• on a comment on And On A Lighter Note... over 6 years ago

    Or if you want to talk about the majestic møøse.

  • comment on a post On the popular vote totals over 6 years ago

    Because, you know, Obama leads Hillary by 52% to 40% in the current RCP average.

    Obama's led in the RCP polling average almost continuously since mid-February.

    There's your 'will of the voters.'

    The way we actually decide the nominee is through a delegate selection process that is a rough approximation of popular support.

    You can go to an alternate metric if you want, in order to convince...well, I don't know who anymore, because it isn't working on superdelegates.

    But if you use the popular vote itself as your convince-the-rubes metric, it's starting to get past its expiration date, and more current polling should be regarded as more accurate.

    And that polling confirms what we already know: Obama is the candidate that Dem voters prefer.

  • on a comment on Florida & May 31st over 6 years ago

  • comment on a post WV Primary thread over 6 years ago

    It's a good thing.

  • comment on a post Obama/Clinton Ticket = The Will Of The People over 6 years ago

    Even if we treat Cheney's role in the current Administration as an outlier, the reality is that Presidents have increasingly entrusted their veeps with increasingly large roles in their administrations, starting with Carter and Mondale back in the late 1970s.  Nowadays, you'd really like the veep to play the sort of role that Gore did in the Clinton Administration.

    As a result, I think the comfort level between the President and Veep isn't a trivial concern.  I don't see the strife between Obama and Clinton being papered over easily.

    If this were 40 years ago, that wouldn't matter: he'd choose her as his running mate, then bury her as President of the Senate.  But it's not, so it matters.

  • comment on a post New (& Old) media to dems: WWTBQ over 6 years ago

    And I say this as someone who was old enough to vote in 1972.  The notion that the MSM arbitrarily changed its standards between 1984 and now is just plain stupid.

    People change over time, institutions change over time, reality changes over time.  If you changed your mind about something important for no apparent reason between yesterday and today, it suggests there ain't much 'there' there inside you.  But if you changed your mind about something important, sometime over a 24-year period when nobody was paying attention, the fact that you never spelled out your reasons doesn't mean you didn't have good ones.

    And even if they weren't, the 'you' in this case is a rather large collection of people.  So they're in a different place now than they were in 1984.  BFD.

  • comment on a post Deal with defeat over 6 years ago

    Deal with defeat?  Good advice, Jerome.  I see you're working on it:

    * Denial
    * Anger

    Two down, three to go.

    :Checks DemConWatch:

    Hey!  Hillary just tripled her superdelegate lead!!  She's alive!!

    (Ciro Rodriguez declared for her.  Her lead's gone from 0.5 to 1.5 superdelegates.  It really DID triple.)

  • comment on a post TX-Sen: Second Poll Puts Noriega Within 4 Points over 6 years ago

    I sent Noriega some turkee awhile back - I had a hunch that he was the real deal.  I may have to stop by ActBlue again for him this weekend.  And Scott Kleeb.  And Kay Hagans.

  • These things you call 'facts' get in the way of creating new realities.

    Facts like "Obama's had a bigger net gain in superdelegates in the past 5 days than Clinton's likely to get from WV" or "even Rahm Emmanuel seems to have thrown in the towel" are for reality-based losers.

  • What was Obama's 'typical white person' gaffe, for those of us with short memories?

    I sure don't remember anything on the level of eliding 'working Americans, hard-working Americans' with 'white Americans.'

    Given the number of times this year that the Clintons and their surrogates have said things that have, at a minimum, been at the border of playing the race card, I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Fooled once, shame on you; fooled a dozen times, shame on me.

  • comment on a post Resolving Michigan over 6 years ago

    If anyone should be penalized, it's them.  If anyone should have been working overtime to make sure the MI and FL Dems stayed within the rules, it was them.

    In both states, they seem to have barely tried to do so.

    So nuts to them.  However MI's and FL's delegates are allocated, penalized, or whatever, NO MI/FL SUPERDELEGATES should have a vote at the convention.  Period.

  • comment on a post The 'electability' grunge match over 6 years ago

    Lazy: "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"

    Where does that leave blacks?  Pretty obvious, huh?

    Not real: pretty much the whole tenor of that larger quote.  White votes are the votes that count - a candidate that overcomes losing the white vote by doing well among blacks is somehow not winning through 'real' votes.

    And this is a woman who wants to represent the Democratic Party as its Presidential candidate.

    If this was vaudeville, a hook would've pulled her off the stage by now.  Time to get her out of there.

  • comment on a post More on what happened over 6 years ago

    I hope everyone gets that-- Clinton won the Indiana gas tax debate over the last week of the campaign, haha.

    Whoopee!!  Dishonest pandering works!!

    Hooray, hooray, I'm your silver lining...

  • comment on a post Dean Doesn't Take The Bait over 6 years ago

    once the Rules Committee comes up with a compromise that uses as its basis the January primaries, thus essentially ratifying those results to some degree, Hillary Clinton is then on more solid footing in counting Michigan and Florida in the popular vote, which, whether people like it or not, should be a factor...

    Look, Todd, there's at least an argument for counting the FL popular vote in any scorecard of how the running popular vote totals are adding up.  We can disagree on how good an argument it is (my header says what I think), but no question that an argument can be made.

    When it comes to Michigan, there just ain't none.  At least if you're expecting the supers to consider the popular vote as evidence of the relative support that Clinton and Obama have.  And what other sense would they make of it?  Why else would they look at the popular vote to begin with, rather than just consider the pledged delegate totals?

    Exactly.  Now take your meaningless Michigan popular vote and shove it.  Thanks.

  • Yay team!  

    Wonder what union(s) the construction workers were in.  Credit where credit's due, and all that.


Advertise Blogads