compete for a nomination which means nothing in those states?

Unlike those states, Democrats can actually win West Virginia. Bill Clinton landslided Bob Dope in that state as recently as 1996, 53-36. Al Gore should never have lost that state. He along with John Kerry got to join Mondale, McGovern, and Stevenson, to be the only Democrats in the last 3/4 of a century to lose that state. West Virginia matters. While not every Democrat whose won that state wins the White House, every Democrat who has won the White House except Wilson in 1916 has won West Virginia.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:27:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (1.85 / 7)

How did you not get banned for suggesting that blacks shouldn't get a full vote in the Democratic primary?



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (1.50 / 2)

because I never did say that. All I said is that when we have a Dem primary with a black candidate, being that the black candidate, a viable one like Obama is going to get the black vote in large numbers, and that the bloc is almost guaranteed in a general, we should then shift the focus to how latinos and whites, who are swing voters are going. I also said that urban districts getting more delegates in the name of representing more blacks, which was set in the system by Jesse Jackson was not a good idea. stop trying to slander people.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:48:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (2.00 / 4)

Yeah, you did say that.  It was in this thread.  

You also said, "actually they should count less because they'll always vote for the Democrat. They are not a swing vote. We need to win other groups as well."



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:55:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's the McCain strategy (2.00 / 5)

Forget what you said previously and be outraged that you use your words against him.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:57:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's the McCain strategy (2.00 / 3)

For those too lazy to search:

"actually they [black people] should count less because they'll always vote for the Democrat. They are not a swing vote. We need to win other groups as well.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"

-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:10:54 PM EST

And on MyDailyDixiecrat, I stand a greater chance of getting banned for calling that racism than the original poster does.


by Mostly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:13:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's the McCain strategy (2.00 / 2)

What's most fun about this is that, by Jerome's own reasoning, wouldn't Hillary Clinton herself get banned for suggesting that all of America is racist and we should heed to the desires of Hard Working Americans who are White?


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:58:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (none / 0)

I don't get it. Where does the 3/5s come in?


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:59:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (none / 0)

Read your constitution.


by umcpgreg on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:42:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (none / 0)

Lol. Obama taught Constitutional law. Guilt by association. Obama taught it: it must be bad. Please go to Hillaryis44 to see what you can do to work against this teaching of the evil constitution. Lol.


McCainuire, The Wrath Of Not Enough Naps.
by catilinus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (none / 0)

He thought you were asking where 3/5 of a vote came from, which was the topic of this stream.  He said nothing at all about Obama not knowing.



Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (2.00 / 5)

"actually they should count less because they always vote for the democrat" were your precise words.


by interestedbystander on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:12:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (none / 0)

I didn't literally mean "count" as in value of 1 vote equalling 1 vote. Every vote should count equally. I meant in the mind of the party, because with a candidate like Obama, of course blacks are going to go for him in a large numbers. He brings pride to their community. However, basing our nominee on something as static as that considering their support for a Dem in the GE is statically high is not smart, because it diverts our attention from swing voters groups like Hispanics and Latinos, who Obama shows poorly with


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:17:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (2.00 / 2)

In the primary, against Hillary Clinton, yes, he does comparatively poorly.

Against a Republican it's an entirely different calculus.

Look, my biggest problem with this election cycle is we've managed to dissect everybody into this retarded ethnic/gender/religious groups.  Personally, I blame the pollsters.

Guys, get over it.  Identity politics isn't anything to brag about, on any side of it.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:12:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (2.00 / 3)

OK, fine.  Union members also vote overwhelmingly democratic; we can count on them no matter what, so how much less should they count, maybe 1/4?  The majority of women do as well.  Not by that much, so let's say that women get 9/10 of a vote.  Almost all homosexuals are liberal, but there are so few of them, why not ignore their votes completely?  The party's time would be better spent pandering to the richest sources of votes, because votes are all that matters.  We'd also get lost more votes if we compromise on abortion, gun control, and what's the big deal about 100 years in Iraq anyway?

It's simply embarrassing that you would attempt to argue that our party's most loyal base should be punished or counted less for that loyalty.  Bigotry *is* a spectrum, but your statement certainly falls somewhere along it.

Why not give Obama some credit for the fact that he is turning out the black vote in much greater numbers than Hillary could ever have done?  With hard work and a little luck, we could even flip a few AA-heavy southern red states.  But it won't ever happen if we spend all our time dividing the electorate, pitting white Americans against Obama as if he poses some kind of threat to them.


by semiquaver on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:57:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (2.00 / 1)

You aren't helping yourself, and you certainly aren't helping my candidate. Please just stop.


Yes, I am a Clintonista for Obama.
by Denny Crane on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:49:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (2.00 / 2)

Basically what you're saying here is that we can take the black vote for granted, so we don't really need to worry about what blacks think when we decide the Democratic Party's direction or principles.

I understand the electoral logic, but I hope you can see why this would upset black people.


by vinc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:44:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (2.00 / 0)

why should everyone tread on egg shells worrying about what upsets black people?  It's getting tiring and it is patronizing anyway.  The truth is that the African American vote is going to go for the democrat.  The party needs to look at this election logically and worry about the swing voters.  Swing voters will go for Clinton in many states and not for Obama.  That has more to do with Obama's manner, tone and policies than it does with his skin color.  That is what DiamondJay was saying and the charges of racism have to stop.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:07:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (2.00 / 3)

No, what the party needs to do is nominate the candidate with the most votes and the most delegates. Thankfully, democracy is prevailing and you deadenders are going to have to find something else to worry about.


by amiches on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:53:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (none / 0)

This isn't about people being too sensitive. It's not about being offended or political correctness. It's about power.

It's about people who are upset at the suggestion that real political power should be taken from them, because the party can take them for granted.

Seriously, I do get your logic and I understand that the argument isn't a racist one so much as a pragmatic one. My best friend made the same argument for quite a while. But being told that you can be taken for granted--in any context--sucks. Look how upset the more hardcore Clinton supporters get when Obama supporters tell them that they'll support Obama in November.

This sort of rhetoric is the reason why primaries are usually divisive. So if Clinton feels that white voters are what counts for electability, and if she also thinks this argument will sway superdelegates, I wish she would make that argument privately and not publicly.


by vinc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:12:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

troll rated for making up bullshit (none / 0)

imaginary racist charges against DJ.  Enough cries of racism.  YOU make your candidate the "Black candidate" with this nonsense.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:57:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mmm, stupid states. (2.00 / 3)

I do so love the idea that it's okay to discount certain states just because of their demographics and/or choice in how to run their primary.

At the same time most of the same people rail against discounting states that chose to have all of their delegates punished by the national party.  

Anyway, West Virginia is not magic.  You don't win the general election if you win it.  Your voodoo explanation is what we call "coincidental" in technical circles.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:49:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mmm, stupid states. (2.00 / 1)

do you know what the converse of something is? I said that every Democrat(except Wilson 1916) who won the White House has won West Virginia. Read it once. I did NOT say the converse was true. The converse means switching the nouns "white house" and "west virgina" around the verb "win". I know damn well not every Dem who has won West Virginia wins the white House, but every Dem who wins the White House has won West Virgina. Maybe you didn't take math, but when you cover logic p and q problems, the converse is something you learn. This is just how every Republican to win the White House has won Ohio, but not every Republican who has won Ohio has won the White House, as in Richard Nixon in 1960, or Tom Dewey in 1944.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:10:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Converse are great shoes (2.00 / 5)

Did you know?  Not a single Democratic candidate has won the presidency with the endorsement of a space alien (this explains Kucinich's failure, by the way).

In the '90's, the Green Bay Packers had a streak of something like 25 undefeated home games.  They were largely determined as unbeatable in the Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field.

Then they lost a game and their streak ended.  It turns out that they weren't unbeatable after all.

Listen, West Virginia has 5 delegates and might be a useful thing to win, but there are other ways of making up 5 delegates.  West Virginia's connection to successful Democratic campaigns is what's called "circumstantial evidence" by the legal system.  Yes, it can be proven; no, you can't prove that West Virginia is the only reason they won.

Your corrollary is, as I said, largely faith in voodoo.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:21:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mmm, stupid states. (2.00 / 1)

You seem to be mistaking correlation for causation. It's a common mistake.


by noop on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:41:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (2.00 / 6)

You're so freekin obtuse you don't understand Draco was agreeing with you - of course Obama was running up the score in caucus states that were relatively uncontested.  Clinton missed an opportunity, and is now finally, when it is way way way way too late, realising that's what you have to do to come from behind.


by interestedbystander on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:16:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (2.00 / 4)

Didn't Carter lose the primary in West Virginia, and then go on to change things by November?

The arguments around where Clinton and Obama won their primaries all fall down around the fact that it doesn't strongly correlate with success in the General.

But what do I know? I am from Colorado. A swing state that Obama won and Clinton can't. So apparently we don't matter.


by TakeBackTheHouse on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:17:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good work, Clinton. (2.00 / 3)

"every Democrat who has won the White House except Wilson in 1916 has won West Virginia."

If you're gonna talk history, every Democrat who has won the White House has so far been a white male.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:39:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Deal with defeat (2.00 / 1)

"62% of Democrats and independents indicated they would vote for Clinton over 24% for McCain."

OK, let's say that Democrats and Independents occur in roughly equal proportion in WV.  Let's also say the Independents are splite 50/50 on whether to vote for Clinton.  This means that around 80% of the Democrats interviewed say they would vote for Clinton.

"Obama received 37% support compared to McCain's 35%."

Using the same assumptions above, this means that Independents and Democrats were both split 50/50 on whether to vote for Obama.  So why would 50% of Democrats in WV vote for Clinton, but not