Hillary supporters! Its time to kick some butt! Let's get to work!

by linc, Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:56:48 PM EST

Hey guess what? WV, KY, PR- they matter!

That's right- they matter. They will put Hillary over the top in the popular vote if we give her the help that she needs and if we don't give up on her. She isn't going anywhere and neither should we. This is not over until Puerto Rico sings and every last super delegate has had their say- this last bit happens in August, btw!

Right now, if you include Florida and exclude MI and the undemocratic estimates from caucus states, then Hillary is just behind in the popular vote by slightly over 440,000 votes. That's right, just 440,000 votes out of a total of over 40,000,000 million that we should expect from this primary. That's 1%- just 1%. If we include MI and the undemocratic caucus votes, then her chances are even better of capturing the popular vote total. She won't get to the magic number in pledged delegates alone, but you know what? Neither will Obama.

Hillary's big upcoming wins in KY and WV WILL change the narrative- if only to cast more doubt on Obama's electability. To be quite frank, that's probably the only narrative that SDs are concerned about anymore- it is the electability, stupid.

If the polling out of KY and WV holds, then Hillary can get very close to those 440,000 votes in just those two states alone- we need to GOTV and GOTV in a big way. OR will be closer, SD and MT will be closer and then Hillary will finish it all off with a big win in PR. Remember folks, in politics, a week is a year. The narrative will be Hillary's starting Tuesday and we need to help her out.

We need to start, by not giving up on her. Yes, the odds are against her, but she knows, as do we that she is the best candidate to take on the GOP in the fall and she would be the better POTUS. So, let's get to work:

Give her some bread (made from dough) so she doesn't have to run home and bake it herself!

Call her friends, we know she has a lot of them and girls sure do love to talk....

Stand with her!

She IS going to be the next president of the United States!




Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 279 Comments :: Post a Comment


Chin up folks (2.00 / 15)

This thing ain't over by a long shot. Get to it!
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:57:25 PM EST

Game over - she's bankrupt (1.12 / 8)

no cash, no gas


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Game over - she's bankrupt (2.00 / 1)

cash did not win PA, TX, OH and IN. You can take your cash and shove it! I do not need to tell you where.


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:38:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right (none / 0)

she's doing on Obama's credit account right now. Fortunately, his supporters get to decide her limit.


by bookish on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:52:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Game over - she's bankrupt (none / 0)

Granted cash was only part of what won Texas for Obama, but I like to think that it's because he's the better candidate.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:06:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think the voters (2.00 / 3)

like to have elections bought. At least that's the way it appeared when I vol'd in TX.


by Pacific John on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:54:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They also don't like to be ignored! (none / 0)

We need to get our voices heard in the media.  It is time that we tell them that the voters decide, not the pundits and anchors.

This is the first time I can remember the press getting rid of the candidate when the voters don't want them to.

Gallup says this week that 15% want Obama to drop out now. 23% want Hillary to drop out and 60% want them both to continue the campaign to the end.

So who is the media's constituency?  Not the people.

From the way our Congress has acted these last two years, I have no confidence that they will hear us or see their own interest in this election.

We need to make some noise, post some media email and phone lists and do some massive contacting, in addition to having great diaries in hopes that somebody wants to be a journalist again and checkes them out.


by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:23:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They also don't like to be ignored! (none / 0)

Are you crazy?  The media has done everything they can to keep her in the race because it's good for ratings - the only reason you have seen the narrative change in the last week is that they would lose what little credibility they still have if they lied and said she has a credible chance of winning.  They know she doesn't, her own campaign knows she doesn't, and the supers know she doesn't.


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:50:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

when Corzine and Bloomberg (2.00 / 2)

fund their own campaigns, men think that is just great - when women do it, men get the vapors.  Hillary is far from bankrupt.  She would be crazy not to fund her own campaign as it needs it.

Afterall things could be worse, she could have outspent her opponent 4:1 in two major swing states and LOST, just like Obama did.


by Molee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:13:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: when Corzine and Bloomberg (none / 0)

She isn't only in debt to herself.  You can have your gender card back.  We won't be needing it.


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Game over - she's bankrupt (none / 0)

HA! now the obma crowd are proud of MONEY being the bottomline in elections!!!! always the same, if my guy does it it's OK then....


by swissffun on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:43:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Game over - she's bankrupt (none / 0)

Thanks for the reminder.  

Give it up people!!!

%10.00, $20.00, $50.00, $100.00. Whatever you can spare to pull her through.  Team Obama's strategy is to outspend until she has nothing more.  Don't let that happen!!


by bellarose on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:19:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Game over - she's bankrupt (none / 0)

Heh, sorry for the typo.  I have the flu!!


by bellarose on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:21:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey Al - let's make a wager (none / 0)

You're in SF right? I'll bet you $100 she's our nominee. Will pick up my winnings in August somewhere in the city you name the spot.


by catfish1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:26:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why all the concern Obama folks? (2.00 / 5)

I thought it was in the bag?
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:07:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why all the concern Obama folks? (2.00 / 1)

No concern for Obama, linc, just concern for you.


by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:15:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (2.00 / 1)

at least you will admit to your 'concerning'.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (2.00 / 1)

Ah. But my concern is led by compassion.


by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:35:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why all the concern Obama folks? (1.50 / 2)

It is in the bag.  

If Clinton keeps on fighting by making ridiculous arguments like the one you are making then that will  hurt the party.  That is what the concern is about.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:15:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You should be more confident (2.00 / 4)

in your candidate's abilities. If he wins the nomination and then loses the general, it will not be Hillary's fault.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:20:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This bitterness is blogospheric (2.00 / 1)

He won't lose. Not out there in reality.


by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:36:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The votes are reality (2.00 / 6)

if he doesn't convince rural voters in PA, OH, WV, NC- he is toast. If he can't do that, then he is going to need to find a way to woo FL- I don't see that happening. If he can't do that, he is going to need to find a way to win over Latinos- who really tend to like McCain, btw. I don't see that happening either. So what is it, in all honest? What is Obama's path to victory in November?

That's what electibility is all about.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The votes are reality (2.00 / 1)

You assertions are just that - assertions. Let's wait and see about the GE.

But in the one contest we've had so far - a primary with unprecedented turnout - he's proved very electable. He had no dynastic name recognition. He didn't have the apparatus of the DLC, or the patronage of a former president to back him up. And yet he beat Hillary fair and square.

Though it was a tight run thing because she's a formidable candidate.

He's won/going to win these amazing primaries. Why don't you give him some credit, and when it's all over, come on board and make sure he wins the GE, and that his administration hold up the values you care about?

I really think, with all your talents linc, this will soon be a much better route for your time and energy


by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Half, if not more (2.00 / 1)

of that turn out wasn't for him. Dynastic? Give me a break- I am so sick of that bs.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:52:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half, if not more (2.00 / 1)

More than half turned out for Obama

The dynastic thing is not bs. Hillary had name recognition. And for a country that prides itself on being in some way meritocratic, the sequence Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton was never a great selling point for the American dream. Not a big point, but a relevant one from overseas.


by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:56:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And being America (2.00 / 2)

we are more prone to imagery and ads than substance- good point.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:02:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Half, if not more (none / 0)

How can it possibly be BS? It wasn't BS when it was Bush 2, and it isn't for Clinton 2.  It's an issue for many people who don't want to return to the divisive atmosphere that pervaded the WJC years, irrespective of all the good that was done.  It's an issue for me, and I know plenty of other feel the same way.


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:56:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (1.50 / 2)

I am very confident in Obama's abilities.  He is a freshman Senator that few people had heard of and he beat Clinton when she had every advantage you can name.  He is a very good campaigner/politician.  

The thing that worries me about your bogus argument is that it would be a monumental waste of time, energy and resources for the Democratic party to take it seriously.  If Clinton does make this argument it will be nothing but a waste.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Everytime (2.00 / 1)

you say that- its not just to Clinton- its to her supporters, you realize that don't you?
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Everytime (1.20 / 5)

Of course I do.  

I have no sympathy at all for the dead enders.  I  think they being selfish and hurting our chances in November.  Anyone that stands in the way of a Democrat in the WH after eight years of Bush is someone who I have a problem with.  

If you want to get on Obama's team and help us win this thing in November then we will be glad to have your help.  If you want to make hair splitting arguments that will not convince anyone then you are part of the problem and IMO you don't deserve much in the way of deference.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:48:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Concern, concern, concern (2.00 / 1)

duly noted. You must know a lot about Democratic primaries to be soooo concerned! I think you are just gearing up to blame a potential Obama loss on someone, but that's just me- I am merely a deadender- whatever the hell that is.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:50:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Concern, concern, concern (1.25 / 4)

There is a lot at stake in November.  We didn't choose Hillary to lead us so she needs to either follow the guy we did chose or get out of the way.

If McCain becomes President and another American City gets wiped off the map by a Hurricane or 4,000 Americans die in another war you are God damed right I am going to blame someone.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:02:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um (2.00 / 2)

I chose Hillary- still do.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Um (2.00 / 2)

Duly noted.  She won't be on the ballot in November.  I'm sorry, I really am sorry if you're disappointed by this.

I don't enjoy this.  We've got a lot of the same values, I assume.  I'm sure you're a good and decent person, and I'm not spending time on the internet trying to belittle you.

But she's lost.  I'm cool with her staying in through these last six contests.  No reason not to now.

But come on, man.  Most of us picked somebody other than Clinton.  Would you expect us to have agonized to this extent when another candidate won?  Another candidate that would seek to do most of the same things as the one we picked?

Life is full of compromises and imperfections.  Do what you can with the options you've got.  I had to pick between a candidat I didn't really like (Kerry) and one that I thought would inch the world closer and closer to destruction (Bush).

It's a part of life.  Either you'll heal and come to grips with the fact that your candidate just couldn't make it, or you won't.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:11:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ugh (1.75 / 4)

whats with the life lessons? Because I support my candidate and you think she should just fold because your campaign and the media says so? Wow- if that's your life lesson, I think I will leave it, thank you very much.

Here is a life lesson for you:

Over confidence is a sure fire way to lose that which you are so confident about.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:50:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ugh (1.40 / 5)

You know, when I try to be decent and your response is to be a total fucking jackass, I get an entirely different life lesson.

Have fun!  


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:07:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ugh (2.00 / 1)

I'm thinking you got the response you got, because you're being condescending as well as downright insulting by calling Hillary supporters "dead enders".  What makes it worse is that your candidate hasn't, in fact, won yet.  He cannot get the pledged delegates he needs to claim victory.  The popular vote is trivially different (and may reverse, as the diary suggests, to HRC)--so all this talk of him being the clear choice of the people is bs.  And, the superdelegates can claim to support whomever they want, but they don't cast a vote until the convention.  That's reality.


by slynch on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ugh (2.00 / 1)

I have never, I repeat, NEVER used that phrase.  I absolutely wouldn't call Clinton supporters "dead enders" because it simply sounds too much like what Cheney (or was it Rummy?) said about the "last throes" of the insurgency, something like four years ago.

I didn't say that.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:26:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ugh (none / 0)

I've read posts on this and other sites from Obama supporters who claim Hillary Clinton suffered from over confidence starting way back before February. So, I agree with Obama and his supporters that over confidence is the quickest path to them losing in the general election.
by zenful6219 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:31:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OK try to win without us. (2.00 / 1)


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK try to win without us. (2.00 / 1)

Will do.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK try to win without us. (2.00 / 1)

Are you seriously thinking that Obama could win in November without the Clinton supporters?

An attitude like that guarantees a McCain presidency.


No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:16:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK try to win without us. (none / 0)

I would hope it doesn't matter what "username: whatever" thinks.

But most of us have been saturated with threats to stay out or vote for McCain, and are beyond the points where we were ever going to be solicitous of threats.


by Jordache on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:30:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Delusions of grandeur (none / 0)

So you speak for all Clinton supporters now. That's an awful lofty perch you've climbed onto. I certainly hope you don't fall.


by bookish on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:37:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delusions of grandeur (none / 0)

Where did I say i would vote for McCain? There are plenty of other choices!


You may not agree with What I say but don't forget I am a Democrat
by indydem99 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:14:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who are you responding to? (none / 0)


by bookish on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:27:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Delusions of grandeur (none / 0)

That was not a threat at all. I was responding to the person who said "we'll try [to win without you]" which I took to be a sarcastic shot meaning 'we don't need your votes in order to win.'

There's no part of me that would ever vote for McCain. I have stated over and over again on this and other sites that I will work my ass off for whomever is the Democratic nominee.

I can't imagine a justification for a Clinton supporter voting for McCain over Obama, nor can I understand why an Obama supporter would vote for McCain over Clinton. Anyone who voted in a Democratic primary and then say the would rather vote for the Republican candidate is, well, not me.

So, don't be so quick to judge. I didn't say what you thought I said (or, I didn't mean what you thought I meant). OK?


No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:29:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No one said you'd vote for McSame (none / 0)

I simply say that it's a rather speculative position for you to take to think that we need the 1% of dead-enders hanging around this site to beat the GOP.

I'm tired of Clinton supporters thinking that they are somehow owed our contrition for their loss. I was as invested in Obama as they are in Clinton, and it could just have easily gone the other way. Regardless, I would be supporting the nominee; not holding it over people's heads that they somehow should show me some deference or risk losing my vote.


by bookish on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:33:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No one said you'd vote for McSame (none / 0)

OK, fine. I am not asking for contrition. However, I suggest that Obama supporters (not necessarily you in particular) show respect to Clinton supporters.

We're talking about approximately half of the Democratic party, and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them, as I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Obama supporters if the situation were reversed.

And, if it's really 1% of the voters we're talking about, well, according to recent polls which show a virtual tie between Obama and McCain, I certainly would be fighting hard to retain those Democratic votes.


No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:29:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll show as much to Clinton supporters (none / 0)

as they show in kind. The times I've gone off on them is when they've made outlandish comments or smears, and I'm not going to get in the practice of holding my tongue for some elusive, transitory definition of party unity.

All those recent polls of support for McSame and Obama of which you speak don't take into account that Obama has been fighting on two fronts for months now. To think that once it's mano-a-mano those numbers will remain favorable in the least to the GOP is to kid oneself. I'd be willing to put my credibility on the line to say that within six weeks of Clinton's retirement from the campaign, Obama will hold a ten point+ lead in head-to-head polling.


by bookish on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:17:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll show as much to Clinton supporters (none / 0)

Right. Sure. It's a lock. Might as well break out the champagne. Bring the troops home today. Bookish has declared victory.

The man's name is McCain, not 'McSame'. Get used to it. An arrogant attitude like yours pretty much guarantees his presidency.


No way. No how. No McCain. . . . . . If you can ship a job to Bangalore India, you can ship a job to Flint Michigan.
by NJ Liberal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Quitting is unamerican, freak (none / 0)

"I have no sympathy for all the dead-enders"

A man who tells people to quit is not fit to lead this nation.

France laughed at Kennedy when he said we'd land a man on the moon within the decade. We should of quit, are chances were practically mathematically impossible.


by catfish1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:29:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (2.00 / 3)

Blue Neponset, you telling us that she had every advantage including the media on her side?  Come on, even you can admit the media trashed her from day one, huh? :)  Let's be honest.  Without the media, you're handicapped, and yet she is only 1% behind.  I find that pretty amazing.  


Yes She can! Go Hillary!
by Cassyma on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (2.00 / 1)

BOTH SIDES think the media trashed their candidate.

But let's be real. Hillary had the top PR people and spin doctors. A generation of media people had grown up under the Clinton presidency, and had the ears of senior TV and print executives. The NYT endorsed Hillary. CNN kept calling her the comeback kid.

I think Obama had it pretty easy (because he was new and not expected to win) until early Feb, and then we had four months of Obama bashing. Now the tide has turned... Just my opinion

BUT, assuming your case, given her advantages, Hillary SHOULD have had better media coverage. That's a failure of her campaign. And given that it's all about 'electability' according to Linc, then she's much less electable.


by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (none / 0)

BOTH SIDES think the media trashed their candidate.

true, but only one side has articles being written (and books in the works) about it actually happening.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:04:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (none / 0)

Oh my gosh... I had forgotten about that tidbit of the 90's... The fourth branch of government was Barnes and Noble, et. al. what with all the books that came out.


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:10:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (none / 0)

So your argument is that the media is going to prove that the media was in fact anti-Hillary? How's that work, exactly?

Seriously -- the articles that I've seen concentrate on the race through January. No one doubts that Clinton had a disproportionately harder ride through January than anyone else.

However, since she got the "Comeback Kid" label in N.H., the media really has swung hard to her side and/or against Obama. There was a brief cycle of general fairness for about a week in mid-February, another just before Wright came out, and one or two weeks in early April. Aside from that, it's been extremely pro-Clinton and anti-Obama up until the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

Obama exceeding expectations in both Indiana and North Carolina has set up the most recent swing. Whether it'll stay this way, who can say?


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (2.00 / 1)

is this a serious comment or snark?

http://mediamatters.org/columns/20080430 0001?f=h_column

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/040 8/9718.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jackson-wi lliams/with-clinton-it-would-be_b_96626. html

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/featu res/2008/06/wolcott200806

http://nymag.com/news/imperialcity/46658 /index1.html

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/7/14504 8/7823


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:48:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (none / 0)

It's a serious comment. Sorry -- I looked at all of your links, and all it convinces me of is that both sides have some cause to complain. While I understand that you disagree, and that it's possible to pick at isolated bits of media bashing of Clinton post-mid-February (Tuzla, for instance), the media has been full-bore on the attack against Obama with very limited exceptions since mid-February.

For instance, Tuzla took a week to come to full boil. NAFTAgate was front-page news the same day it was alleged. Yet Tuzla was completely true (if not a really huge story), while NAFTAgate was false in pretty much every detail. Wright dominated the media before and after Obama's speech and again late last month.

Despite the ridiculous spin in one of your links, the media never rushed to Obama's defense over Bitter-gate -- in fact, it was just the opposite. We were told over and over and over and over how this was the end, how Obama was hopelessly elitist and, even if he wasn't, no one would ever think otherwise. The media bought into and reported the Clinton-campaign spin on Bittergate hook, line, and sinker. It boggles the mind that someone actually is trying to claim the opposite.

For every "sexism!" claim you care to provide from the media, there's a "racism!" one right back. I don't actually think the sexism (notwishstanding a few really bad moments) has been all that much, nor that the racism (despite a few really bad moments) has been all that much either.

And, for that matter -- you're providing links from, in several cases, the media! You believe them when they tell you that their colleagues have been nice to Obama and nasty to Clinton, while to me, it just says that not only are they being nasty to Obama and playing favorites with Clinton, they're also trying to pretend that they should be being even worse and/or justify their behavior when they do just that.

Not buying the spin, sorry. I've been following this campaign far too obsessively, and I have yet to see any piling on against Clinton that even scratches the surface of how Wright or Bittergate or NAFTAgate were treated. Even the example you cite of the media calls for Clinton to drop out are highly disingenuous - immediately after those started, the rest of the media attacked those calling for her to drop out, and the very source you cite is a clear example of it. Where were the media calls for backing off on Wright? on Bittergate? A month later, maybe. Where are the copious apologies about NAFTAgate that we got when Hospitalgate was proven incorrect?

The very complaining here about news coverage since Indiana and North Carolina proves the point better than anything else can. If the media were really in the tank for Obama in the way you're trying to claim, that's how the news would have been every day. Yet everyone is pointing out what a huge swing this has been. In order for there to be a huge swing, things have to have been markedly different before the swing. They were.

The media's had a clear favorite since mid-February, and that candidate is not Barack Obama. Their interest has been in prolonging the campaign as long as possible, and they've been propping up the candidate who's behind in order to do just that.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:02:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (2.00 / 1)

She had a 100 delegate lead before the voting started.  She had a HUGE donor list.  She has an Ex-President as a husband.  She has 100% name recognition.  She had a ton of money before the race started.  Those are the advantages I am talking about.  

I never got the media hates Hillary argument.  If the media is so powerful that they gave the nomination to Obama what do you expect to happen when Hillary runs against McCain?  The press loves McCain more than they love Obama.  If Hillary really lost because of the media then she is going to get her clock cleaned running against "Maverick" McCain.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:07:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (none / 0)

For MONTHS all the media said was that Hillary was running a flawless campaign, one that made no mistakes, and could not lose.

You do remember that, right?  It wasn't until she said she was both for, and against, Governor Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegals that the media ended that narrative.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Media Bias? (none / 0)

It is funny, but I see supporters of every candidate complaining that the media is in the tank for their opponent.  I think the real problem is just that the media sucks and cares more about ratings than actually engaging in real journalism.  It seems to me they have vacillated between bashing/praising one candidate over the other based entirely on what keeps this circus going the longest with political junkies glued to the screen.


by protothad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:32:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (2.00 / 1)

Yes. Obama seems to have been successful in the DEMOCRATIC Primary, which unlike the general electorate, is full of politically correct, latte-sipping, pussies...  "Hillary went negative....wah... wah... wah...  They played the 'race card'... wah... wah... wah."

These tactics will not work for a general electorate, which expects its presidents to demonstrate something other than an ability to whine your way to the nomination...


by RecentConvert on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kevin quit the TR abuse. n/t (none / 0)


by interestedbystander on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:57:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (none / 0)

"If he wins the nomination and then loses in the general," it will be our fault if we don't rally around him.
Yes - this means you, Hillary supporters. Please don't be turned off just because a few Obamaniacs have been mean to you. We're on the same side.
by T B J on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:25:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You should be more confident (none / 0)

No, I'm not on their side.


by bellarose on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:27:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why all the concern Obama folks? (none / 0)

The party is already hurt.

Too late to change that fact now.


by bellarose on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:23:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why all the concern Obama folks? (none / 0)

No concern, best of luck.  


Saxby Chambliss
by bosdcla14 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:50:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why all the concern Obama folks? (1.00 / 1)

Another crap diary whining about FL and MI.  Nothing to see here...same ole same ole.  I wish her luck in the NY Senate Primary.  Be a real shame if some of those "neo libral" sites like MoveOn or Kos of HuffPo decide to turn on the fundraising spigot for her primary challenger.  Be a real shame if people already start pledging money in their head to whomever that candidate maybe.  Then she can go back to doing her civic duty bettering the community by working for the Walmart Board of Directors crafting insurance policies to screw over their workers.


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why all the concern Obama folks? (2.00 / 1)

Another BO Supporter shitting on the people of MI and FL. Go Join the Rove Republicans.

Kumbaya my ass and take your derision towards a great American and former FLOTUS and shove it.


by Newport News Dem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why all the concern Obama folks? (none / 0)

Shocking - another moronic retort.  Bill is the one that insinuated that Obama was just another black candidate.  Ferraro was the one that insinuated that he wouldn't be anywhere if he wasn't black.  Hillary is the one that is insinuating that he can't win the white vote because he's black -- and you acuse Obama and his supporters of Rovian tactics?  You're a hypocrite.  Go cry somewhere else.  You candidate lost to a better run, more powerful campaign.

BTW, FL and MI will be seated -- they will be seated in a fair and equitable manner -- but again, since you're a hillary supporter, fairness and adherence to rules don't matter as much as winning.  Thank god you guys are the dying breed of the Democratic party.  


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:09:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

From now on (1.00 / 1)

I'll refer to diaries like this as "Kamikazi Diaries."

There ain't gonna be no divine wind to come along and save Hillary.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:13:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Primary Voters (2.00 / 4)

have supported HRC 14,973,652 over Obama's 14,582,651 for a 391,001 lead over BO. That number generously assigned 100% of the Michigan undecided Michigan primary voters to BO.

Spare me the Fl and MI rehash. BO may have prevented efforts to reselect DNC approved delegates, but real Democrats like me will never allow you to stick your shiv's in the backs of the actual voters who voted.

When voters vote, HRC is their choice. When a bus load of supporters can pack an undemocratic and unrepresentative caucuses, Obama wins.


by Newport News Dem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Primary Voters (none / 0)

your numbers appear to be out of date...

or simply made up. Going by RCP's table, the primaries are 15,568,576 Obama vs. 15,019,856 Clinton. Clinton get's 300,000 closer if you include Florida, but the only measure where she's ahead includes Michigan without a single vote going to Obama and excludes all caucus states altogether.

...and you're calling throwing out the results of 14 states "democratic" now?


by Casuist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:54:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Newport's totals (none / 0)

are without any of the caucuses- just the one person, one vote totals.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:57:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

((sigh)) ... i realized that, which is why... (none / 0)

in the above comment, so are mine. Obama's still ahead, your math still stinks.


by Casuist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

((sigh)) ... (none / 0)

yours does too. I just checked, if you are basing your totals off of real clear politics and you exclude all caucus estimates but include FL and MI giving Obama all uncommitteds from MI- then Clinton leads 146,000 and some change.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:05:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ((sigh)) ... (none / 0)

State            Date    Obama        Clinton
Vermont            4-Mar    "91,901"    "59,806"
Delaware        5-Feb    "50,467"    "39,984"
District of Columbia    12-Feb    "93,386"    "29,470"
Utah            5-Feb    "74,538"    "51,333"
Rhode Island        4-Mar    "75,316"    "108,949"
New Hampshire        8-Jan    "104,815"    "112,404"
Mississippi        11-Mar    "265,730"    "159,273"
Arkansas        5-Feb    "82,476"    "220,136"
Oklahoma        5-Feb    "130,130"    "228,480"
South Carolina        26-Jan    "294,898"    "140,990"
Alabama            5-Feb    "300,143"    "222,897"
Louisiana        9-Feb    "220,632"    "136,925"
Connecticut        5-Feb    "179,720"    "165,406"
Arizona            5-Feb    "193,126"    "229,501"
Tennessee        5-Feb    "251,692"    "335,745"
Missouri        5-Feb    "405,637"    "394,400"
Maryland        12-Feb    "532,665"    "314,211"
Georgia            5-Feb    "704,247"    "330,026"
Virginia        12-Feb    "627,820"    "349,766"
Wisconsin        19-Feb    "646,851"    "453,954"
Massachusetts        5-Feb    "511,887"    "704,591"
New Jersey        5-Feb    "487,046"    "597,329"
Ohio            4-Mar    "1,055,769"    "1,259,620"
Texas            4-Mar    "1,362,476"    "1,462,734"
Illinois        5-Feb    "1,318,234"    "667,930"
New York        5-Feb    "751,019"    "1,068,496"
California        5-Feb    "2,186,662"    "2,608,184"
Pennsylvania        22-Apr    "1,046,822"    "1,260,937"
Indiana                "629,310"    "643,797"
North Carolina            "875,683"    "652,824"
total                "15,551,098"    "15,010,098"

Florida    29-Jan            "576,214"    "870,986"
Michigan**        15-Jan        0    "328,309"
                "576,214"    "1,199,295"
                "16,127,312"    "16,209,393"

As it turns out, some of these numbers are slightly out of date, but not in any way that really changes them,,, and certainly nothing that cuts down the number of votes to the level Newport posted.


by Casuist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:23:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ((sigh)) ... (none / 0)

Why, exactly, is it reasonable to exclude the caucuses?


by TL on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ((sigh)) ... (none / 0)

Because they voted for Obama.


by catalysis on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ((sigh)) ... (none / 0)

No, they caucused for BO to select delegates. They did not vote.

Let me type this really slowly for all one more time. I posted that when voters vote, HRC wins and when caucuses are held, BO wins.

TX and WA should prove to all how undemocratic and unrepresentative caucuses are versus primaries.


by Newport News Dem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:40:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ((sigh)) ... (none / 0)

as mentioned before... an 8 percent difference means Obama still wins every single state that's already in his column with the exception of Iowa. It's absolutely ridiculous to use the Washington "primary" as any sort of measure of support for the candidates... as any resident of that state will tell you (being a former resident myself). You knew... as did your candidate, heading into this process that the caucuses were a legitimate component of the nomination.
by Casuist on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:03:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ((sigh)) ... (none / 0)

Because if you read what I posted, I wrote;

When VOTERS vote, Clinton wins. When undemocratic and unrepresentative caucuses are held, BO wins.


by Newport News Dem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:37:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and even that point... (none / 0)

is in error, given that your numbers for the primaries are wrong, and Obama leads the popular vote in primaries as well.
by Casuist on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Primary Voters (none / 0)

I took them from CNN Politics state by state...I could be in error but his is what the spreadsheet looks like;

State    Clinton    Obama
Alabama    226504    302814
Arizona    228158    191681
Arkansas    217313    81774
California    2306361    1891026
Ct    164831    179349
Delaware    40751    51124
DC    27326    85534
Florida    857208    569041
Georgia    328129    700366
Illinois    662845    1301954
Louisiana    136959    220588
Maryland    285440    464474
Mass    704591    511887
Michigan    328151    237764
Miss    155686    255809
Missouri    395287    405284
NH    112251    104772
New Jersey    602576    492186
New Mexico    73105    71396
New York    1003623    697914
Ohio    1207806    979025
Oklahoma    228425    130087
PA    1260444    1046220
RI    108750    75115
SC    295091    141128
Tenn    332599    250730
Texas    1459814    1,358,785
Utah    48719    70373
Vermont    59640    91740
Virginia    347252    623141
Washington    315222    353563
Wisconsin    452795    646007
Totals    14973652    14582651


by Newport News Dem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:34:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well, at first glance... (none / 0)

Your California numbers are very old.

The Washington primary is not a valid measure of voter sentiment in the state.

And your list excludes Indiana and North Carolina.


by Casuist on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and... (none / 0)

New Mexico is a hybrid system. I counted it as a caucus, given that its combined Clinton and Obama vote was 39% of the 2004 Kerry vote, less than any of the "primaries" with the exception of Michigan.
by Casuist on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:59:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Except for all those times when voters... (none / 0)

voted and she wasn't.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:59:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Does this mean.... (none / 0)

That South Dakota, Oregon, and Montana don't count? Those are the states that Obama is very strong in during that same time span.

Just curious since you only mentioned the states that Hillary Clinton is favored in.


by Yalin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:46:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Read again. (none / 0)


by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:53:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Read again. (none / 0)

I don't know if you edited your diary or if I just missed it, but my point is this. How is the split of the remaining 6 contests going to change the dynamic? It won't.

Additionally, you call the caucuses undemocratic? Uhm, how so? They've been part of the democratic process in the democratic primaries for decades.

Lastly, Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. You know this. Trying to accept banana-republic style results without at least allocating some of those delegates to him and some of that popular vote to him is just intellectually dishonest at best, and self-delusion at worst.

Please, you can have Florida if you want. They were both on the ballot even though neither campaigned. But Michigan?? C'mon, we're better than that as a nation.

And if you truly want Hillary Clinton to even attempt to win the nomination by that process, you do not care for the rules. You only care for what will give you what you want.

That should not be acceptable to anyone truly interested in the quality of this process.


by Yalin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:25:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't tell me what I care for (none / 0)

and I won't tell you what you care for. Not that I value your comments enough to continue this, but, just so you know, I have always been vocal about caucuses being undemocratic. I have always been vocal about counting FL and MI- since well before I was a Clinton supporter. And you know what, I am not alone. Go look at what Kos was saying about MI and FL back in December. If you want to tell someone that they only care about what will make them win- go scream at Kos for a while.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't tell me what I care for (none / 0)

I have absolutely no proof that you've "always been vocal about caucuses being undemocratic". Only your word today when it's politically expedient for you, as a Clinton supporter, to state that.

The same goes for Michigan and Florida.

All I know is that caucuses are decided by people voicing their opinion and trying to win others to their side. It is the epitome of democracy.

And the other thing I know is that Florida and Michigan broke the rules and moved their primaries up. They were duly punished. Now as for Kos, please link me to his arguments regarding MI and FL back in December.

I'd be interested in reading it.


by Yalin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:17:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't tell me what I care for (none / 0)

You are out of line questioning the diarist's integrity.  I would think the appropriate assumption would be that she is honest unless proven otherwise.  If she says she's always been against caucuses, then she has been.  End of discussion.

FL and MI broke the rules, but the punishment of disenfranchising ALL the voters in those states does not have to be applied (according to the rules).  That is an excessive punishment in the view of most, which is why their votes will count, and their delegates will be seated.  So, you may as well go ahead and figure that the popular vote is going to be a lot closer than it appears currently.


by slynch on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:24:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't tell me what I care for (none / 0)

"You are out of line questioning the diarist's integrity.  I would think the appropriate assumption would be that she is honest unless proven otherwise.  If she says she's always been against caucuses, then she has been.  End of discussion."

That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

"FL and MI broke the rules, but the punishment of disenfranchising ALL the voters in those states does not have to be applied (according to the rules).  That is an excessive punishment in the view of most, which is why their votes will count, and their delegates will be seated.  So, you may as well go ahead and figure that the popular vote is going to be a lot closer than it appears currently."

As I said earlier, count Florida if you must. But Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. That is a banana-republic style election if I ever saw one.


by Yalin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:30:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't tell me what I care for (none / 0)

As for presuming inegrity, that's not my opinion.  That's called common human decency.  It's also the same principle our justice system is based on, and it's a matter of logic.  Asking someone to disprove a negative is virtually impossible.  If you want to question her integrity, then it is up to you to prove it.

As for MI, I might agree with you, but it certainly isn't as clear-cut a case as you (and others) are trying to make it seem.  There are very legitimate arguments on both sides.  Which is why it will ultimately count in some fashion.


by slynch on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:55:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't tell me what I care for (none / 0)

1) My "proof" is the intellectual dishonesty of this diary with regard to Michigan and Florida, as well as calling caucus states undemocratic.

I think it's absurd logic, but seems par the course coming from the Clinton's and their supporters these days in order to find a metric, any metric, to win this thing.

2) Michigan is about as clear cut as you can get considering the fact that Obama wasn't on the ballot. Uncommitted was.

Florida is certainly more murky imo considering they were both on it, but no one campaigned. That's not how our primary system typically works. But even there, I've been willing to concede that one because they were both on it.

That said, if you want Michigan to count, give Obama the uncommitted votes and delegates. That would be the most fair apportionment.

And you know what happened when this was proposed last week by the Michigan politicians? Hillary Clinton shot it down.


by Yalin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:01:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't tell me what I care for (none / 0)

now you're question-begging.  You can't challenge her integrity regarding the claim that she has always maintained that caucuses are undemocratic on the basis of her comments in the diary saying that she thinks caucuses are undemocratic.

Both MI and FL are tricky issues; there is no clearly right or wrong approach regardless of what you might choose to think.  It is not appropriate to think ill of, or treat people poorly, simply because you disagree with them on a complex matter.

I actually find the argument that it is BO's own fault he took his name of the ballot fairly compelling.  If you want to punish MI for breaking the rules and claim it's just too bad for the voters, then it seems to be the same hard-ass argument to say it's too bad he opted off the ballot.

As for "I think it's absurd logic, but seems par the course coming from the Clinton's and their supporters these days in order to find a metric, any metric, to win this thing," that's typical of the hyperbole that's been spread around all primary season by Obama supporters and is a key reason I don't support him.  There are two metrics that have always been argued as important:  delegates and the PV.  Neither is going to win with pledged delegates, and so the HRC campaign has every reason to urge the superdelegates to consider the PV as a measure of electability before they commit to a candidate.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.  If she loses the popular vote, then that's it. Period.

Now, it is very true that Hillary has won the states that must be won in the general, and Obama has only won caucus states and red states (many of which were caucuses), and so that has been argued as an electability issue, but it hasn't been argued as a metric for outright choosing the nominee.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:27:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't tell me what I care for (none / 0)

1) In the agreement that was signed, the candidates stated that they would remove themselves from any and all participation in the processes in Michigan and Florida.

Obama did so in Michigan, as did almost everyone else. He would have done so in Florida, but the state rules say that you can only remove your name from the ballot if you drop out of the race you're in. Obviously that wasn't going to happen, so he kept his name on the ballot.

That was the pledge they signed, and is part of the rules he agreed to, as did all other democratic candidates.

Here's the PDF of the pledge itself in black and white: http://www.fladems.com/page/-/documents/ THREE_pledge_versions.pdf

2) The only metric that has ever truly counted, since day one, has been the delegate math. That was the argument from Howard Wolfson last year. When they were losing the delegate math, it moved to popular vote. When Obama ran off 10 straight and moved too far ahead there, it moved to super delegates. When Obama began catching up there, it moved to counting Michigan and Florida without giving Obama any popular vote or delegate allocation from Michigan for the uncommitted.

And so forth and so on.

3) Obama has only won caucus states and red states?

Mmk, let's look at the 2004 electoral map:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/r esults/electoral.college/

Obama's Primary, Blue-State wins:

Illinois
Connecticut
Delaware
Maryland
Washington D.C.
Wisconsin
Vermont
Washington State
Vermont
Maine
Oregon (in a couple of weeks)

Clinton's Primary, Blue-State wins:
California
Pennsylvania
New York
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
New Hampshire

Now seriously, are you going to argue that California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are going republican in the fall if Clinton isn't the nominee? You could argue New Hampshire since they voted Bush in 2000, but they repudiated the republicans in 2004.

The only legit argument you could make would be Pennsylvania, and Obama is still running near even or ahead of McCain even with a divided democratic party.

So c'mon, let's be honest here.


by Yalin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:12:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here is kos' position which he was for (none / 0)

and now is against...

Anything to win, eh?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1 0/10/113223/27
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:49:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here is kos' position which he was for (none / 0)

Thanks for the link. I can see how his argument would be "fight against it before the disenfranchisement happens, but now that it's happened, you have to stick by the rules that were agreed to."

That said, if that is not his belief, I would say this is certainly political expediency on Kos's part given his stance against the Clintons since the beginning.


by Yalin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:03:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here is kos' position which he was for (none / 0)

Oh, forgot one thing with regard to the do anything to win argument.

"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything." -- Hillary Clinton 2007, talking about the Michigan election.


by Yalin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:06:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey Linc! (2.00 / 4)

no giving up here!  I strongly believe HRC will end up with the popular vote.  

Just so you know, no time to spend here fighting obama people (who seem so concerned about HRC even tho their guy "won")...I've been phone banking, giving $$, conferring with folks in Oregon about Obama's "mission accomplished" statement, and reading up on strategy.  Posting elsewhere, too, in HRC friendly territory.

thanks always for your efforts and comments!


by 4justice on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:52:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

I realize your enthusiasm, linc. But take the "Jesus" off as I'm sure Hillary wouldn't want you to use the Lord's name in vain.


by Zeitgeist9000 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:12:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, fortunately (2.00 / 1)

Hillary and I are allowed to disagree. I don't beleive the lord give two hoots whether or not I use her name in vain... but that's just me.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (1.00 / 1)

That's right, with some hard work you can help Hilary lose the nomination badly by a little bit less and pay Mark Penn too.  

You can do it!


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:49:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (2.00 / 2)

and this is a constructive, purposive comment how?


by slynch on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:25:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

note to self:

make only productive comments because slynch thinks I should


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:02:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (1.00 / 1)

note to you:

you are being an ass.
If you behave this way in public, you'd have no friends at all.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:29:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass so much.

I'm not in public and I have plenty of friends.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:36:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

nice to know you think it's fine to be an ass simply because you're in an anonymous setting.  That says a lot.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:40:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

I'm sorry I walked up on a group of people talking about giving money and volunteering time for a McCain surrogate that keeps attacking the nominee all so that the McCain surrogate can pay off a debt to Mark Penn.  I just assumed we were playing a game of make a giant ass of yourself.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:44:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

Hillary is not a McCain surrogate, and you should be TR'd for that.

Obama is not the nominee.  He won't be until August.  He isn't even the presumptive nominee, because he can't amass the delegates he needs to put him over half.  This was a pro-Clinton diary, and you opted to join it and post nasty comments and disrupt the thread.  So, the only one who is being an ass is you (well, you plus the other BO supporters who feel ever-compelled to disrupt pro-HRC diaries).  


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:09:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

Maddening when people are bat shit crazy and irrational isn't it?

When they can't possibly gain from what they're doing instead just choose to be destructive, oh it's just so freaking stupid.  Makes you wish they could just see how asinine and stupid they're being doesn't it.

Hell, to read posts from Alegre, knowvox, little otter, jerome, and some of the others you would think that we get bonus points in our little game of "make a giant ass of yourself".

These folks can behave just as I have as long as it benefits the McCain surrogate, but Hilaryous supporters haven't the integrity to put a stop to it.  Sure will attack me in a hurry.

Your mama wears combat boots!  (I had to.  It's mothers day.)


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:16:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

I don't support the bs from either side.  But, it is clearly more of an Obama-supporter problem.

and no, I don't really get that frustrated, except when I see arguments that just aren't valid.  And there are a lot of them around here.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:25:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (2.00 / 1)

Are you kidding?!  It takes wading to get through all of the bullshit from Hilary supporters.  It's like Kos at its worst.

Jerome's making up bullshit numbers about where the popular vote stands.  It's not a matter of opinion.  He's lying.  You called on that, right?

Half of the NAFTA lady's supporters have had to buy a dozen new keyboards because they've worn out the letters that spell misogynist because they would rather perform the contortions of pretzel logic to find a way to perceive sexism about 800 times more often than it's actually there than talk about the merits of their candidate.  You call bullshit on that when you see it, right?

Obama gets blamed regularly for Florida and Michigan not counting this year even though Hilary's camp took part in crafting the agreement to not count them and then signed on to it.  Barack didn't make them move dates.  Barack doesn't control the Michigan Supreme Court .  They shot down any revote.  Florida democrats shot down a revote in that state.  Hilary fans go all moonbat about how Obama is keeping their votes from counting (if he could, he should.  That was the agreement.  However, he doesn't have the power to do what these folks accuse him of).  You call bullshit on that when you see it happen I'm sure.

That lady who keeps loaning herself money to do John McCain's opposition research for him had nary a complaint about caucuses, but now that she's finished using her mouth to lie about Tuzla she is using it complain about how undemocratic it is to caucus.  Irrational as that is, it is not at all uncommon to see Hilaryous supporters pretending like both BO and the states that have caucuses are somehow wrong or immoral for having them or winning them respectively.  These people will talk sanctimoniously about the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida (states which DID break the rules) and in the same breath express that it is just fine to disenfranchise all of he caucus states by switching rules in middle of the game to a popular vote metric.  You point out the hypocrisy and dishonor in that too, right?

Btw, let's us call a Vegas bookie and put about a month's pay on each of our candidates if your so confident the it's not over by a long shot.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:50:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

let's see...for starters, the tone of your entire post shows you aren't that rational about this.  You clearly see all matters from only one point of view.  The name calling alone clarifies this for me.

As for your specific comments, first and foremost, exactly how often do you even try to be fair in your thinking, and how often do you call bs on your own kind?

1) haven't seen Jerome's numbers, but I have seen RCP numbers and scenarios on that page for PV tallies at the end of the primary.  Most likely, Obama will lead it, but I'd lay pretty good odds that she will (I'd say 60-40 against her).  At one point, I did a fair amount of statistical projection on this, and it was (and still is) too close to call.

To be honest, I haven't seen a whole lot of claims of sexism--not nearly the way you seem to be describing it.  I see a lot more claims of racism from BO supporters.  Many of the claims of sexism I have seen are pointing out blatantly sexist statements/actions.  I've only seen one that wasn't legit, and I didn't need to say anything about it, because by the time I saw it, it had been dealt with by others.

MI/FL.  It's both their faults, but Obama has in fact been involved in trying to prevent those votes from counting--until last week.  Now, Hillary is opposed to his new compromise, and I think she's wrong to be.

The caucus thing is a new one.  Hadn't seen that until today.  I actually agree that caucuses are undemocratic, but I don't think now is the time to do anything about it.  Better wait until after this primary season, but we should change the system.  Primaries can produce--and in this case very well might--an unelectable candidate.

As for wagering a month's salary, no.  My whole point is that it is too close to call.  That being the case, why would I wager?  HRC could win; BO could win.  If the odds were given to me at 99.99/.01--which is what Obama supporters seem to think on this site--and we did repeated trials, then I'd take that bet, because I think the odds are only 60/40 favoring Obama, and the expectation would, without doubt, work out in my favor.  But in one trial, the results are too close for anyone to wager safely (indeed, if odds are given correctly, there's always a 50% chance of winning, so the whole process of betting is silly in my view).


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:26:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

I was being irrational on purpose.  We covered that a couple of comments ago. How'd you miss that?

I guess that I have just learned one of the reasons for Clinton supporters thinking that they are not being rational.  You aren't much of a math person are you?  It is not 60/40.  It's not 99.99 either, but it IS somewhere in the mid 90s.   Think about it.  When we Obama people started talking about the math you Clinton supporters went straight into denial mode and heaped scorn on us (or at least on the math).  That was in February after supertuesday.  Clinton supporter said that we were wrong, Hilary's chances had not dropped so low as to be prohibitive.  Obama supporting math geeks like me said: "Ok it's not prohibitive yet, but lopsided enough as to be so improbable that it's not worth giving McSame are free ride for long."  If we were right at the time, that is if the math folks were right and the math deniers were mistaken, what do you suppose you could expect to see happen next?  Two things could be expected:

First, Hilary would win some contests.  Obama, snazzy as he is, couldn't be expected to win all 50.  It would be mathematically so unlikely that it's next to impossible.  Hell, you usually can't get 3 people to agree on pizza toppings.  A whole nation isn't going to agree on a nominee.  I digress.  

So, Hilary wins some states.  The states that she wins are, by her own characterization , big states.  These are the ones with the most delegates to offer.  She would later use this quality, bigness, to form a rather thin argument that he couldn't win the big states in the general because she's won some of them in the primaries as if New York or California were gonna suddenly turn red in November. Silly.  

Nevertheless, she won some big states and quickly discovered that the youngster had surprised her in more than just fundraising.  He'd kept all of the those big states to within margins that left her without very sizable net gains in delegates.  If you are a math dork, that should have been your first hint.  Barack had amassed such a sizable lead with 11 straight wins and some by humongous margins that the proportional distribution used on a state by state basis in the democratic nomination process was not going to allow her to make large, favorable changes in the math with many of the remaining states.

The second thing that happened was that the number of states and delegates remaining kept shrinking.  This has a pincer effect.  It is troublesome for a candidate that is trying to climb out of a whole.  A football team that is down a touchdown and two field goals with 5 minutes left in the second quarter is not happy about it, but definately isn't out of the game yet.  The same team, down by only a touchdown and 1 field goal with 3 minutes left in the game should be frantic.  The same holds true for "the math".

Ok, so those were the things that you could expect to see if the math dorks were right and the math deniers were wrong.  Guess what happened?  Ohio and Pennsylvania yielded only very small changes in the delegate math for her.  Texas actually gave Obama more delegates than her (that's right, in the only real metric Obama won Texas) and superdelegate movement and final adjustments in California's delegate math simply negated her gains from Ohio/Texas week.  She was still down by 140 delegates.  She'd won a huge state like Ohio, but couldn't win by enough to make a difference in the size of his lead and now there were less states left with enough delegates to offer that it could make a difference. (holy crap!  That was exactly what you'd expect to see if the math dorks were right all along!)

Still, Hilary supporters said: " No, that math jazz is just witch craft or something."  Hilary engages the kitchen sink strategy that has been so endearing.  Obama supporters and independents who just want neoconservatism to go away started to get tense.  Hil and Bill start talking about how McCain is better qualified than Barack!  Her classy ass muckety muck donors start threatening to withhold money from the party thus demonstrating more loyalty to Hilary than to the progressive agenda.  Hilary starts uttering the words Jeramiah Wright almost as often as Rudy used to mention 9/11 again crossing the traditional barrier to diminish the likely nominee of her own party's GE chances. (nothing but class)

Obama supporters said: "Ok well Pennsylvania and North Carolina are really the only 2 remaining states with enough delegates to change this race, but she'd need a blowout in Penn to do it."  She was up 19% in the polls in PA the week after Texas favored Barack with most of its delegates.  The kitchen sink strategy continued to crash through all barriers of taste and party loyalty.  Suddenly Hilary's fav/unfav numbers started to drop like a rock (and they had originally started at levels that made her a bad GE choice).  Next thing you know, she only wins Pennsylvania by 9.2% which the dolts in the media decided to report as double digits.  Those of the Hilary fans that don't understand the process were exultant about the big whooping that Barack had been handed in another "big state" thus showing that he couldn't win important states in the GE. (both SUSA and RCP average have Barack winning PA in the GE btw)  What had really happened was that PA was now off of the boards and Hilary's lead had be cut in half making  for only an 11 delegate net for our lady of the perpetual fight.

Superdelegate movement had been almost exclusively  Barack's favor since... well since Iowa.  Proponents of reality based decision making were pointing out to Hilary that there just wasn't enough of a delegate map left to do anything and that McCain really was benefiting from not being the focus of attacks and that he couldn't really afford a whole lot of opposition research or commercial time.  Maybe at this point all that she could accomplish by staying in the race was to do that stuff for him.  Nope, all that logic shit is for young upstarts who don't know what they're talking about and besides it's undemocratic to ask me to stop since I can't be forced out by him reaching 59%+1.  Piss on what's classy or good for the party becomes the attitude of Team Hilary (and several of her sour supporters).

Then along comes North Carolina and Barack wins a big state by a 14% margin!  Pennsylvania was more than undone.  The extremely disingenuous attempt to switch to a popular vote metric was dead in the water too.  Since then Clinton has had SDs switch to Obama and uncommitted SDs have begun committing to BO (9 the other day!)  

The pool of remaining delegates, both pledged and super, is itty bitty now and she needs more than twice a many delegates as he does to reach 50%+1.  Of the six contests remaining, at a point where Barack has a 168.5 delegate lead, she leads in polling in only the smallest 3.  

I'm sorry that you're clearly not a math dork, but it IS over.  She can do only damage now both to the party's GE chances and to her own career.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:04:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

make that 169.5.  BO just picked up another SD out of Maine!

And take one more available delegate out of the uncommitted pool too btw.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:29:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

Well, in fact, I am a "math dork."  I teach statistics at an ivy league university, I've published fairly extensively on quantitative methods, including a book on relatively advanced statistical methods.  So, you're off-base speculating about my mathematical and logical capabilities, and much of your attempt here to discredit my abilities is simply false.  That said, here's what's wrong with your argument.  

First, all the stuff about Hillary's 'kitchen sink' campaign is irrelevant to the discussion of numbers, so I'm not going to address it other than to say that, as an Edwards supporter who doesn't really care which of these two candidates gets the nomination nor do I think either can win in the GE, the argument that one candidate has been more negative than another is laughable spin.  They've both run typical and fairly amicable campaigns if you know your history.  I think that's one thing that gets HRC supporters in a tizzy--the constant complaining by BO supporters that he's run an innocent campaign while she's been divisive.  That simply ain't so, and that's evident by the 1% gap in PV.  If she's divisive and he's unifying, you wouldn't see such a split.  It could just as easily be said that he's divisive, but his supporters have a utopian view of his candidacy.  But, I digress.

I will agree with you that her odds have been declining since Superduper Tuesday, but declining odds do not a winner make.  I will also say/agree that she has not run a good campaign from the standpoint of going after what she needed to.  She has run this primary campaign as if it were a GE, winner-take-all contest, and that doesn't work to her advantage in a contest involving proportional delegate assignment.

However, at the same time, the mantra that it is over has been hashed and rehashed since February more than hasbrowns at Waffle House.  And, it's very simply wrong.  Before the PA primary, I spent almost an entire day projecting the winner of the popular vote.  Why does the popular vote matter?  Exactly because the superdelegates will decide this (it's obvious neither will get enough pledged delegates) and may be persuaded by it in terms of electability.  Currently, the superdelegates are moving toward Obama, but they do not commit themselves until the convention.  And, if any more revelations about Obama's ties to radical preachers, shady business deals, terrorist organizations like Hamas, etc. come out, you will see reverse movement of the superdelegates before the convention, right or wrong.  So, the "stragey" has shifted focus to the PV; it isn't simply an attempt to find a new metric--you're only building a strawman with that argument.  But, I digress again.

My projections about the popular vote count (which involved the use of Bayesian posterior predictive distributions derived from basic time series models; if you're a math dork, you can appreciate that approach) showed that it is simply too close to call who will win the popular vote.  That remains true under a variety of scenarios regarding the handling of MI and FL (including, excluding, etc.).  What's more, my projections were dead-on in terms of her pickup in PA (her actual pickup both in popular vote and delegates was within my margins).  And, my projections at that point regarding NC and IN were also within my margins.  I have not bothered yet, due to many end-of-semester obligations, to formally project the remaining contests with PA, NC, and IN fixed as known quantities.  No doubt, the posterior predictive distributions are shrinking away from HRC's favor.  Put it this way--if she wins the popular vote count, her margin of victory will be smaller than what is expected for Obama.  But, her win of the PV is NOT outside the margin of error, and so the claim that it is over is still specious.

In a nutshell, what does this mean?  It means both will end the primary season with too few pledged delegates to win.  The superdelegates will decide this, and they may very well be persuaded by the PV count.  And, the final PV count is too close to call.  So, what do we have? A candidate selection process that isn't over.

I want to add to that that the claim that it is over implies infite odds for Obama (100:0, which involves division by 0).  I chose 99.99:.01 to prevent that from happening, but that is a fair reflection of how BO supporters perceived this contest in February and now.  But, the "math" as you guys like to call it, doesn't support those odds.  Does this mean Hillary will win? No.  But Obama has not clinched it either, and that's my whole point.  Basically, to use some classical statistical terminology, BO supporters are and have been way too eager to make a Type I (or alpha) error.  I'm more statistically conservative than that.

Since you're a math dork, you might appreciate doing some thought experiments.  Basically, this election process looks like almost like a random walk with drift that cannot be accurately predicted.  And, that's being generous, because the Markovian assumption underlying the random walk process is tenuous at best.  In other words, it isn't necessarily clear that immediately prior primary results predict immediately subsequent results.  That being the case, consider rearranging the sequence of primaries/caucuses (there are 44! ways of doing this at this point).  Doing so would yield alternate seeming random walks, and none can be distinguished from one another to forecast a clear winner.  The majority of them would favor Obama, but a nontrivial minority of them would favor HRC.  I'm thinking about playing around with this a little if my schedule lets up this week, and if so, I'll diary it.  If I'm wrong, I'd be sure to point that out, because at this point, it is simply an intellectually interesting problem.  But the point is that it is not mathematically over, and you even admit that by saying it's in the mid 90s.  That's far more generous to Obama than the data suggest.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

Your proposed question/ project sounds interesting.  I would be very interested to know the results.  Please do post here if you toy with the numbers.  Regardless of what the findings are I would be fascinated to know.

With regard to her the negativity thing, you're just flat wrong.  I am not blind.  I don't fit the stereotype of Obama supporter that you've put forward.  None of us do (read that sentence a couple of time please).  I am not holding blindly to some utopian view of my candidate.  Politics is, sadly, all about the well timed low blow all too frequently.  I don't think that Barack has not engaged in this sort of thing.  He never has run as a McCain surrogate.  As you've said, that is beside the point.  Her fav/unfav numbers are quantifiable, not the skewed view of some doe eyed kool aide drunk Obamabot.  Deserved or not it is real.

With regard to the delegate numbers I will concede one point if you will another.  You pointed that my comment is tantamount to admitting the it is, in fact, not mathematically over.  I will confess that I have been sloppy in my language; sloppier than a scientist should be anyway.  I maintain though that the odds have become so lopsided as to merit this sloppiness typical to american vernacular.

The point I assert to you is that my numbers are based on all remaining delegates both pledged and super.  Additionally, some of those uncommitted "SDs" as not really uncommitted SDs.  They are actually add-ons.  They aren't part of the pool available for candidates to court.  

Again, I look forward to hearing your findings with regard to the rotation.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:23:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

As for the 4500 charges of sexism per millisecond around here, either you haven't been here much or you're full of it.

Hopefully next time we can get a female candidate with merits that can be argued so her supporters don't have to hurt true feminism by stooping to become the little boy who cried wolf.  There is an endless list of women who make more likable, better qualified, classier, more experienced, non serial lying candidates who actually come across as genuine when delivering a speech.  My awesome governor is just one example and she's about to hit her term limit.  I hope that she can find another (higher) office from which to represent me in government.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:14:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Chin up folks (none / 0)

or, perhaps you're simply more sensitive to claims of sexism when you see them.  Or, you're blind to sexism when it happens.  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  I've seen a fair number of claims of sexism, and many of them have been legit; some haven't.  But, the racism claims are just as often bogus.  The fact is that both candidates have engaged in divisive sex and race baiting.  For some reason, you seem to want to ignore what's coming from your side.

You clearly haven't liked Clinton from the start.  I did, then I didn't, then I did, then I didn't, and now I don't care.  So, I think I'm fairly objective, although I am turned-off by the hatefulness by both camps, and most seems to me to come from Obama's side.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:58:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (2.00 / 3)

What is this new math, again?  You want to include states that never counted in the first place and throw out states that have always counted, and ignore states that won't release vote totals?  This is giving me a headache.


by rfahey22 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST

The undemocratic process of the Democratic party (2.00 / 3)

gives me a headache. All we have left if the popular vote and electibility. That's it. And yes, we absolutely need to include the votes of Floridians. They were both on the ballot. If we don't include MI, then there is no reason we should include caucus estimates that don't reflect popular will- WA and TX case in point.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:03:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The undemocratic process of the Democratic par (2.00 / 1)

we still have the delegates.


by parahammer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:09:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The undemocratic process of the Democratic (2.00 / 0)

Who is counting the results of the TX caucus in the popular vote totals?  WA doesn't release popular vote totals.


by rfahey22 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:13:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They had a caucus (none / 0)

and a primary. Both were official. The primary had much greater turnout than the caucus and showed a much closer race. Caucuses, are by definition, exclusionary.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:15:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They had a caucus (2.00 / 2)

Well, by your silence I take it that you agree you were mistaken about TX.  As for being exclusionary, telling the voters of two states ahead of time that their votes won't count does tend to exclude many from the electoral process.  See, for example, this study of MI and FL:

http://www.dcourage.com/Nini%20-%20Probl em%20with%20Existing%20FL%20and%20MI%20P rimaries.pdf


by rfahey22 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:21:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We are talking about two different things (none / 0)

I brought up TX in the tread to point out the non-reflection of popular will that caucuses have. No one is counting TX's caucus in any popular vote count.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:23:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They had a caucus (none / 0)

Hi Linc, you Clinton Dive Bomber, you?

Since it's clear you have NEVER been within 1000 miles of the PNW, thought I would clue you in about the Caucus we have (real) and primary (Beauty pagent, which is what even the PARTIES call it....).....

Obama CRUSHED Hillary in this state, in the caucus?

We had done our job, so WHY show up to something that didn't matter?

Sure, it was OFFICIAL, but it had no effect on the delegate count?

Just like Hundreds of Thousands didn't show up for the Beauty Contests in FL and MI?

"The primary had much greater turnout than the caucus and showed a much closer race....

Hehe....

Pulled THAT one right out of your backside, right?

The caucus here SET RECORDS, no one had ever seen the likes of it?

The follow on primary beauty contest was a light turnout...

But, nice try?


Rush Limbaugh, Sara Palin and Joe the Plumber...The Triad of Republican Irrelevancy.
by WashStateBlue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:51:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They had a caucus (none / 0)

You do realize that not even Jerome is behind this.  

If your aim is to persuade people, you have to measure the contests that people thought were going to count toward the nomination - and that means the caucuses.


by TL on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

TX and WA (none / 0)

are both prima facie evidence of the faults in the caucus process which might lead us to a BO nominee and a 300+ Electoral College McBush win.


by Newport News Dem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:29:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The undemocratic process of the Democratic par (2.00 / 1)

If you docked Obama the difference between the Texas caucus and primary in every caucus state- he'd still win every single one of them that still fell in his column with the exception of Iowa (which, of course, would have gone to Edwards if Obama magically lost support). If, in turn, that margin of victory received the average turnout of primaries in this election, Obama would be due 350,000 extra votes over Clinton than what he is presently credited with.

The caucus system is a legitimate means of contributing to the nomination process... if you think we should do away with caucuses altogether I suggest you bring that up in four years. In the meantime, you're suggesting that we penalize those states after the fact for a system they had every right to use.

Thats "undemocratic."


by Casuist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't dock anything from TX in the totals above (none / 0)

I am merely pointing out that caucuses are not an indication of the will of the people- you know, one person, one vote. Obama won the TX caucus but lost the primary- in the land of democracy, this is a pretty big indicator that caucuses do little to reflect actual popular votes.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:16:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you misunderstand... (2.00 / 1)

if you take the difference in the TX contest away from Obama in every caucus state, the above calculation is correct, and Obama is owed 350,000 more votes if those caucus states had been primaries.

Granted, it's absurd to think that Obama's support in caucus states would have dropped by 8% across the board... if one takes the original margin of victory in those states and adjusts turnout to the average primary turnout, Obama's lead over Clinton grows by 1.1 million.

Or, in other words: your entire diary is based upon discounting the caucus states.

The superdelegates, fortunately, realize exactly how silly excluding 14 states would be simply because they used a method of selecting a nominee that the party and both candidates agreed to be legitimate.


by Casuist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, I don't misunderstand (none / 0)

you think that caucuses 'extrapolated' to greater purpotions would be a reflection of the popular will. My point about TX and WA is that this isn't the case- Obama lost the primary and won the caucus in TX- thus refuting any argument that caucuses can somehow be a good indicator of the popular vote in any given state. Caucuses are for people who can attend for hours- its a luxury. They DO NOT reflect, in any way the popular will of the people in those states. TX and WA state primaries versus caucuses are case in point.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you're being obtuse... (2.00 / 1)

8% is the margin of difference between the Texas caucus and primary. Obama's margin of victory greatly exceeded that in every single caucus state he won except for Iowa. Taking that margin away from him in every caucus state probably UNDERestimates his popular support in those states, and yet if one does so he's still owed more votes in your "popular vote" concoction. If you do not believe those states were not in his column regardless of the format of the election, you are imagining things. The caucuses are a legitimate means of assessing the support for a candidate, and you have no case for artificially removing them from the process just because your candidate performed poorly.


by Casuist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:37:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interpreting the popular will... (2.00 / 2)

..is not the prerogative of a few bloggers. It requires agreed rules which everyone sticks by. Without these, democracy falls into demagoguery.

For example, if you argue to move the goal posts in this way, howabout revoting California, where Obama now has six point lead over Hillary.

I can see you're selling hope here, Linc. But it's doing nobody any good, let alone your own candidate. These 'I followed the rules until I didn't' moves have really damaged Hillary's reputation.

If I was her REAL supporter, I'd be trying to rescue that.


by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:42:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The undemocratic process of the Democratic par (2.00 / 2)

lol.  All we have left is the popular vote and electibility?  

Its absolutely amazing that the only metric that actually counts is the only one Clinton supporters ignore at this point.

And I don't think the popular vote totals do count the TX caucus results, do they?  As for Washington, the primary doesn't count for anything, so of course those votes shouldn't count.  It would be like if California held another primary and then we counted those votes.  It makes no sense.


by KevinT on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not quite (none / 0)

"All we have left is the popular vote and electibility?"

An attempt to smear Michelle Obama is underway by Robert Novak and being dutifully spread by some of Hillary's people -- complete with racial denunciations of her.

Just when you think they can't go any lower -- they do.  


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:19:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite (none / 0)

"Just when you think they can't go any lower -- they do. "

And, they will!

The vast majority of folks at Hillaryis44, NoQuarter and Taylor Marsh are convinced STILL she is going to win?

When Hillary suspends her campaign after OR, I expect to see a wash of screams, probably some violent threats, expectations of assination attempts...

They are already on a JIHAD, and it's going to get worse?

At that point, I think Todd and Jerome are going to have to ride herd a bit here, lest the let it get that ugly here.


Rush Limbaugh, Sara Palin and Joe the Plumber...The Triad of Republican Irrelevancy.
by WashStateBlue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:56:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not worried about MyDD (none / 0)

Things stay relatively sane and balanced here, if a little heated at times.  Pop over to HillaryIs44, and it is a trip through the looking glass.  Some of those people are scary and weird.  It is like FreeRepublic with a pink coat of paint.

And then their was this amazing hate filled screed I read on NoQuarter earlier, going on about how horrible Obama and his supporters are, completely rejecting out of hand any attempt at Democratic unity.  The nature of the thing would be ironic if it was not so sad... using exactly the sort vague insults and hateful language that the author claimed to be offended by.  I've seen a few eyebrow raising things on MyDD, but nothing like that.


by protothad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not worried about MyDD (none / 0)

What I am worried a bit about, and I do think a lot of folks aren't maybe that experienced and haven't seen it is....

When Hillary suspends, there will be a LOT of Republics trolling...

Trying to piss off Hillary suporters, insulting them, acting snide, arrogant.

Pretending they are Obama supporters, when, most of us who have been on the losing end
(I logged off KOS for about two weeks after Dean dropped out in 2004...I was spitting nails....)
will back WAY off and let them let go their anger.

Some of the hard cores will enjoy the battle, they are already in full armor?

But, there are a lot of Hillary supporters, who, after they heal, can think about a reluctant support of Obama.

The target of the Republic trolls is those folks.

And, in general, they just will love to gleefully cause chaos and pain..that is who they are...


Rush Limbaugh, Sara Palin and Joe the Plumber...The Triad of Republican Irrelevancy.
by WashStateBlue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not worried about MyDD (none / 0)

Actually, I think the Republican trolling of Dem/progressive blogs has already begun and probably accounts for much of the bile spewed.  I think that is why we should always be suspicious of any trollish message posted anonymously here or elsewhere.  I've read some messages posted on HillaryIs44 or NoQuarter or TaylorMarsh that sound too much like stuff I've read on FreeRepublic to not be pubs in dem clothing trying to stir up trouble.  That is were good moderation plays a roll.  That is why I think MyDD will weather it better than other blogs.


by protothad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:51:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not quite (none / 0)

It appears soometimes as if they are trying to incite such behavior here.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:29:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The undemocratic process of the Democratic par (none / 0)

How horrendously immoral!  Didn't anyone teach you, in about kindergarten, about agreeing to the rules and then playing in accordance with them?  Caucuses have been kosher (and not whimpered about) in America in one regard or another since its birth.  Caucus states broke no rules and you want to take away their influence over the nomination entirely in order to accommodate states that did break the rules despite being warned ahead of time and provided an opportunity to undo the transgression afterward?!  Plus, and this is the unbelievable part, you have the incredible chutzpah to to be all sanctimonious about how undemocratic caucuses are while you attempt to subvert the democratic nomination process!  

Congrats.  That is among the top 5 most disingenuous things that I have ever seen.  


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:01:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since the Secretaries of State... (2.00 / 2)

...For Florida and Michigan certified the results of those elections, then I see no reason why we should not include them in the popular vote total.

The Florida and Michigan primaries were legally valid under each respective state's law.

It seems to me that you're saying the rules of a private organization, the Democratic Party of the United States, supersedes laws passed by state legislatures and approved by the chief executive officer of the states; the Governor.

I can't help but wonder when some will begin to argue that the rules of the Democratic Party overrules the United States Constitution.


by andrewalker08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:04:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Since the Secretaries of State... (2.00 / 2)

No offense, but your argument makes no sense.  The legal status of the election is a completely different issue than whether a private organization chooses to allocate delegates based on those results.  There is no superseding of anything.  Your legal analysis is sorely lacking.


by rfahey22 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:09:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Show me where I mentioned the word... (none / 0)

..."delegate" in my comments above.

What I said is that the results of the Florida and Michigan primaries as certified by each state's Secretary of State should be included in the popular vote count.

Since the primary elections were legal under state law, there is no reason why anyone should not count the official statement of votes cast in the nation-wide popular vote tally.


by andrewalker08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Show me where I mentioned the word... (2.00 / 2)

Show me where the Democratic Party is required by law to accept the results, merely because the two self-interested states approved them.  Heck, show me where in the rule book it says that the popular vote is the criterion by which the nomination is awarded.  Then, tell me how you believe that the Constitution is involved here.

I believe that in his last election, Saddam Hussein won by something close to 99%.  That election was officially sanctioned by the Iraqi government.  Of course, I doubt that international observers would find its results legitimate.


by rfahey22 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:26:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well there you go again... (none / 0)

...Bringing up subjects that I didn't even discuss in my initial comments.

Getting back to my original point, just because the Democratic Party of the United States does not recognize the presidential preference primaries held in the states of Florida and Michigan does not make them any less official.

The fact remains that the governing bodies authorized to make changes to Florida and Michigan state law did so meaning that the presidential preference primaries held in Florida and Michigan on January 29, 2008 and January 15, 2008 respectively are considered legal and official under their respective state statutes.

Now, I'm not going to get into the question of whether the Democratic Party of the United States has to accept the results of any state Democratic Party's primary and/or caucus because that was not the point I'm trying to make.

My point is this...

...If state law says those primaries are legally valid, then I'm following state law and including the official statement of votes cast in the nation-wide popular vote tally.

I don't believe Party rules supersedes state law or federal law, because if it did, any Democratic Party organization could pass a rule making compliance with campaign finance regulations optional.

Now I don't think you want to go down that road of putting the Democratic Party above the rule of law.


by andrewalker08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:20:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Feel free to do whatever you want... (none / 0)

but you should know that there is no "official" recording of the national vote total.  And since most people view elections that do not include all candidates as illegitimate, nobody is going to care how you manipulate the numbers in favor of your candidate (except supporters already).  Thus continue to bring up "the popular vote total," but it is not influence anybody, b/c it is not illustrative nor persuasive.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:18:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well there you go again... (none / 0)

Fair enough, but I don't see how whether or not a secretary of state stamped those horribly flawed results as "official" gives them any additional claim to legitimacy.  The only significance that the popular vote numbers have are as rough barometers of the popular will.  Because I believe that the numbers from MI and FL are illegitimate, those figures do not have a great deal of significance to me.  Arguing that they should count because the MI/FL secretaries of state said so is completely beside the point.  Indeed, I think that many people on this site are missing the forest from the trees.  A much better approach would be to first acknowledge the flaws in those popular vote totals, but then argue that they should be counted anyway based on some value that everybody considers legitimate.  A number without significance is just a number.

Also, I really don't understand your "superseding the law" argument.  There's no state or federal law compelling the party to recognize popular vote totals.  Therefore, there's no law to "supersede" or violate.


by rfahey22 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:24:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its all abou the party rules (none / 0)

There is nothing in the constitution about how political parties select their candidates; that is completely up to the party.  The Dem party could pull names from a hat and it would be just as 'legal'.  The problem is not how MI and FL conducted their primaries, it is that they broke the rules laid down by the Dem party by jumping the schedule.  Certainly there is room to argue that the schedule is wacked or that the penalty was too harsh, but the certification of the results is not really the issue.


by protothad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:10:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Since the Secretaries of State... (none / 0)

You and BO may jump through whatever hoops you can to deny re votes for a DNC approved slate of delegates (they still may be approved by the Rules Committee anyway), but this die hard Democrat will never even sanction BO's supporters sticking a shiv in the backs of the real voters in MI and FL. If you condone a failure to count these voters, join the rove republicans


by Newport News Dem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Since the Secretaries of State... (2.00 / 3)

It seems to me that you're saying the rules of a private organization, the Democratic Party of the United States, supersedes laws passed by state legislatures and approved by the chief executive officer of the states; the Governor.
For purposes of determining who will receive the Democratic Party's nomination for the office of President - yes, we're saying exactly that.  The Democratic Party's rules for determining the nomination do indeed supersede any state laws, if any such laws exist, determining how the Democratic Party is to determine the nomination.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Since the Secretaries of State... (2.00 / 1)

Actually, wasn't the law that established the Michigan primary annulled by a Michigan court, because it restricted access to the voter lists to only the Democratic and Republican parties? Unless the law had a clause allowing the invalidation of only a part of the law (and I don't think it did), that means that the entire law establishing the election was invalidated, so the primary had no legal basis. Really just a point of pedantry, since the decision as to whether the delegates elected in the Democratic party primary have votes at the convention is entirely the decision of the Democratic party, not the Michigan legislature.

Just being a pedant.


by letterc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:51:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

New Math = Chapter 7 (1.50 / 2)

Hillary is the new Bear Stearns


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:05:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (none / 0)

You keep saying FL and MI don't count.  But you know those people voted and showed their preference. They matter when you are a superdelegate trying to determine who is more electable.  They can cast their vote based on THEIR OWN DETERMINATION on who is most electable.  When you look at all the people who showed their preference, it matters, because those people will vote in the GE and if they aren't going for Obama, then its pointless to choose him as the nominee.  


Yes She can! Go Hillary!
by Cassyma on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:58:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (2.00 / 0)

Please see the latest polling out of Michigan.

Obama does better than Hillary in a matchup against McCain.  This is not even a little bit surprising - Obama has demonstrated that he's much more appealing to Dems in the upper Midwest than Clinton - see, e.g., MN, WI, IL, IA.

So, the argument that nominating Obama is going to cost us MI is entirely made up - zero evidence to support it.


by TL on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:29:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (none / 0)

wow, is this really the BO talking point ---- MI and FL never counted in the first place? bet your fat ass they'll count in the last place though.


by swissffun on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:44:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (none / 0)

And if we ignore that 14th amendment thingie and count African Americans as 3/5 of a person, her numbers look even better!!  Full steam ahead!!!


by rf7777 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:49:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Quitting is unamerican (none / 0)

And telling others to quit disqualifies you to hold the highest office of this can-do nation.


by catfish1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:31:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (1.75 / 4)

I'm not even going to respond. What can you say.


by sweet potato pie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:01:41 PM EST

Thank (2.00 / 2)

god.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:03:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (2.00 / 3)

So if the last primary is run and it turns out that Obama has won the PV, then Clinton should concede?  And if Clinton wins the PV, but superdelegates back Obama anyway, you'll agree that's a totally legitimate victory?


by IncognitoErgoSum on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:02:33 PM EST

Re: 1% (none / 0)

If that happens, we'll hear that the moon was out of phase for most of February, so those causes and primaries don't count.


by TL on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:30:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (none / 0)

Thank you for posting that!
by Jeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:12:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (2.00 / 2)

I admire your passion, but I don't want you to be too disappointed when this is over...I highly, highly, highly doubt HRC will be the nominee. In fact, I'd give it a 1% chance.


by mecarr on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:04:35 PM EST

One of my biggest beefs with (2.00 / 1)

Obama supporters is that they think they own the concept of hope.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Absolutely not! (none / 0)

That is specifically anathematic in the Obama camp.

If some other candidate can win this campaign and instill hope in this country, then good on them.

I think either other option has a near-zero chance of that, and also that it is the most important thing that can be done for this nation.  If I thought another candidate could turn around the ennui and cynicism of this country I wouldn't be as opposed to them as I am, but for pete's sake, hope all you can.

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A fair response (none / 0)

I really think my fellow Obama supporters need to back off and let this thing play out through the final primaries, if only for the perception of a legitimate resolution.  Nothing is gained by trying to pressure the Clinton supporters into giving up hope.  Sure, the chances aren't good, but this thing really is not certain until the superdelegates do their thing.  It seems obvious to me at this point that quite a few are going to put off announcing until after the voters have their say, if only to avoid accusations of pulling off a coup.

So don't give up hope, continue supporting your candidate until the nomination concludes, and please believe that not all Obama supporters are as, um, 'expressive' as those that make themselves most noticeable on the interweb.

Peace


by protothad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:17:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The DNC rules have a lot about delegates (2.00 / 1)

can you do me a favor and point me to the part about the popular vote? I don't see it. In fact, the candidates campaign like they're going after delegates and not popular votes. As a matter of fact the candidates all use the delegates as the relevant measure. But maybe there wrong. A simple citation to the DNC rules might set them straight so how about providing one?


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:04:56 PM EST

The let's talk Electoral Votes - Hillary wins! (none / 0)

Check out the Clinton/McCain map and compare it to the Obama/McCain map

These complicated projections have put Hillary getting the necessary 270 Electoral College votes the winner has to have and they have been there for months.  Obama has yet to see 270 votes needed tobe President in any of the projections based on previous wins, the latest polls and lots of other data.  Check it out.  Hillary beats McCain and McCain beats Obama, updated every day.


by itsadryheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:12:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DNC rules have a lot about delegates (none / 0)

point out the rule that says the elected delegate vote decides the nomination???? nope the SDs count, and the PV counts, or should, in their calculation.

also, does this mean the BO campaign will stop the fibbing that the elected delegates represent the people's voice? if the PV doesn't match up, then how does that represent all the people's voices? or even a plurality?


by swissffun on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:46:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

or, in other words... (2.00 / 5)

If one counts the results from two contests where the voters were told directly that they would not count in the process and where the candidates did not take part (and, indeed, were not on the balleot in one case)...

and if one uses a metric which artificially downweights states which chose, legitimately, to conduct caucuses rather than primaries in good faith...

... then Clinton is not quite so far behind.

Of course, if one takes those conditions above, one cannot claim to be espousing the spirit of the democratic process.


by Casuist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:05:32 PM EST

Re: or, in other words... (2.00 / 1)

If Floridians knew they would count there would have been more AAs who would have voted in Florida.  


by Spanky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:24:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

exactly... (2.00 / 2)

changing the result of an election after the fact automatically makes that vote completely illegitimate. I supported revotes in Michigan and Florida... absent a revote neither contest is valid regarding the selection of the nominee.


by Casuist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: exactly... (none / 0)

See my other comments on topic.

Any logic shows the black vote in FLA as being the #1 under-represented group on Jan 29.

"Steal" - by any perception - the election from Sen. Obama and say goodbye to Florida.

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (2.00 / 3)

I'd just be happy if the Clinton camp articulated some standard of victory which they'd happily apply if Obama came out ahead.  Anyone can cherry pick.  "Does the popular vote matter?  Let me get back to you after the last state has voted".  That's what a lot of this sounds like.


by IncognitoErgoSum on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:05:43 PM EST

They Have (2.00 / 2)

What do you mean, they have put forth a few....

Pre-Super Tuesday Pledged Delegates
Post-Super Tuesday Total Delegates
Post Ohio/Tx Big States
Post PA Electoral College Votes
Pre  IN/NC "Electability"
Post IN/NC "White Votes"

Now it's getting close (within 100 pledged delegates), close in total votes, minus caucus, plus FL, MI and PR and 50% of "hard working, white voters" vote.

See it's simple!


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:16:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Popular vote? (2.00 / 3)

I'm sorry, but what's all this 'popular vote' nonsense? We don't elect nominees based on popular vote.


by GT on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:07:31 PM EST

You are right (2.00 / 1)

we elect them, in this primary, based on the perceptions of Super Delegates. Its electibility and popular vote. I think in the last survey, 1 out of ten SDs gave two cents about pledged delegate count? Most cared about electibility- you know what? Me too.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:09:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

fair enough... (2.00 / 3)

indeed, Clinton started out with a 100 vote advantage in supers before a single vote was cast. Now she's behind... and it appears that even by the standards you suggest she falls short.

Out of one side of your mouth you promote a (nonexistent) "popular vote in the spirit of democracy and then, from the other side suggest that the superdelegates overturn the results of a process that is designed to equally weight caucuses, open primaries and closed primaries to the benefit of no single candidate.

...how principled.


by Casuist on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:17:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you seriouslly suggesting (2.00 / 2)

that the remaining unpledged SD's are all of a sudden going to break 70-30 for HRC based on the convoluted 'this state counts but this one doesn't' math you presented here?

I have no real preference other than to beat McCain and if HRC wants to wait a few more weeks before bowing to reality, that's her choice. Obama and McCain have already moved on as has the media.

But I have a hard time believing that people still think HRC has a chance to get the nomination. This is over and it's time to move on.


by GT on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:19:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the superdelegates (2.00 / 4)

base their decision on the amount of spam email they receive from supporters threatening to vote republican in November if they don't get their way.

Using that metric, you should have nothing to worry about.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:20:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Popular vote? (2.00 / 3)

I'd be totally fine with someone's turning the PV into a metric of which candidate has a moral claim to the nomination, but to do that the Clinton camp has to go all the way.  "If Obama wins the PV the race is over--he's the rightful nominee".

If they're not willing to do that, how much can the PV matter?  If this metric goes againt them they'll abandon it like a used kleenex.  


by IncognitoErgoSum on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (2.00 / 7)

As a born-and-raised dumb 'ole Iowa farmboy, I gotta tell you, I'm awfully pissed you're willing to tell Iowa to get bent just because your candidate didn't perform well in caucuses. You're also willing to count zero votes for Obama in Michigan, because it suits you to do so politically. Roles reversed, you'd be foaming at the mouth.

Disingenuous. Insulting. And just plain wrong.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:08:20 PM EST

Fine, count them both (none / 0)

it bodes better for Clinton. Why on earth would Obama receive any votes in a state he chose not to run in? We have had uncommitted delegates at the convention before, why not now? And, I have been against caucuses and delegates since before I was a Clinton supporter- its a moral thing.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fine, count them both (2.00 / 2)

I thought you wanted to express the will of the people - that was your basis for preferring the popular vote.

You honestly believe that Obama did not have even one supporter in Michigan?  That giving him zero reflects the will of the Michigan electorate?


by TL on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:32:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fine, count them both (none / 0)

Quote from Sen. Clinton's campaign as to why Obama needs to count popular votes in MI (173,664 ) if they are counted at all.

Second, the Obama campaign's allies in Michigan organized an effort to get people in Michigan to vote for "uncommitted" in the Democratic primary, helping to bring the uncommitted share of vote to 40 percent. So the Obama camp can't reasonably argue supporters participated in the GOP primary and didn't vote in the Democratic contest.

here

In fact, due to - the fuzziness of FL (where the popular vote misrepresents voter intentions imho) and MI (where it is more than easily argued that BO would have gotten much higher voter turnout in a real election) and the caucus states (where it is difficult to put specific popular vote numbers to anything) - the entire popular vote argument falls apart.  Unless there is a massive advantage one way or another, the best logic is that it is an indeterminant metric.

Best to use the rules and count delegates, and ignore if possible the threats used by certain surrogates (Carville: "I knew what I was doing when I called Richardson Judas, and it worked.") against SDs.

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Allow this Georgia Peach to tell you... (2.00 / 1)

...That when Iowa starts picking some winning Democratic presidents, which the state hasn't done in a very long time, then we'll stop insulting the Hawkeye State.

Until then, this Democrat reserves the right to tell Iowa (and New Hampshire) to get bent at anytime and in anyplace.

Here's a bit of trivia for you, the first primary and/or caucus that Bill Clinton won in 1992 was the Georgia primary.  He lost Iowa.  He lost New Hampshire.  In my opinion, Georgia should go first considering the fact that we've got a better record of picking winning Democrats than Iowa does.


by andrewalker08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:13:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Allow this Georgia Peach to tell you... (none / 0)

If you want to replace Iowa as first in the nation, fine. I disagree, but I'll admit I'm wholly and totally biased on that issue. But don't you dare disregard the state's ability to go blue, or decide our votes don't count because you don't like the caucuses.


Serious question- Is This Snark?
by ragekage on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:53:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Allow this Georgia Peach to tell you... (none / 0)

Then since Obama won Georgia handily I assume you agree he's following in the fine tradition of Bill Clinton and will be our next President.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (none / 0)

I'm really confused, ragekage.  I have seen you claim to be from North Carolina, Virginia, and now Iowa.  Which is it?!


by slynch on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (2.00 / 1)

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 Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:10:46 PM EST

Re: 1% (2.00 / 1)

What about the caucus states???  And what about the pledged delegates???  And what about the number of states won????


by Spanky on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:11:18 PM EST

Re: 1% (2.00 / 9)

Bowers shot down this argument in a post today...She cannot win the popular vote

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId =5699


Matthew25Network.com
by cardboard 1 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:11:43 PM EST

Re: 1% (none / 0)

That article doesn't shoot it down.  It's pure speculation.  An article from RCP yesterday showed exactly how it can happen (I don't have the link to the article, but it's in my comments from yesterday)


by slynch on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:57:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (none / 0)

I saw the RCP article too...I believe it did the Mi 91-0 count to get there


Matthew25Network.com
by cardboard 1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:39:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (none / 0)

no, he actually omitted MI in a number of scenarios.  He actually constructed about 10 different scenarios, and she wins under like 4 of them. He's got a web-based spreadsheet set up so that you can play with the numbers yourself.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:42:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (none / 0)

I cannot find the article now either...but it seemed difficult to determine how you just don't measure it as a tie, given the large number of means of counting it, under the best case Clinton scenario... If I remember right her best case was a lead of right around 100,000.  I think Chris' projection was much more realistic.  Not that it matters anymore because the Media has no consideration for the measure...which is rather saddening, but a fact of life.


Matthew25Network.com
by cardboard 1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:50:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (none / 0)

that will change on a dime if the popular vote becomes more competitive.  the media is fickle that way.

I didn't see a projection in the link you provided.  He showed a current lead for Obama and simply stated it couldn't be overcome.  But the RCP article showed how it could be done.

The leads for Clinton were smaller than for Obama under the various scenarios, but that doesn't really matter--at the end of the day, the lead is the lead.  I think what it should tell us is that, given the split in the party, they should both be on the ticket.  Otherwise, I think we will lose this fall.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:12:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (none / 0)

I'm not sure she would take it...I would say at the very least a Clinton Backer ought to be.  I like Wesley Clark for several reasons...

He is an outspoken Clinton Backer
He is non a Washington figure
He is southern
And most importantly - He undercuts McCain's selling point (technically McCain has to salute him)


Matthew25Network.com
by cardboard 1 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:50:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (none / 0)

not a bad thought, but it might highlight the inexperience bit.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:04:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

linc, I think it's great that you're GingOTV (2.00 / 3)

for your candidate.  I do believe it will help the Democratic Party in November.  And I give you props for not including MI in your popular vote total.  All I can say is we'll see where things stand in June.


by The Distillery on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:11:50 PM EST

Re: 1% (2.00 / 4)

Slight typo

They will put Hillary over the top in the popular vote if we give her the help that she needs and if we don't give up on her.

That last sentence should have the subclause added:

and ignore hundreds of thousands of caucus states votes, AND don't count the hundreds of thousands of Michigan voters who had no choice but vote 'uncommitted'

Then at least your sentence would make sense.


by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:13:26 PM EST

Obama shouldn't (none / 0)

have taken his name off that ballot if he wanted people in MI to vote for him. It was his choice- a cynical one at that.

As for caucuses- they are undemocratic and do not reflect the will of the people: TX and WA being perfect examples.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

His crime then? (1.66 / 3)

He trusted her when she said she was leaving her name on the ballot but it didn't matter because it didn't count.

He should have known that she was lying and would come back later and want to claim that the voters really wanted her even though she was the only choice they had.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:25:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: His crime then? (none / 0)

That is just smart politics to prepare for anything.  Obama, if he had been more politically experienced might have known that.  But he is from Chicago and I don''t know why he would be naive about politics and just do everything that would count him out in the future.  Dodd stayed on.  Is he horribly dishonest, too?


by Scotch on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:40:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: His crime then? (1.50 / 2)

Yeah, he needs to be MORE experienced, like Hillary...ignore the rules (which SHE agreed to), keep changing your story, move the goal posts...

Then lose in the end?

Hey, I think he is going to skip that last part of the Hillary "experienced" strategy?


Rush Limbaugh, Sara Palin and Joe the Plumber...The Triad of Republican Irrelevancy.
by WashStateBlue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:01:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama shouldn't (2.00 / 5)

So it's not a big deal if pro-Obama voters get disenfranchished (they were screwed by the decisions of party higher ups), but not including the votes of Clinton supporters in Florida would be a travesty.  

And you expect to sell that?  


by IncognitoErgoSum on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:26:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama shouldn't (2.00 / 1)

Both would be counted, she just has way more.  Look the voters both had an equal ability to show up, if some did not, then that is there fault.  I remember at the time, the candidates didn't campaign directly in the states, but there was still campaigning going on by supporters.  Maybe Clinton supporters were more able to look into the future and look at what could happen.  Maybe they were more politically astute and experienced to know that anything can happen in politics, but everyone had the same options and chances to vote.


by Scotch on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:37:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In reality, this is the logic behind (none / 0)

the argument that poor black men have the same ability to seek legal advice as rich white men.  Statistics, unfortunately, don't bear that out, and death row is the shame of our system because of it.

The reality is that Florida is a hot-bed of rich white Clinton supporters who are organized and aggressive (see the list of donors who threatened Pelosi as an example).  I am only thinking out loud atm, but this may have been some of the logic behind the statements of the Clinton supporters at the polls Jan 29 (see above).  There was pre-knowledge that the existing machinery in FLA would get out the Clinton vote quite well, thank you.

I would have loved a revote - the whole DNC fiasco disenfranchising the entire state is so ridiculous - but it was never possible.  Were there a revote, the count would come out much closer and the popular vote argument would, I believe, disappear.  That may be why there was never an option provided for a revote that could possibly survive.

-chris

PS - CNN right now is interviewing the SD who tied the race (by their count, other's have BO in the lead).


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:04:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In reality, this is the logic behind (1.00 / 1)

you're joking about florida being a "hot bed of rich white Clinton supporters" or you are parroting Jeremiah Wright


"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 Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:18:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama shouldn't (2.00 / 3)

And what about all the voters in FL and MI who didn't vote in the primaries because they were told, by Hillary among others, that they wouldn't count?

Sometime soon, we're all going to get tired of these arguments. Nobody buys them: not the SDs, not the voters.


by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:30:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Which voters or SDs? (none / 0)

Obama's half or Hillary's half? Maybe the portion that hasn't voted yet or the SDs that for some reason or reservation, aren't inclined to jump on board the USS Obama?
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:34:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A brief foray into logic then... (2.00 / 1)

USS Obama

By their words so ye shall know them


by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:46:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

USS Obama (2.00 / 1)

will be on the stern of an aircraft carrier in twenty years...


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:43:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama shouldn't (none / 0)

All those voters, both O supporters and C supporters, were equally told that their votes didn't count by many people.  Given that, more didn't turn up for Obama, or the obvious, Hillary won despite it all.  She just had more voters who did.  Whose fault is that?


by Scotch on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Almost equally... (none / 0)

...as the Clinton volunteers manning the Democrat table outside my local polling station told me on Jan. 29:

"You don't have to worry," they smiled soto-voice, leaning in conspiratorially, "there is a huge effort underway to get out the Clinton vote.  And we have it on good authority that the delegates will all count in the end"

Seems they mistook my kind words about Bill Clinton as support for Sen. Clinton.

They didn't like my next comment: "I'm an Obama supporter this time, and that seems underhanded and unfair."

I've related that story here often enough, but it always bears repeating.  The Clinton machine had a coordinated effort to get out Clinton supporters, while leaving alone areas like East Bradenton not far from me where the poor black demographic didn't work for them. Florida has millions of voters who stayed home because they believed the DNC that it didn't matter - the Clinton campaign worked the back channel and picked and chose who mattered.

You want to talk disenfranchisement, go to East Bradenton and grab a soapbox.  I'm sure you will find a ready audience.

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You just want them to be racist (2.00 / 1)

of course they are going to GOTV in the areas that have Hillary supporters. Tell me, is Obama a racist for having heavy GOTV operations in AA communities but not in poor white communities?
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:44:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You just want them to be racist (none / 0)

No, of course now. I believe his point is that it's cynical and extremely hypocritical for Clinton, her campaign, or her supporters to be running an organized GOTV effort in a state where she pledged not to participate and the votes of which she claimed would not matter.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0)

...and, linc, if you actually think that of me, you haven't been paying attention or are being intentionally disingenuous.

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:38:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama ran ads (none / 0)

about 1 million worth, in FL- what worse? Is that cynical? And the argument that they couldn't have be moved from broadcasting in FL is complete bull- it wouldn't have even cost him anymore money.
by linc on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:42:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama ran ads (none / 0)

According to what I've read about the ads, there were four ads shown, probably well under $50,000 in expense, and that they were shown in Florida was a mistake made by the broadcasters, not the Obama campaign. The DNC's own rules do not consider the Obama advertisements participating.

And there's no comparison at all between a few misplaced ads and an organized GOTV effort.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:32:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whatever (none / 0)

MI will count- Obama should never have taken his name off that ballot, end of story. It was his cynical ploy- you reap what you sow. Actions speak louder than words. Clinton might have said that she didn't think MI would matter, but she left her name on that ballot nonetheless. Obama took his off to pander to first in the nation states that have no right in determining who I have to vote for as a Democrat. Kos said it best, Obama taking his name off that ballot 'was a slap in the face' to MI voters.
by linc on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:50:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whatever (none / 0)

In which case you're not concerned about "voter disenfranchisement" or anything of the sort, you're just concerned with getting Clinton votes regardless of how many people need to be disenfranchised to do it.

Voter enfranchisement is about the voters. At least 40% of the voters of Michigan were disenfranchised in the existing election. Sanctioning it is making it very clear you support disenfranchising voters if it helps your candidate. Throwing out the entire primary also disenfranchises voters, but it's neutral to either candidate, disenfranchises everyone equally, and was what everyone expected prior to the vote. Throwing out just the votes of Obama supporters is no better than throwing out just the votes of Gore or Kerry supporters.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:44:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (none / 0)

So, since Obama took his name off of the Michigan ballot and left his name on Florida's ballot, it means that Hillary should have taken her name off of the ballots of the caucus states, so everybody's votes there would have been disputed as well. That's complete hogwash! Count the damn votes, man!


by Check077 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1% (2.00 / 2)

The most perversely funny result would be the one where Clinton won the PV, superdelegates backed Obama anyway, and then Clinton supporters started caterwauling about how the SDs stole the nomination from her.  "My previous statement about superdelegates is non-operational".  Can't wait til this race is over.    


by IncognitoErgoSum on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:22:04 PM EST

Re: 1% (2.00 / 1)

It still seems that the ultimate goal of Obama and his camp is to win at all costs with voters and supporters viewed only as objects and as means to an end. The nearly 50% of all voters in Democratic contests since January have indicated their preference for a candidate that is in the game to serve them and with whom they feel much more connected. I am happy for the Obama camp to believe that they've won and to start taking on McCain as they are in for some surprising treatment from the Republicans. Maybe he'll still be shielded by the press, but then again maybe not.
There is no precedent for a candidate with less than a 1% difference in primary voters and less than a 100 pledged delegate difference to not take their case to their party at the nominating convention. All else is wishful and deceptive thinking.
by pan230oh on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:27:49 PM EST

Re: 1% (2.00 / 2)

There's also NO PRECEDENT for a woman or an African American to garner so many votes in a primary season.

Unprecedented is good.

It's close. But there's a winner. And when you say 'the ultimate goal of the Obama camp is to win'...

Isn't that good too? For any candidate?


by duende on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:32:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jesus (none / 0)

its obviously facetious.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:35:03 PM EST

Re: 1% (2.00 / 2)

Obama's goal is to win.  It's not to win at all costs.  Obama's campaign hasn't said that he'd do things like poach pledged delegates ("but they're free to vote for whomever they want").  I respect Hillary Clinton, but she made a huge mistake early on when she centered her campaign on the premise that the pledged delegate count was just a detail (and that was a self-inflicted wound).


by IncognitoErgoSum on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:37:33 PM EST

Re: 1% (2.00 / 4)

I'm a Hillary supporter and i think she should stay in till the end of the process. But this is over unless a miracle happens. It may be 1%, and the popular vote was one way she could persuade the supers to back her but she can't make up 160 delegates. She'd need huge wins in the remaining states and almost every undecided super to break for her.

One of the reasons i supported Hillary was because she never gives up, i dont expect her to start now but be realistic. She has a small chance before Indiana and North Carolina, she now has virtually no chance. Not a realistic chance anyway.


by liberalj on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:38:29 PM EST

Re: Jesus Hillary supporters! Are you really that (2.00 / 1)

It is over for Clinton -
But it also may be over for the Democratic Party.
by johnnygunn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:03:48 PM EST

Re: Jesus Hillary supporters! Are you really that (none / 0)

you're such a downer!!


by hienmango on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:52:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jesus Hillary supporters! Are you really that (2.00 / 1)

Reality sucks.

Clinton would have been the stronger candidate -
Edwards would have been stronger still.
Both have the capacity to operate politically.

Obama has a "movement" and a big list of donors.
But movements require true believers and purity -
And Hillary supporters will never be true believers
Or meet the standards of purity that seem to emanate from the Obama camp.

Movement candidates from both parties have fared horribly.
The movement always looks overwhelming from within,
but it fizzles - either before the convention or in the general election.

For example -
William Jennings Bryan - the populist appeal with Democrats
Teddy Roosevelt - the progressive challenge to the Republican Party
Robert Taft - "Mr. Republican" and the conservative movement
Barry Goldwater - ideologically pure, but trounced at th polls
George McGovern - reforming the Dems at the cost of a landslide loss


by johnnygunn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:48:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jesus Hillary supporters! Are you really that (none / 0)

I'm an Obama supporter and has illusions of purity and I rather doubt that this is any way a common view.

Barack Obama is a politician and an imperfect man, just as Hillary Clinton is a politician and an imperfect woman.

There will never be a day when a perfect human being runs for president because there will never be a day when there is a pure and perfect human being.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:08:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jesus Hillary supporters! Are you really that (none / 0)


Right now, if you include Florida and exclude MI and the undemocratic estimates from caucus states, then Hillary is just behind in the popular vote by slightly over 440,000 votes. That's right, just 440,000 votes out of a total of over 40,000,000 million that we should expect from this primary.

It's a very close race, but first, the popular vote doesn't determine the nominee. Second, I think passing judgment because you don't approve of a state's electoral process is a bit rude, and I doubt you'd emphasize it if Hillary had carried a bunch of them instead. Third, even the most conservative estimate for how many uncommitted voters were Obama supporters in Michigan means you have to add another 120k+ votes for him, and that's basically ridiculously low.

And that having been said, there are many valid reasons the nominee is not selected by the popular vote.


by mattw on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:14:25 PM EST

Re: Jesus Hillary supporters! Are you really that (none / 0)

It appears that Obama is the weaker candidate--now, I'll listen to you Obama supporters all day and all night, but as Hillary said "Turn off the Television." I believe Obama supporters are a bunch of actors on television series: they love to keep the drama going. This is not an insult--I'm just stating the obvious. You do not allow Hillary supporters to sulk over their own problem, yet you come and pour more salt in the wounds. I paid close attention to one person's comments: This may be the end for Hillary Clinton--it also may be the end for the Democratic Party. If Obama would have kept his media lynch mob and rabid, frenzied youths and supporters at bay, then, this could have been a peaceful nominating process. Oh, by the way, on whether I vote for Obama, it would be my choice, for I owe you nothing.


by Check077 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:03:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jesus Hillary supporters! (2.00 / 1)

Jesus --- you remind me of guys who hold out hope for their team to get into the playoffs by some convoluted number of events (i.e "if E, F and G lose and we win this game...") and suppositions that will get them what they want.

To win the Democratic nomination you need to win the delegate count.  That count at this moment is 2024.5 delegates.

You don't win by claiming you have the most votes in the aggregate.  

It took HRC 35 contest to begin to understand how out-campaigned, out-flanked and out-manuevered she was

If you want to do something useful, write "YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT --IT IS YOUR FAULT THAT HILLARY LOST!" and mail it to Mark Penn


by kmwray on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:26:51 PM EST

RIGHT ON! (2.00 / 2)

It's the challenger who wants to shut it down, BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY HE CAN get the delegates.

And what is this additional flip flopping.  B O showed his hypocrisy when he didn't want to count Mi and Fl when he said he wants EVERY one to count, not just some states (ha).  But now, he refused to campaign in WV, but is still expecting strong votes.

Let's hope it works out like his Indiana win, NOT...or his 11 percent lead in  Guam, NOT.

Hillary to the White House.


by LindaSFNM on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:31:25 PM EST

Re: RIGHT ON! (2.00 / 1)

In what respect is Obama the challenger?  What does that even mean?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:09:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: RIGHT ON! (2.00 / 2)

It's the challenger who wants to shut it down, BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY WAY HE CAN get the delegates.

This is so telling. Why is Obama the "challenger"? He's been ahead of Clinton since the first vote was cast. The only way you view him as challenger is if you view Clinton as having been owed the nomination somehow, even before the contest began. Which, of course you do.

And that's the problem.

Clinton, like Obama, is just one candidate trying to earn the nomination. And like all the other candidates she has to earn it by collecting votes under the rules agreed to before the contest began.

She has failed to achieve this goal.


John McCain
by Mandoliniment on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:54:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: RIGHT ON! (none / 0)

Wow! This is what you are basing your hope on? Indiana (1% victory for Hillary)and Guam (which was decided by what, like 5 votes? and no offense, but, its Guam.)

Yeah, thats even more of a stretch than the mathematically challenged argument in linc's diary.


by AllergicToBS on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jesus Hillary supporters! Are you really that (none / 0)

Even if Hillary loses nomination, HRC supporters should never give up on Hillary.  I think she's done great work in the Senate and her legacy won't be forgotten.

And by the way, all the states matter, even the states with primaries and caucuses.  


by hienmango on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:49:32 PM EST

Re: Jesus Hillary supporters! Are you really that (none / 0)

One benefit of Hillary staying in the race longer might help her payoff her campaign's debt.  I think it's around $20,000,000.00.


by hienmango on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:55:29 PM EST

Re: Jesus Hillary supporters! Are you really that (none / 0)

Hillary is better than McCain.

Go Democrats!!!


by hienmango on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:56:08 PM EST

Hahahahahahahahaha (none / 0)

So you include Florida, which did not have a real election since both campaigns acknowledged before hand that it would not count and neither campaigned there but you exclude Wyoming, Hawaii, Maine, Nebraska, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nevada, and Iowa (24% of the states in this country) where both campaigns actually campaigned?

Not to mention the fact that Obama won 11 of those states with 61%, 76%, 59%. 68%, 74%, 67%, 80%, 74%, 66%, 61%, 45%, and 38% of the vote respectively.

You really can't be serious.  You want to throw out a quarter of states that will actually vote in the general election in November but decide the popular vote based on what the people of Puerto Rico do?

How can you write this kind of stuff with a straight face?


by WellstoneDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:43:59 PM EST

You can't read, can you (none / 0)

That's is not what I wrote. Check again, if you have a real comment- let me know.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can't read, can you (none / 0)

Im actually pretty good at reading.  You start off by throwing out the caucus states.

"Right now, if you include Florida and exclude MI and the undemocratic estimates from caucus states, then Hillary is just behind in the popular vote by slightly over 440,000 votes. That's right, just 440,000 votes out of a total of over 40,000,000 million that we should expect from this primary. That's 1%- just 1%."

Then you acknowledge the caucus states briefly but throw them out again at the conclusion of your diary by using the popular vote difference that doesn't count the caucus states:

"If the polling out of KY and WV holds, then Hillary can get very close to those 440,000 votes in just those two states alone- we need to GOTV and GOTV in a big way. OR will be closer, SD and MT will be closer and then Hillary will finish it all off with a big win in PR"

I know making such ridiculous arguments must take considerable creativity so maybe the scenario you wrote about isn't the one you thought you did...


by WellstoneDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:54:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can't read, can you (none / 0)

Thanks for your close reading WellstoneDem.  And thanks for keeping Paul Wellstone's name and legacy in front of us.  I think that as a fellow organizer (and as a scholar of community organizer), he would have been a big Obama fan.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You can't read, can you (none / 0)

Thanks,

I think you're right.  I don't think its a coincidence that Senator Wellstone first attracted me to politics and Senator Obama renewed my belief in the ability of politics to make a difference.

Senator Obama also utilizes the 'Wellstone triangle', the model for political action that he developed over the course of his academic, organizing, and political career:

1)Good public policy that directly addresses the issues of the day through a bold vision and big ideas
2)Grassroots organizing to build a coalition for change
3)And a strategic electoral effort that knows the ins and outs of the electoral process and delivers a clear and concise message to the voters.

Its a winning formula and thats why Senator Obama will be the Democratic nominee and next President of the United States.


by WellstoneDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

caucus states can't be excluded (none / 0)

So how can you argue for excluding those caucus states?

They used a delegate system that has been used for many decades. If they thought that this system would be rendered invalid by the adoption of the popular vote as a metric, they would have changed their system.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:15:06 PM EST

Pick and choose (none / 0)

you are doing it too. Fine, include the undemocratic caucus states, but if thats the case, we should probably also include the MI totals. I thought I was helping you all out since it seems Obama's mission in life to ensure that MI and FL don't count.

Caucuses are, and I have said this since before becoming a Hillary supporter, not democratic and certainly don't represent the will of the people in those states. Go ahead and argue that they should count, I don't care, but all we need to do is look at WA and TX to realize that they DO NOT represent popular will, but rather the will of those that have the luxury to show up and hang out.
by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

After playing count/deosn't count. (none / 0)

Remember to make believe we base it on popular vote totals.  Would hate to see you go through the trouble of imagining a scenario where Clinton has more popular votes, only to realize the election is based on delegates.

When your playing make believe why do you make it so complicated?  If you just pretend none of the votes cast for Obama count it is alot simpler, and that way Hillary already won!


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:15:42 PM EST

Re: Hillary supporters! Its time to kick some but (none / 0)

"if you include Florida and exclude MI and the undemocratic estimates from caucus states, then Hillary is just behind in the popular vote by slightly over 440,000 votes."

So wait... If you pick and choose which states to count, Hillary is only 440,000 votes behind? Wow she is kicking butt! Just a suggestion: It would be even closer if you exclude Maryland, Virginia Georgia, Illinois and the Carolinas.

And the argument that that is only 1% of the "40,000,000 million" expected to vote in the primary? First of all, that means 40 billion, second of all, does the 40 million"include Florida and exclude MI and the undemocratic estimates from caucus states?" Because my guess is that the 40 million is total voters, including the caucus states, so your percentage is based on faulty math as well. Desperate, desperate, desperate....


by AllergicToBS on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:48:11 PM EST

Re: Hillary supporters! Its time to kick some but (none / 0)

actually, 40,000,000 million is not 40 billion.  It is 40,000,000,000,000, which is 40 trillion.


by slynch on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:11:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary supporters! Its time to kick some but (none / 0)

You are correct. I was using the british system. gets me in trouble every time...


by AllergicToBS on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:27:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Its time to kick some butt! (2.00 / 1)

linc- thanks for the kick in the behind to those who needed it. I'm in it ALL THE WAY for Hillary. We can't afford to donate real big but my husband and I both donate every month. My husband is phone banking for her now.


by Justwords on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:54:34 PM EST

We all give what we can (none / 0)

I am by no means a big money donor- I GOTV and blog and give money where I can. I also write respectful letters to undecided supers... Thank YOU for everything that you and your husband do for Hillary!
by linc on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:03:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We all give what we can (none / 0)

Exactly what I do, but i actually have called Ted Kennedy's office along with John Kerry's and Nancy Pelosi's, with a few uncommitted onces as well. I've also been making calls, and reminding our voters "keep that faith, keep your courage, stick together, stay strong, do not yield, stand up, WE SUPPORT CLINTON AND WE'LL NEVER SURRENDER!"


"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 Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:52:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We all give what we can (none / 0)

What would Hillary do without your kind financial support?  Oh, that's right.  She'll get on her Gulfstream V private plane and fly back to any one of her mansions across the country.  Then maybe roll around in $100 million dollars worth of cash.  

It breaks my heart that good hardworking people like yourself are giving money to Clinton still.  That donation will go right into her pocket, or Mark Penn's pocket.  Millionaires several times over do not need your charity, and they shouldn't be asking for it.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:40:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey Obama kids! (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for trolling and hijacking this diary!

That was really BIG of you!


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:13:40 PM EST

Oh stop it... (none / 0)

You guys are really beginning to embarass yourselves. All of us, yes even Obama supporters, realize that Hillary put up a good fight. She hung in there longer than probably anyone else could have. But it's now OVER. There are several reasons why your popular vote numbers are inaccurate, but I won't get into that. Because it doesn't really matter. For the sake of argument, say Hillary could, really, honestly take the popular vote lead... that STILL wouldn't matter. The name of the game is delegates (pledged and super). Maybe not the best system, maybe not fair... but that's the way it works. Again... it's over.


by ratmach on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:45:42 PM EST

Re: Oh stop it... (none / 0)

It's about a 50 state strategy. It's about bringing in new voters in every state. It's about any candidate demonstrating they can't be stared out of participating in a Democracy. It's about giving every potential Democrat a chance to "buy in" by having them vote. It's about counting votes accurately and identifying any potential voting irregularities now. It's about Democrats acting in a supportive and decent manner to each other. It's about getting chops on the campaign trail. It's about learning now what mistakes not to make in a general election when we actually face our opponent. It's about creating organizational structures for the general election and beyond. It's called creating netroots. It's how Democracy works. Please, if it doesn't trouble your comfort for more than a minute or so. What part of that is "OVER?"
by Jeter on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:19:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh stop it... (none / 0)

I pretty much agree with you. By saying "it's over", I wasn't trying to say we shouldn't go ahead for the final few contests, or that Hillary should drop out. All I was referring to was that it's mathematically over (with about 99% certainty, at least), and that the "Hillary can still win the popular vote count" argument isn't gonna work.


by ratmach on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:36:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary supporters! Its time to kick some but (2.00 / 2)

I'm heading to Oregon......YEEE HAAAA


by nikkid on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:57:05 AM EST

You rock! (none / 0)

give em Hill!
by linc on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:08:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary supporters! Its time to kick some but (none / 0)

to work for McCain?  I believe he's already won the GOP nomination, but I'm sure he'll appreciate your help.


by Skaje on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:20:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary supporters! Its time to kick some but (none / 0)

not yet....I'll wait to see what happens with Hillary and then decide if I'll campaign for him.


by nikkid on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:06:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

did you notice (2.00 / 1)

the EV maps on the front page have changed--Obama loses MI and WI.  EV =248.


by 4justice on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:16:06 AM EST

Re: Hillary supporters! (2.00 / 3)

Thanks for this diary, linc. Hillary's supporters are still with her and fighting all the way to the finish line.

If Obama gains the nomination and loses in November, at least no one can say we didn't warn that might happen and that there's a better candidate who with the best chance of winning.

Democrats have been on a losing streak in presidential elections. They won only 3 contests out of 10. With a 70% failure rate, you'd think someone might have learned something but probably not.


by Nobama on Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:32:47 AM EST

Yes, please get your candidate some money (none / 0)

It's embarrassing that she still owes small vendors (you know, those lunchbox folks upon whom she leverages her campaign), and yet it slipping into deeper and deeper debt. Surely if the fine folks in WV and KY love her so much, they'll help pull her out of this mess.

It's not terribly feminist of her to rack up massive debt and expect other people to fix it for her. Let alone is it a good way to demonstrate her competence on the economy.


by rhetoricus on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:54:36 AM EST

Still kicking butt (2.00 / 1)

Yep, still standing with Hillary all the way to the White House. Nobama, no way! He can't close the deal no matter how much the MSM carries him.


by grlpatriot on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:52:03 AM EST

Re: Still kicking butt (none / 0)

It's not Obama's fault that Hillary can't read the writing on the wall.  If anyone can't "close the deal" it's Hillary.  Most famous woman in America running with the full support of the DNC, DLC and arguably the most popular ex-president that is still alive.  Losing to a first term senator from Illinois named "Barack Obama."  But you're right, it's his fault he is winning, but not blowing her completely out of the water.


"We have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates."
-Howard Wolfson
by belicheat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:43:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]


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.

Login
Username:

Password: