Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

  First off, hats off to the Clinton campaign...solid win! Congratulations!!

  Now let's analyze the importance of this win tonite. Hillary Clinton will go on...that's a given. But just how much have her nomination, and White House hopes improved? The smart money is they have hardly improved at all. I know I know, Hillary wins big states....Hillary is our first stringer, blah blah...the arguments for why I belive all these arguments are misguided are below the fold

  First up, the idea that Hillary Clinton is winning the states that matter. Folks, I've mentioned this in the comments virtually every day for the past month. A primary win (or loss) is not indicative of general election strength. Zilch! Zip! There is no supporting evidence in our recent political history for such a claim. Want some evidence...I'll cite plenty of examples.

  In 2000, Bush lost to John over 18%. He still won NH in the general election. He lost AZ but still managed to carry it quite comfortably.

  In 2000, Gore swept all primaries...but that clearly was not indicative of his general election strength.

  In 1992..Bill Clinton lost IA, NH, CT, MA, RI, ME and DE. He WON THEM ALL in the general election.

  The point is this. Primary results do NOT measure general election strength. The Clinton argument that this means Obama can't win certain states can apply both ways. 86 Electoral votes that DEMOCRATS MUST WIN in November were won by Obama in the primaries...states such as WA, WI, MN, IA and others. If that means Clinton can't possibly win there, (this is her own logic, not mine) then that means she can't possibly win the White House.

  It's an absurd argument and I can't believe a serious candidate for President has the audacity to make such an argument. Her own husband proved those arguments wrong with his wins. Not to mention John Kerry, who lost VT to a guy no longer running, yet easily carried it in the general election. Find a better argument.

  The other point that must be made about tonite's win for Clinton is that the delegate math and popular vote math are now all but impossible. She needed a crushing victory, she got a moderate one. Not good enough. The gains in the popular vote will be all but erased in NC (not even Clinton projects a win there or even much of a fight) and even should she run the table in what's left (hardly likely), she still ends up well behind.

  The math went from improbable, to damn near impossible for Clinton to win this nomination.

  I congratulate her on her win's a solid win after a solid campaign against a great opponent. I also have to say this for Barack Obama...undaunted by poll #'s...he put up a great fight. At least he challenged the state....which is something that Clinton hasn't done much of. Clinton only seems to compete where she's already winning...the others, including solid blue and battleground states..such as CO, MN and others, she's simply not shown up and told us they don't matter.

  If has to be proud that Obama hasn't pulled that stupid stunt. He's fought for votes everywhere, win or lose. Clinton fights where she's ahead, and makes excuses where she's behind.

   She won a great win tonite. But, let's face it...she needed much more...and she didn't get it. She has no chance of a popular vote win and no chance of a pledged delegate chance of a state win or even a regional win...both have won states in every region of the country.

   She's bought herself two weeks. But the end result is clear. She's lost the nomination (unless it's handed to her by superdelegates who believe the ridiculous nonsense about big states being all that matter).

   Congrats Hillary. You've bought yourself two weeks. But it's over. You needed a tidal wave, and you got a ripple!

One more thing. I'm hearing a lot of talk on here about "Caucuses where only 1% turnout shouldn't be so powerful." Please enlighten us all as to WHAT you are talking about. Turnout has been high virtually everywhere. What state only had 1% turnout?

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, delegates, Hillary Clinton, Pennsylvania Primary, presidential primaries, superdelegates (all tags)



Any forks on sale?

Hillary has been called "done" so many times I am out of forks to check her with.

And what do you know, another win for Hillary, and another diary calling her done.

by J Rae 2008-04-22 10:08PM | 0 recs

Hillary will have no more firewall states, she will be down by more than 130 in the pledge delegate count, and nearly out of money.

by Otaku Saru 2008-04-22 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Tomorrow

Yeah, Yeah.

We have been hearing the same thing for 2 months now.

Someone has not been able to convince the voters though that they all need to vote for Obama.

by J Rae 2008-04-22 10:19PM | 0 recs
No you haven't

Before Clinton always had a firewall state. Now she doesn't.

by Otaku Saru 2008-04-22 10:27PM | 0 recs
Obama has improved since Ohio

If you look at the exit polls Ohio here and Pennsylvania here, you'll see that in Ohio, voters under age 30 (Obama's strongest age group) made up 16% of the voting population, and voters over age 60 (Clinton's strongest age group) made up 23% of the voting population.

In Pennsylvania, voters under 30 make up only 12% of the voting population, while those over 60 made up 32% of the voting population.

And yet, given that, the margin in Pennsylvania was the same as it was in Ohio. Obama has held his ground among voters under 30, and improved significantly among all the other age groups, especially voters aged 60+.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-04-22 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama has improved since Ohio

Troll rated for using logic and reason.  Those things have no place here.

by Rockville Liberal 2008-04-23 03:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Any forks on sale?

Um, yeah, we keep calling her "done", because she keeps remaining "done".

We're consistent that way.

Hillary supporters keep willing small battles with small margins when Obama already has a massive lead instead. That's what Hillary being "done" is all about.

You don't cheer at chess when you grab a pawn, when your opponent has already taken your queen and your rooks.

Right now Clinton needs more of the percentage of remaining delegates than she needed before PA had come around. By the time the superdelegates throw in their votes, she will be needing to grab like 80% of them, and Obama will be needing to sway only one out of five SDs.

So yeah -- she's done.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-23 12:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Any forks on sale?

Good analogy. However if we use chess to compare to the electoral college states like Maine, Alaska and Utah are definitely pawns for the Democrats. States like California, New York, Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania are the rooks, knights, individual votes which are equal to the individual votes of the pledged delegates (although the pledged delegates have an 80% majority) they will evaluate the race and decide as they will who will be ther better candidate. Trust me many will see the state Obama won as pawns while they see Hillary winning the valuable pieces. Also even if the delegates of FL and MI aren't seated (though the actual rules intend for their be an eventual resolution to timing violations), many supers will consider the will of the voters nationally. As Obama, his lawyers and his spin doctors like Axelrod allowed legitimate do-overs in both states instead of blocking every attempt, the January contests will be how many supers evaluate voter preference in both states.

Before the Obama people cal MI unfair as Hillary was the only candidate on the ballot, 1) there were other Democrats on the ballot 2) Obama won his first primary by knocking all of his opponents off the ballot when asked if his constituents deserves a primary chooice he thought things were fair 3) the MI Democratic Party  him not to withdraw and warned him of the consequences, the DNC did not request or command Obama to remove his name 4) Obama removed his name BEFORE MI was ruled to be in violation and lost their delegates, even if you want to make the automatic delegate sanction arguement, the automatic sanction would be a 50% delegate reduction so the contest was still counting when Obama spoiled a race he would lose by removing his name.

by Jon Winkleman 2008-04-23 03:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Please no more MI / FL arguments

With respect, the MI / FL issue has been blogged to death here.  Everyone knows all the arguments for both sides, and there are no takers from the Obama camp for your talking points.  You're on the wrong side of the rules, and I would say, the moral argument too.  Personally, it was HRC reneging on the deal that led me to abandon her and support Obama.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-23 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Any forks on sale?

   and Democrats haven't lost CA, NY MI or PA since 1988.

  That's a long time. The idea that Obama will lose them is simply absurd.

  If they consider the will of the voters nationally...Clinton is toast. Obama has beaten her in that vote...pledged delegates, popular vote, # of states..etc..

  Clinton has no argument. She's beaten across the board.

by southernman 2008-04-23 12:04PM | 0 recs

   the truth hurts. She's done. She can't win it. She can only have it handed to her.
by southernman 2008-04-22 10:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

Counting Florida and Michigan, she's now ahead, I believe. According to Real Clear Politics, she's ahead in the popular vote. The only way we won't count florida and Michigan is if their votes aren't decisive. Obama needs to win in such big numbers that she's not ahead with those two states in the pot. Otherwise, he's valuing a minor rule over the fundamental principal of democracy - counting all the votes, You can blather on about rules, but the simple truth is that handing the nomination to someone who would not win if those states were counted will doom our efforts in November.

we're Democrats. We count the votes. This convention won't be any different in that fashion.

by Little Otter 2008-04-22 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

  nice..count states that violated rules and where no one campaigned and one in which Obama wasn't on the ballot.

  That's great!!

by southernman 2008-04-22 10:16PM | 0 recs

Counting just the pledge delegates of all states including Florida and Michigan, Hillary would still be down by 5 or 10. Add in the uncommitteds from Michigan and Hillary is down by 60-65. but all that assumes that the Michigan and Florida results will be counted as is.

by Otaku Saru 2008-04-22 10:24PM | 0 recs
The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

Why?  First off, because the primary date in FL was set by a Rethug legislature, second because even rules maven Donna Brazile can't recite them, third because if the DNC is stupid enough to allow some fairly arbitrary rules (not laws) todisenfranchise the primary voters of two important states, then they need to get out of politics.  
I'll put it this way: FL is arguably the most important swing state, and the party can't afford to alienate Dem voters there.  

As for Obama voters who may be alienated if Hillary gets the nomination (and that ballgame ain't over) all I can say is, buck up, get over it, I'm sorry you drank the koolaid that was spiked with the 'inevitability meme.'  I've never claimed Hillary had it bagged; just that she had a chance.

by magnetics 2008-04-22 10:39PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

   We've got Democratic legislators on tape voting for and approving that plan...they sure didn't fight it. Their fault. Not Obama's.

  You seem to argue that FL shouldn't be treated this way, but you wouldn't much care if another state was.

  Can't manipulate rules to suit a particular state. Sorry!

by southernman 2008-04-22 10:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

SDs are getting ready to count Florida. Buckle up and get ready for the eventual nominee - Hillary Rodham Clinton:-)

by Sandeep 2008-04-22 11:21PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

I'm pretty sure the SD's don't make up the credentials committee, so they can't count anything.

by auboy2006 2008-04-22 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

   If that happens...overturning the will of the voters...then we automatically hand the election to John McCain.

  Hillary couldn't win it at the ballot box, so she'll be handed it on a platter. We automatically lose if that happens.

by southernman 2008-04-23 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

Arbitrary or not, every state agreed to these rules at the beginning.

And like the other comments said, the FL Dems in the legislature were pushing this plan as well.  This is not a go run and hide behind the Republicans.  Additionally, they were given a chance to hold another contest to have their results counted.

Another thing, and I'm a Florida resident/voter, Florida is not the most important swing state.  We don't need Florida, and the way it is trending, I say that it's a good thing.  I always said Kerry was too focused in Florida and not focused enough on Ohio in 2004.

Screw Florida and screw rule breakers.  We give them a free pass, and in 2012 or 2016, we'll be having primaries in fall of the year before!

by auboy2006 2008-04-22 10:55PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

You can't blow off  a state for someone who wouldn't win otherwise - it's that simple. And it won't happen. Because if it does, you won't get many Clinton voters in any state and Dems won't get Florida or Michigan for a generation.

Count the states. All of 'em. If Obama wanted a Michigan vote with his name on the ballot, he should have supported the revote. He didn't. That's his fault.

Florida and Michigan will count if decisive or we will not win in November.

by Little Otter 2008-04-22 11:09PM | 0 recs
I agree with you that
The Democrats wont win in November, but not for the reasons that you stated.
This nomination looks poised to tear the convention in Denver to pieces, and after a divided convention, neither Democrat has a chance.
I hope that Hillary will drop out after a devastating lost in NC, but I think that is the only way that a uncontested convention can be assured.  
by Otaku Saru 2008-04-22 11:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

I'm not blowing off a state.  I'm advocating for the DNC to follow the rules as was agreed upon.  These states chose to break the rules, they chose not to offer an alternative plan.  The Florida Congressional delegation was against any re-vote plan, and the state party never came up with an alternative.  And in Michigan it was a state Democratic plan from start to finish.  It's not Obama's fault or Hillary's fault that these states won't get counted.  But if the DNC doesn't stand up now, they'll have no credibility whatsoever.  There'll be no more agreements.  The rules will go out the window and it will be a free-for-all.  Hell, Iowa was practically in 07 this year.  It's a mess.

And honestly, I don't believe we'll lose Michigan in November, whether or not the delegates are seated.  I believe we'll lose Florida in November, whether or not the delegates are seated.  I think the two are not related.

by auboy2006 2008-04-22 11:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

"If Obama wanted a Michigan vote with his name on the ballot, he should have supported the revote."

There was no proper revote planned with everyone allowed to vote. Only those who had gone to vote in the first primary would be allowed to go to the revote. That first primary where only Hillary's name was on the ballot.

So, yeah, big wonder that the Obama camp refused. Big wonder that the Hillary camp falls to such dishonest debate tactics.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-23 12:12AM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

Obama fought the revote tooth and nail.

by switching sides 2008-04-23 12:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

Nope - he refused to be railroaded into an unfair scenario.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-23 03:32AM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

   The revote demanded by Clinton included the stipulation that only those who voted the first time could vote in this one. That means she was guaranteed a 55% win.

  why the hell would Obama agree to such nonsense?

by southernman 2008-04-23 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

"You can't blow off  a state for someone who wouldn't win otherwise."

This is the ever (loving) point.  WHO ARE YOU to tell me that my candidate is not going to win?  This is the most arrogant thing I think I've seen this entire election cycle.  14 million of your fellow citizens and Democrats seem to think he has a pretty good chance of winning this thing.  1.5 million contributors and millions of volunteers seem to think he has a pretty good chance of kicking the shit out of a weak candidate like McCain.

Oh yeah, he's beating your candidate too.  This is the first time I think I've ever heard in the history of this nation that the loser of a primary says say that they have a better chance of winning in the general.

My candidate can win.  He actually has the exact same coalition as Bobby Kennedy who was going to win that nomination until tragedy.  But beyond that he has closed every gap in every state he competed.  He his eloquent, brillant and charismatic.  What more would do you want in a candidate?

If you would like a full listing of his qualities as a public servant, I can give you that as well.

by nklein 2008-04-23 02:19AM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

What more would I want?  How about policy expertise and experience?

by magnetics 2008-04-23 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The 'rules is rules' argument does't wash.

Obviously, you don't have good reading comprehension, b/c I said this "If you would like a full listing of his qualities as a public servant, I can give you that as well."  Obama has extensive policy expertise and excellent policies.  If you heard him talk about issues, you would know that.  But you don't even need to do that, all you have to do is check out is role in nuclear non-proliferation with Lugar.  We have two excellent policy wonks running for president.  But you have no desire to see what the strengths of the other candidate, b/c your so blinded by your support for Hillary.

by nklein 2008-04-23 10:26PM | 0 recs
Let's leave it that we agree to disagree;

I have been closely following Democratic presidential politics since McGovern (for whom I voted in '72); I assure you I am not blinded by my love of Hillary, and am not blind to her faults.  I have gathered and weighed the evidence, and think she would make the better candidate and the better president.  

Please stop mistaking my considered preference for blindness.  Oh, and lay off my reading comprehension skills, please.  I got my third grade diploma, just like the other folks on this site.  

Leaving the wisdom of Yogi Berra, for that of Yogi Bear,


by magnetics 2008-04-24 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's leave it that we agree to disagree;

   Reasonable answer to a reasonable question. As an Obama supporter, I've got no beef with honest discussion and disagreement.

  I just hope you can convince of your Clinton colleagues on here to be such as adult!

by southernman 2008-04-24 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's leave it that we agree to disagree;

Magnetics what was your initial question?  Your question was, "what more would I want?  How about policy expertise and experience?"

You didn't say that I think Hillary will be a better candidate or president, but disparaged Obama's abilities as a policy expert.  That's why I responded in the way I did.  I have no problem with people asserting the positive aspects of his/her candidate; it is when you disparage the other candidate that my ire gets up.  If you had responded my post "that Hillary was the better candidate," I would have been more concilliatory, but that wasn't what you decided to do.  

by nklein 2008-04-24 11:35AM | 0 recs
Thanks for the conciliatory thoughts, but

you had it right the first time.

I think he's a good, probably excellent,  legal mind, and a legal scholar with superlative cred and better potential; but I am sorry to say, I have formed a low opinion of his policy expertise and experience -- I do disparage it, with apologies for any ruffled feathers that may cause among those who think better of him than I do.  

All that said, it is my habit in these threads to keep a wall between criticizing the candidates, and criticizing their supporters.  I have been called lots of things  -- 'anonymous internet orc'  was my favorite I think; but I have successfully resisted the urge to return the favor, even when (as often happens) my preferred candidate is not disparaged (however roughly) for her capabilities, but is called names that would start fights in most of the bars in this country.

Anyhow, let's bask in momentary glow of party unity.


by magnetics 2008-04-24 09:30PM | 0 recs
Who am I to say your candidate isn't going to win?

Moi? Well, I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know who will win the nomination.  What I do know, is that I, as a Hillary supporter, have for months been hearing from Obama supporters that my candidate can't win, won't win, and should get out, because Obama has it bagged, so don't prolong the agony.  Have you heard any anguished outbursts from my quarter berating them for flaunting their supposed prescience?  Nope.  Because none of us knows how this will end.

So sit down, fix yourself a drink, or some hot milk, or some green tea, and contemplate the wisdom of Yogi Berra: "A ballgame ain't over 'til it's over."

by magnetics 2008-04-23 10:11PM | 0 recs

I was responding to the person above and many others who says that Obama cannot win the general.  I think either candidate can win the general, but Hillary cannot win the nomination.  By any measure of popular will (pledged delegates, popular vote and so on) Obama's lead is insurmountable.  This isn't anything against Hillary it's how the voting has played out over this primary season.

by nklein 2008-04-23 10:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

Except, if you go by that metric, you've not counted any voters from IA, NV, ME, and WA.

That's not a popular vote lead.

If you add in those states, you get (from RCP):

Obama           Clinton
15,288,857    15,076,842

She's still losing even with FL and MI (and let's not get started on how counting MI is a joke).

by auboy2006 2008-04-22 10:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

This comment wins.

I'm tired of people solely considering popular vote which, essentially disenfranchises every caucus state.

by gcensr 2008-04-22 10:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

That means she needs another 200,000 to become the nominee. She will have it by the time PR is done.

by Sandeep 2008-04-22 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

Again I say from where?  That number will go up when N.C. votes, as Obama will win.  He'll probably get Oregon, so it will go up again.

by auboy2006 2008-04-22 11:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

  for what it's are wrong. FL and MI gain Clinton about 400,000 votes give or take...and tonite..gets her slightly more than 200,000, which means she's still down at least 200,000 votes with NC and IN coming up.

  She's not ahead even with MI and FL...which should not be counted. The Democracy argument is nonsense...they were told they weren't going to count, and they're not. But even if they were, she's still not ahead in any category.

by southernman 2008-04-22 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

She will get the necessary 200,000 votes. Wait and watch!

by Sandeep 2008-04-22 11:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

From where?  It'll be more after Obama wins N.C.

by auboy2006 2008-04-22 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

Puerto Rico could supply a 200,000 vote net gain for Clinton. The primary will be open, so more than 2 million votes is likely. The last gubernatorial election drew roughly that many, and PR politics don't align Dem and Repub, so with no party allegiances and a hot primary forcing the next president of the US to pander to Puerto Ricans - something that has never happened before, huge turn out is likely. Early polling suggests that a 10% Clinton win is not unlikely (larger is possible, but so is smaller, this is pretty unexplored ground). So PR could easily deliver 200,000 votes to Clinton.

Of course, the "popular vote" total that counts MI and FL and doesn't count the uncommitted votes as Obama votes is even more ridiculous garbage than any of the other preposterous "popular vote" totals, so I'm not sure that even 200,000 votes in PR will get Clinton the popular vote victory in anything other than some hard-core Clinton diaries here on

On the other hand, a blow out win in PR could easily give Clinton a 500,000 vote net gain, which would put her close to the "popular vote" victory in almost any accounting. I'm trying to imagine the argument in which massive support from people who aren't actually allowed to vote for president in the GE means that the "popular vote" totals should over ride the existing system for picking the candidate, but I don't really need to try, since we'll see it soon enough (if only in combination with not counting the caucuses and pretending the no one voted for Obama in MI).

by alephnul 2008-04-23 12:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

  After NC, her margin will be back at 400,000 (assuming you count MI and FL) with hardly any states left.

  Not a chance buddy. Her best chance at the popular vote ended with PA last night.

by southernman 2008-04-23 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

Another principle of democracy is everyone being on a ballot. I'll grudgingly give you Florida, even though as we've seen in Pennsylvania Barack can close margins quite a bit when he is allowed to campaign, but you can't fairly count a contest where one candidate gets 0 votes, that is not democracy either. Yes, yes, I know, it was his choice. But the pledge they agreed to was quite clear about not participating. Every candidate with the exception of Clinton and Dodd knew what it meant (Kucinich tried to remove himself too but missed a deadline).

by Obama Independent 2008-04-22 10:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

Clinton said herself that the results in Michigan wouldn't count for anything. It drives me nuts that she's pushing so hard for that now.

by gcensr 2008-04-22 10:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

Eh try to let it go. You should know by now that the Clintons will make whatever argument makes the best political sense at the time, despite how hypocritical it might make them look. Your being driven nuts about it isn't going to stop them. She said that at the time because she was defending why she didn't take her name off the ballot like everyone else did. She's just as willing to forget about it now that she needs the votes. That's Clinton politics, do or say what it takes to win, deal with the fallout later.

by Obama Independent 2008-04-22 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

Why would it drive you nuts that a Democrat wants to see a state's votes  counted? I mean, I don't even get that. I can understand it driving you nuts that Obama didn't aggressively support a revote as he stood a chance at winning the state, but it makes no sense that you're annoyed that a Democrat wants to see a blue state stay in our camp and is willing to support a revote that they may very well lose, and is pushing to count the votes.

You do realize that we will likely lose Florida and Michigan in November if we don't count their primary votes now, right? How furious would you be if you and your state voted for a candidate who would win but for the party organization supporting an absolutely arbitrary rule above and beyond the basic principle of democracy?

We're Democrats. We count the votes. And we will count those votes if they decisive because to do anything else would be to invite defeat. It's virtually impossible for Obama to win without those two states in his camp.

by Little Otter 2008-04-22 11:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

Obama will win without Florida in November regardless.  And he'll get Michigan in November regardless.

It's not his fault they broke the rules.  Why should we all of a sudden say the rules shouldn't matter?

That's what the person you responded to was saying.  Clinton went from saying those votes would not county, to now they should (most likely, because she cannot win without them).  But that's rediculous.  

If you sign an agreement, and then you violate it, you damn well better expect consequences.

by auboy2006 2008-04-22 11:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton wins PA and Obama wins Nomination

First of all, there will be some deal made whereby FL and MI are seated at the convention - I don't know what the details will be, but it will get done.  Secondly, there's no evidence of a direct correlation between whatever way we decide to seat those delegates ("half-Nelson," as is, 50/50) and whether those states vote Republican in the fall.  Heck, MyDD's own maps show Obama leading in Michigan and Clinton leading in Florida (and I think we lose Florida regardless, but that's just me).

Plus, and this is just common sense, when you tell people that their votes won't count, a lot of them stay home.  So, while it's honorable that some people want to stand up for the people who did vote, no one is trying to accomodate those who didn't vote because of that message from the DNC and a failure on the part of Clinton, Obama, and others to challenge the system at a time when change was still possible.  Surely you can see that telling people not to bother voting, then retroactively validating the vote totals of those who came out anyway, will probably screw up the results pretty badly (especially when the candidates weren't even allowed to campaign in the first place).

by rfahey22 2008-04-23 12:00AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads