Mile High Math: Obama's numbers adding up to nomination but is Hillary adding it up?
Is Hillary Clinton's commitment to fighting until the Democratic nominee is officially decided a harmless playing-out-the-game or could it weaken the frontrunner Barack Obama?
M.E. Sprengelmeyer talked to a number of political analysts who said they expected Clinton to stay in the race to the end.
The question remains: After one of the closest nomination fights of a generation, can Democrats avert a chaotic floor fight at the convention?Some observers, such as Rep. Ed Perlmutter, suggest that Clinton accept the inevitable and meet with the Obama camp about a cease-fire. Perlmutter is a Colorado superdelegate who supports Obama.
But others said Clinton has campaigned so hard for so long that she has earned the right to keep fighting, at least through the final six primaries between now and June 3.
"Clearly, the Hillary campaign is dedicated to moving forward," said Tyler Chafee, a Denver political consultant who was statewide director of Clinton's Colorado caucus effort. "She has certainly earned the right to do so."
Money is a big consideration. Clinton has revealed that she has had to loan her campaign another $6.4 million, bringing the total to $11.4 million since February.
Some, including Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, cited that as a sign of weakness.
But others read it as a sign of commitment.
"If I were to bet, I think Hillary's going to take it all the way to Denver. She's a real trench fighter," Colorado pollster Paul Talmey said. "She's going to look at every angle, every way until she's convinced there's no possible way she is winning," he said.
EARLIER
mt-image-none" style="" />
It's time to rely on the wisdom of Roy Orbison.
It's over, it's over, it's over. It's Ohhhhh-VER. When Roy crescendos up to that penultimate high note it signifies the end is here.
That should be Hillary Clinton's new theme song. It's time for the graceful exit, the slow fade out of the spotlight.
After Indiana nearly threw over the favorite as returns from Lake County trickled in - and those of us raised in the Hoosier political culture chuckled knowingly - and North Carolina delivered Barack Obama a resounding victory, Clinton finds herself with no compelling rationale to continue the fight.
Comparing herself to Rocky Balboa, she said she would keep getting up. Well, there's a time to stay down and it's now. The numbers don't work, but it's not about the math. She had a surge but couldn't sustain. She was supposed to be closing in North Carolina and was blown out. North Carolina Democrats rejected her candidacy out of hand.
Pay no attention to what goes on today as Clinton campaign officials spin the "we're still in the race" line while behind-the-scenes talks continue to resolve the Florida-Michigan problems and devise a way to wind down the campaign.
Rocky lost.
Posted by Karl Childers on May 12, 2008 10:09 AMhttp://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/04/mccains-budget.html
McCain and his math
"Last week, Senator McCain laid out his economic vision... He talked about wasteful spending, but the newest, most detailed part of the speech dealt with a package of tax cuts that would cost about $300 billion a year. They would come on top of $350 billion a year in Bush tax cuts that Mr. McCain wants to make permanent. To put these numbers in perspective, the Iraq war has been costing roughly $200 billion a year"
"Mr. Holtz-Eakin ... did indeed begin using dynamic analysis... Yet he used it as it should be used. What the budget office found, as study after study has shown, was that any new revenue that tax cuts brought in paled in comparison with their cost. This is why the deficit jumped under the last two tax-cutting presidents (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush) and fell under the last two tax-raising presidents (George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton).
As Mr. Holtz-Eakin told Congress in 2003, a dynamic analysis of the White House’s tax and spending proposals made essentially no difference. ..."
" I can't think of any credible analyst who thinks his plan comes anywhere close to adding up. But he says it anyway, with his supposed straight talk, in the face of a potential recession, and nobody seems to mind, nobody seems willing to think hard about what this says about his character."
Posted by so much for straight talk on May 11, 2008 9:20 PMMcCains fuzzy math is fuzzier than Bushes
He has no way to pay for these tax cuts. He can't cut spending enough to do this.... and run a 100 years war.
McCain is Mcworse
Posted by on May 9, 2008 8:46 PMi'm five for five unless you can show me that mccain's economic position is strategically different than w's, farter.
see how that works?
do we REALLY have to go through this willful ignorance stuff AGAIN?
Posted by jay on May 9, 2008 4:24 PMeconomics
as with bush...mcsame puts tax cuts at the center of his fiscal plan. he has vowed to follow in bush's footsteps and continue w's tax cuts.
There's more to it than tax cuts but I'm sure that those two words alone blinded you to the rest. Continue Bush's tax cuts and cut some more.
Similar but not the same.
mccain is also going to follow w's corporate welfare map of action.
That's a rather vague statement...
like bush, mccain also wants to repeal the AMT.
You finally got one!
mccain's plans for the unemployed with his "Lost Earnings Buffer Accounts" are...you guessed it...the same repackaged ideas from bush's "Personal Re-employment Accounts"
Again, similar but not the same.
finally...mccain has publicly admitted that he favors bush's plan of privatizing social security.
Is "favors" a strategy?
are we done with the economics? can we move on to iraq?
Sure, you're one for five with economics. Perhaps you'll do better with Iraq.
Posted by jay on May 9, 2008 3:02 PM
Posted by farter nose best on May 9, 2008 4:04 PMIt's over, it's over now, Why can't you just get it through your head. It's Over
Posted by Boz Scaggs on May 9, 2008 3:09 PMalright kids...let's go over it one more time. the next time we'll post the link to this conversation as well as jw's mcsame exercise.
let's post that list one more time so we don't have any confusion...then we can go through them one at a time.
Economy/Jobs
War in Iraq
Health care
Terrorism/National security
Ethics/Corruption in government
so...let's start with economics.
here are his own remarks on his economic platform
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/9bb4e69a-36cc-4ca3-b40d-0cdd41a1b812.htm
as with bush...mcsame puts tax cuts at the center of his fiscal plan. he has vowed to follow in bush's footsteps and continue w's tax cuts.
mccain is also going to follow w's corporate welfare map of action.
like bush, mccain also wants to repeal the AMT.
mccain's plans for the unemployed with his "Lost Earnings Buffer Accounts" are...you guessed it...the same repackaged ideas from bush's "Personal Re-employment Accounts"
finally...mccain has publicly admitted that he favors bush's plan of privatizing social security.
are we done with the economics? can we move on to iraq?
Posted by jay on May 9, 2008 3:02 PM"i don't tutor people with willful ignorance issues"
Posted by jay on May 9, 2008 2:00 PM
I didn't think you would recognize that I was calling on you to tutor yourself. Bravo! List? I'm just dying to find out from you just when it was that Bush proposed a gas tax holiday.
Posted by farter nose best on May 9, 2008 2:36 PMHey farter,
You should have seen the link jay gave me when I asked him to back up his spew on McCains economic adviser.
He sent me a 100,000 page Governemnt report in PDA format. Took 20 minutes just to download.
He plays these games all the time and then comes back and acts likes he debunked you.
take EVERYTHING jay posts with a grain of salt and don't bother trying to explain anything to him.
Again jay, if you really are mentally challenged I apologize.
Posted by Shaggy on May 9, 2008 2:35 PMlol...i didn't think so.
we've gone over the list here many many times. mccain's major policy stances concerning the five top priorities for americans are strategically the same.
why don't you google "mcsame" and educate yourself on the matter. or at the least remember that if you can't vote informed...maybe you should stay out of the picture. friends don't let friends vote while dumb. and besides...i don't tutor people with willful ignorance issues.
Posted by jay on May 9, 2008 2:00 PMjay, just a reminder, you made the following statement.
"third bush term under mccain"
Posted by jay on May 7, 2008 3:05 PM
Do you think giving a link to McCain's web site and asking for "strategic differences" proves your claim? (rhetorical question)
What do YOU think is the same? I'm sure we'll all be fascinated by your response. Remember, YOU said it. Lets see you actually back it up for a change.
Posted by farter nose best on May 9, 2008 1:54 PM"I can recognize the differences jay"
awesome....then give us 5 major differences.
just five concerning the topics i've listed.
if you "can recognize" them...tell us what they are.
dustin, you have to let go of the mi and fl fantasy. the data is bad. those vote tallies are inaccurate. attempting to use them is a miscarriage of the democratic process. i'm all for a revote...don't get me wrong...but we've also talked about why that's not going to happen either.
she needs to step aside. there's simply no reason for her to continue.
*Post didn't take hyperklink* - State by state EC Votes using most current STATE HEAD 2 HEAD matchups.
Clinton V McCain http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May09.html
Obama V McCain http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May09.html
Posted by Dustin Sharp on May 9, 2008 12:36 PMRE: JMH "Keep believing that BS Dustin... haha... If Obama was so easy to beat, why did Rush have everyone vote for Hillary"
Wow! You are an idiot. I never said Obama was "so easy to beat"...I said Clinton "...is going to be harder to defeat in the General (election) that(n) Obama."
Are you really so f*cking stupid to think that the National popular poll is the one to watch? Hmm...seems to me that the Electoral College votes are the ones that count. EC votes are winner take all and a state by state analysis with head-to-head matchups seems to be a much better indicator of who is more/less difficult an opponent for McCain. This is one reason why FL is so damn important...If Hilary wins the nominations she easily wins FL in the General, but if Obama wins the nomination McCain has a slight lead in FL.
Here is a breakdown....
Clinton V McCain...>
Obama V McCain...>
And if you take the time to read all of the data (including the raw poll data in .csv format) from the many sources cited, you will clearly see the GOP has a better chance V Obama than Clinton. *NOTE* AGAIN I DID NOT SAY IT WAS GOING TO BE EASY...ONLY A BETTER CHANCE*
F*cktard
As far as Rush (he's a f*cktard too) is concerned...some people think his Operation Chaos is really a cover up to hide the massive defection of GOP voters; but hey, why try to defend anything that nut job does?
Hilary as VP would certainly be a blowout win for the DEMs in November, but for some reason I just don't think the DNC is bright enough to do that.
Posted by Dustin Sharp on May 9, 2008 12:29 PMBy the way, with McSame being the elitist, career politician that he is - the definition of Washington establishment - you can bet we will be hearing alot more about corrupt things like this...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24533311/
Posted by JMH on May 9, 2008 11:41 AMnow...what are the strategic differences between his and bush's policy stances on these issues.
Posted by jay on May 8, 2008 10:50 AM
I can recognize the differences jay but You seem unable to. You are the one making the claim that if elected McCain would be a third term for Bush. Don't just spew rhetoric, prove it.
Posted by farter nose best on May 9, 2008 11:40 AM"By the way...I don't want Hilary to win because she is going to be harder to defeat in the General that Obama for us conservatives (O v MC nearly tied:C v MC C has about a 9 point advantage)."- Dustin Sharp
Keep believing that BS Dustin... haha... If Obama was so easy to beat, why did Rush have everyone vote for Hillary?
Truth is, you conservatives are scared to death of Obama. You have nothing to run on from the GOP side (well failure at every turn the last 7 years, but don't think McSame wants to run on that) and once Obama turns his cannons on Juan (100 years of war) McSame and the horrible condition the USA is in due to GOP control the last 7 years, you can bet you will see a beating come November... especially if Clinton comes on as VP!
Here are all the latest polls and McCain is losing or at the very best tied with both Obama & Clinton except in one... suprise, suprise... it is the FOX News poll! (which is still in the margin of error)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
Posted by JMH on May 9, 2008 11:28 AMJay - I can assure you that MI and FL will come to into play. Clinton is not going to let those two states go. It is pretty simple...until one of those two reach the magic number there is going to be a fight. She will not concede until Obama actually gets the number of delegates needed to win. Doesn't matter if she needs 75% of the delegates to pull it off. She does buy herself time if she can get MI and FL into the count and raises the number of needed delegates to win the nomination. I also think that she won't have a problem getting the courts involved if it comes to that...we might as well avoid something really messy and allow the process to work in the first place. FL and MI need to have their elections regardless of whether it is going to be hard for her to win.
Posted by Dustin Sharp on May 9, 2008 11:18 AM"the reason Obama was not represented and the data is invalid is because PRIOR TO THE ELECTION the DNC stripped both states of the delegates and several candidates chose to not be on the ballot or campaign."
it makes no difference why the data is bad, dustin.
the data is bad. it has nothing to do with party rules at this point. the vote tallies are invalid.
"thus have it decided at the convention"
why? hillary's math problem is the same on june 3 as it is in august. why keep prolonging the inevitable? she would have to sway nearly 3 out of every 4 remaining superdelegates in order to beat obama. ain't gonna happen....especially considering she's not going to win either the delegate or the popular vote count. at this point her efforts are truly hindering the party's progress against mccain. you have to wonder if it's ego at this point.
"By the way she doesn't have that bad of a math problem with MI and FL"
you have got to stop beating this dead horse. fl and mi are out of it. they took themselves out of it by holding invalid elections that produced corrupted data.
they're irrelevant by choice.
Posted by jay on May 9, 2008 11:02 AMJay...the reason Obama was not represented and the data is invalid is because PRIOR TO THE ELECTION the DNC stripped both states of the delegates and several candidates chose to not be on the ballot or campaign. The reason for the bad data isn't that important though...what is important is ensuring MI and FL have their opportunity to vote. Clinton does have a math problem (so does Barrack) as neither canidate would likely reach the magic number of delegates; thus have it decided at the convention. We cannot say "we think she won't be able to win enough delegates, so we won't bother with a legitimate election." If Obama secures the nomination anyway - good for him. If neither is able to secure the nomination then the fight continues. By the way she doesn't have that bad of a math problem with MI and FL, Because there are 368 (MI and FL alone) available delegates (including supers) and the number to win would be 2149 instead of 2025...currently she is anywhere from 150-165 delegates behind with about 850 total remaining delegates available (including MI and FL)...See we cannot predict what might happen and accept that because some "polls" said it might be hard. We must actually have elections and let the process work itself out.
By the way...I don't want Hilary to win because she is going to be harder to defeat in the General that Obama for us conservatives (O v MC nearly tied:C v MC C has about a 9 point advantage). But it is important to ensure the integrity of our election process, and the bottom line is we must allow all states to have their voices heard, even in the primaries.
Posted by Dustin Sharp on May 9, 2008 10:50 AM"The data is bad because the state broke party rules"
the data is bad because obama wasn't represented in either race.
give me some sign that you understand that that has nothing at all to do with "party rules"
those races are not representative of the accurate democratic process because of the lack of integrity of the data. period.
it has ZERO to do with party rules.
so...we're back to having them revote...which we know by the data won't solve hillary's math problem...which brings us back to her popular vote argument...which of course brings us back to the other five states that didn't tally pop votes.
you see a pattern here?
ain't gonna happen.
she needs to step aside and to imply that somehow the democratic process isn't being represented is ridiculous at best...again...according to the data.
RE: Jay "but again, dustin, it is not only that the votes in mi and fl are not being counted because their state election officials broke party rules...they aren't being counted because they are invalid. corrupted data. bad info. i think the reasons why have been clearly laid out."
Huh? The reason the delegates were stripped from FL and MI was exactly because those two states moved their primary earlier than the DNC wanted...the DNC then stripped them of their delegates prior to the election, but MI and FL conducted the primary elections anyway - fully knowing the DNC would not seat the delegates. The data is bad because the state broke party rules...no one campaigned and in MI Osama wasn't even on the ballot. If another primary election were to be held, both states would then be in compliance with party rules and the delegates would be sat from the results of the NEW VALID data...that's the whole point. The people of those two states need to have their voice heard for this to be considered a legitimate election.
Remember the nuclear option could still be used by Clinton (by seating the delegates anyway/court action)...wouldn't it be better for them to find a way to have the primary done legitimately. Also, citing that current polling data shows Hillary would not be able to overtake Obama does not mean they shouldn't redo the primary...we don't rely on "polls" to decide elections...we actually have the elections.
Even if the DEMs found a way to re-do those two elections there is the possibility that no nominee was decided...the magic number of committed delegates would then be 2149 instead of 2025, and if neither candidate reached that number it would go to the convention anyway..there are 368 (including super delegates) that would be up for grabs if they were to seat them...and FL is definitely a Clinton state; while MI would probably be close to a split.
Posted by Dustin Sharp on May 9, 2008 10:12 AMRE: Jay "but again, dustin, it is not only that the votes in mi and fl are not being counted because their state election officials broke party rules...they aren't being counted because they are invalid. corrupted data. bad info. i think the reasons why have been clearly laid out."
Huh? The reason the delegates were stripped from FL and MI was exactly because those two states moved their primary earlier than the DNC wanted...the DNC then stripped them of their delegates prior to the election, but MI and FL conducted the primary elections anyway - fully knowing the DNC would not seat the delegates. The data is bad because the state broke party rules...no one campaigned and in MI Osama wasn't even on the ballot. If another primary election were to be held, both states would then be in compliance with party rules and the delegates would be sat from the results of the NEW VALID data...that's the whole point. The people of those two states need to have their voice heard for this to be considered a legitimate election.
Remember the nuclear option could still be used by Clinton (by seating the delegates anyway/court action)...wouldn't it be better for them to find a way to have the primary done legitimately. Also, citing that current polling data shows Hillary would not be able to overtake Obama does not mean they shouldn't redo the primary...we don't rely on "polls" to decide elections...we actually have the elections.
Even if the DEMs found a way to re-do those two elections there is the possibility that no nominee was decided...the magic number of committed delegates would then be 2149 instead of 2025, and if neither candidate reached that number it would go to the convention anyway..there are 368 (including super delegates) that would be up for grabs if they were to seat them...and FL is definitely a Clinton state; while MI would probably be close to a split.
Posted by Dustin Sharp on May 9, 2008 10:09 AMRE: Jay "but again, dustin, it is not only that the votes in mi and fl are not being counted because their state election officials broke party rules...they aren't being counted because they are invalid. corrupted data. bad info. i think the reasons why have been clearly laid out."
Huh? The reason the delegates were stripped from FL and MI was exactly because those two states moved their primary earlier than the DNC wanted...the DNC then stripped them of their delegates prior to the election, but MI and FL conducted the primary elections anyway - fully knowing the DNC would not seat the delegates. The data is bad because the state broke party rules...no one campaigned and in MI Osama wasn't even on the ballot. If another primary election were to be held, both states would then be in compliance with party rules and the delegates would be sat from the results of the NEW VALID data...that's the whole point. The people of those two states need to have their voice heard for this to be considered a legitimate election.
Remember the nuclear option could still be used by Clinton (by seating the delegates anyway/court action)...wouldn't it be better for them to find a way to have the primary done legitimately. Also, citing that current polling data shows Hillary would not be able to overtake Obama does not mean they shouldn't redo the primary...we don't rely on "polls" to decide elections...we actually have the elections.
Even if the DEMs found a way to re-do those two elections there is the possibility that no nominee was decided...the magic number of committed delegates would then be 2149 instead of 2025, and if neither candidate reached that number it would go to the convention anyway..there are 368 (including super delegates) that would be up for grabs if they were to seat them...and FL is definitely a Clinton state; while MI would probably be close to a split.
Posted by on May 9, 2008 10:07 AMDR that was an interesting article on the Clinton mistakes.
But if you think about it. These mistakes should not have happened. The Clintons are supposed to be pros at this. Afterall, Bill was elected twice and went through this process before.
No, what really happened was this. Conventional thinking was the moderate candidate was the best candidate. In 2004 it was Kerry not Dean. in 2008 it was supposed to be Clinton not Obama
The country has moved left and antiwar because of dissatisfaction with the right and inaction from those in the center. Even today people are mad at Congress for not putting an end to war. More repubs will likely lose seats.
Its the message that Clinton represents that was rejected. Clinton voted for war and didn't do much as senator to end it. That is the perception of those who want change. This is the ultimate reason she lost. It will be the main reason McCain will lose too.
Too many republicans are tired of this war. They won't come out to vote for another tough talking angry man with war credentials. I never heard of Obamacans until now. This smells like trouble for the GOP.
Posted by bob on May 8, 2008 9:14 PM" wonder if Condi will be the first female VP when McCain wins this November?"
Not likely. The first female Vp will be
Larry Craig
I wonder if Condi will be the first female VP when McCain wins this November?
"I personally feel the rights of the people to decide the nominee far outweighs the party's rules"
but again, dustin, it is not only that the votes in mi and fl are not being counted because their state election officials broke party rules...they aren't being counted because they are invalid. corrupted data. bad info. i think the reasons why have been clearly laid out.
there is no conspiracy theory to keep mi and fl out of the race. as far as the popular votes...if fl and mi revoted after giving both candidate's an equal opportunity to represent themselves on the ballot...there is still no reason whatsoever to believe that according to the polling done that hillary would be able to overtake obama in the delegate count. making us reexamine the place the importance of the popular vote...which would require a revote in five additional states.
it is simply impossible to credibly make the case that this is somehow a misscarriage of democracy. these states' votes are simply bad data. it is not about party rules over voters' rights. never was.
Posted by jay on May 8, 2008 2:33 PMRE: Capitan America @ 12:35
Yes the people of those states should be pissed at their Reps (of course we could always say that the people shouldn't have elected shit heads to represent them) for knowingly breaking the rules and having their votes (dis)counted...We all know the reasons why we can't use the "current" results and the obvious problems with re-voting. I personally feel the rights of the people to decide the nominee far outweighs the party's rules; that being said I don't think any solution exists to satisfy both sides (either way the "loser" has a legitimate argument that they lost "unfairly"). Of course there is the nuclear option (court action) to force the DNC to sit the delegates, but that would fracture the party and ensure a November loss.
Maybe the DNC, FL, Clinton, and Obama equally share the cost of a re-vote and have a (real) debate on public tv (think cheap/free airtime on PBS)-(*Side-Note* What the commercial tv companies have tried to pass as debates this election cycle on both side of the aisle are pathetic at best)- and forbid any paid advertisements to even the playing field. Give both candidates equal time at a large venue and forbid general campaigning for this "special circumstance".
RE: Jay 12:47
See the rough idea that could be expanded above...and by all mean please contribute to it instead of all of us getting in a pissing contest while the elite in Ivory Towers pull the wool over the Peoples eyes...as far as getting "popular" vote tallies from other states...why? Some states use caucuses to determine delegate allotment which is well with-in the DNC rules. Other states (Texas) uses a mixture of popular vote/caucuses...we don't need or care about popular votes because the popular vote doesn't win...the first candidate to 2025 delegates wins.
Posted by Dustin Sharp on May 8, 2008 1:37 PMRE: Capitan America @ 12:35
Yes the people of those states should be pissed at their Reps (of course we could always say that the people shouldn't have elected shit head to represent them) for knowingly breaking the rules and having their votes (dis)counted...We all know the reasons why we can't use the "current" results and the obvious problems with re-voting. I personally feel the rights of the people to decide the nominee far outweighs the party's rules; that being said I don't think any solution exists to satisfy both sides (either way the "loser" has a legitimate argument that they lost "unfairly"). Of course there is the nuclear option (court action) to force the DNC to sit the delegates, but that would fracture the party and ensure a November loss.
Maybe the DNC, FL, Clinton, and Obama equally share the cost of a re-vote and have a (real) debate on public tv (think cheap/free airtime on PBS)-(*Side-Note* What the commercial tv companies have tried to pass as debates this election cycle on both side of the aisle are pathetic at best)- and forbid any paid advertisements to even the playing field. Give both candidates equal time at a large venue and forbid general campaigning for this "special circumstance".
RE: Jay 12:47
See the rough idea that could be expanded above...and by all mean please contribute to it instead of all of us getting in a pissing contest while the elite in Ivory Towers pull the wool over the Peoples eyes...as far as getting "popular" vote tallies from other states...why? Some states use caucuses to determine delegate allotment which is well with-in the DNC rules. Other states (Texas) uses a mixture of popular vote/caucuses...we don't need or care about popular votes because the popular vote doesn't win...the first candidate to 2025 delegates wins.
Posted by Dustin Sharp on May 8, 2008 1:35 PMInteresting article, "Five Mistakes Clinton Made":
Posted by DR on May 8, 2008 1:10 PM"Also, something MUST be done with MI and FL...how can any election claim to be fair when two of the large states are not counted?"
what do you think we should do? in order to have valid counts from mi and fl we would need to revote in both states. if we do that then we also have to revote in five other states in which popular vote tallies weren't kept.
thoughts dustin?
Posted by jay on May 8, 2008 12:47 PMWow...looks like problems at Hillary's local campaign headquarters:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/16196816/detail.html
I'd agree that in a perfect world, something would need to be done for MI and FL. But that something would have to be re-running the primary elections with some time before it for the candidates to campaign. Problem is, I'm not sure there's time to do it, and no one seems to want to pay for it. (And speaking of money, Hillary's campaign probably can't afford to run in those two states again anyway.)
The people of FL and MI should be angry at their state representatives who created this problem. It was their arrogance in thinking that the DNC wouldn't follow through on the consequences of moving up the dates that caused this in the first place.
Whatever the solution--if there is one this cycle--it can't be to just accept the votes as-is. Obama didn't run in either state, and took his name off the ballot completely in MI (and didn't in FL because he couldn't, legally). So counting the existing votes wouldn't be a matter of allowing the voices of MI and FL voters to be heard--it would be allowing Hillary a huge and unfair landslide of virtually uncontested--and non-representative--votes in her favor.
Posted by Captain America on May 8, 2008 12:16 PMHey BS sniffer, why do you lie constantly?
You have never provided a link...you are lying about that as well and I really hope you loons keep running with McCain as the same..no wonder why you guys are losers time after time.
Oh and btw, Obama was the most Liberal Senator last year...not going to help him...did you know he voted against giving medical aid for botched abortions that left the baby alive?
How left of Liberal is that?
There will be a large flock of disappointed loons come this November..hehehe
Billary should not drop out until someone has secured the nomination (leading in delegate counts does not pick the nominee - the first to 2025 does). Once Barrack Osama reaches the magic number of 2025 he is then the nominee (remember why the Hucksteer stayed in until McSame reached the magic number). Just because the DEMs cannot decide in a timely manner who should be the nominee does not mean that she should step aside. Also, something MUST be done with MI and FL...how can any election claim to be fair when two of the large states are not counted? On another note...this is why proportional delegate assignments is a really shitty idea...the general elections do not use proportional EC assignments and neither should the DNC.
Posted by Dustin Sharp on May 8, 2008 11:14 AMshall we go over it yet again, farter?
jw suggested this exercise to make this point and i really like it.
go to www.johnmccain.com
please see his policy stances on the top priorities of the country (ranked most to least important):
Economy/Jobs
War in Iraq
Health care
Terrorism/National security
Ethics/Corruption in government
now...what are the strategic differences between his and bush's policy stances on these issues.
that's it...you don't even have to get back to us if the self-tutoring exercise is performed adequately.
Posted by jay on May 8, 2008 10:50 AMremember kids....i can smell bullshit like a fart in a car
"vote for a third bush term under mccain"
Posted by jay on May 7, 2008 3:05 PM
Then you're quite aware of the malodorous emanation from your keyboard. Congrats.
Posted by farter nose best on May 8, 2008 10:38 AMI actually admire Hillary for not throwing in the towel. If a person believes strongly enough in something, they should pursue it with all their effort and means. She's just put 6.4M of her own money into the fracas, and that to me says that she is as serious as she can be.
I've heard several people say that the days of delegates being "talked into" going with a different candidate in sweetheart back room deals were over, but I wouldn't be so sure just yet.
Posted by DR on May 8, 2008 10:16 AMIt's over? Are you kidding? This is the Democratic Party we're talking about. They can come up with any number of dead voters to swing this thing.
Or "super delegates," created to prevent another George McGovern by overriding the will of the people when deemed necessary.
Political theater of the absurd at its finest.
Posted by primafacie on May 8, 2008 9:44 AMHillary is a retard. She would rather rip the party in two before quitting the race that is already lost.
Posted by on May 8, 2008 8:10 AMI think Hillary has won the right to the VP spot.
people still want her and Barack. Dems should listen to the people and get those two to team up.
On the contrarian view, the longer Hillary runs the better. She is getting national exposure and will be a great help in November. a Barack/Hillary team would be what is needed to win BIG time. This is the time to start hammering John McCain and the republican failures.
"jay do you think Obama will be a tougher opponent for McCain then Hillary would have been?
Or do you not believe the polls in this case because you want the very very Liberal Obama to be the nominee?"
which policy stances of obama's make him "very, very liberal"?
i think either will take mcbush to the woodshed, granted that the nation can keep the republicans focused on discussing their policy stances and track record...but what are the odds of that?
btw...shaggy...stop pouting about the links i posted...i'm going to start quizzing you on their content until you start actually reading them so we can move on.
"So where is the DNC rule that says the Super Delegates must vote a certain way?"
i don't understand this question hogar...what conspiracy theory did you have in mind when you wrote it?
Posted by jay on May 8, 2008 8:07 AMIf you are that big of a doofus then you probably shouldn't vote 4:33
Posted by just sayin' on May 8, 2008 7:44 AMpersonally, I feel Obama is too close to osama
Posted by on May 8, 2008 4:33 AM"Liberals give Rush way too much credit.... although he is a favorite scapegoat when things continue to disintegrate for the Dems."
Actually, many of us give Rush no credit at all. MMSNBC reported that his "Operation Chaos" was completely useless, and all bluster. But that's good ol' Rush for you.
"The numbers are impressive. The polls show clearly that the Democratic Party is coming unglued and fragmented worse than the Republicans have ever been (according to Democrats)."
What numbers are you talking about specifically? What polls show that? And what's "according to Democrats"? Without specifics, I have no idea whether I agree with you or not, but I'm guessing the latter.
"Win at all costs, scorched-earth tactics, politics of personal destruction."
Yes, what about them? This describes most politicians, I guess. It's also a list of political buzzwords, so that's nice, I guess.
"The cancer that has been growing at a healthy pace in the bowels of the Democratic Party is eating away at the face of the Democratic Party revealing the twisted horror beneath the surface."
Wow, that is some baroque prose there. Again, without some specifics, I have no idea what you're trying to say. What's the cancer? What's the twisted horror?
"It was predictable. Repubs will keep the WH once again after a contest that never should have been."
What's the contest that never should have been? A presidential election?
"Congrats you liberal lunatics. This is your undoing."
Yeah, still no idea what you're talking about.
"A new genus of flower has been introduced into the 2008 presidential race. It's a cross-pollination of disenchanted, moderate-to-liberal Republicans and the movement that is Barack Obama's campaign."
Obamacans is what some people call them.
The list of prominent Republicans crossing party lines to endorse Obama is, so far, short but interesting. Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of the late president Dwight Eisenhower, tops it. Former U.S. senator Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island is on it, too.
http: //blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/03/a-new-political.html
LOOKS like a major rejection of the Bushies
Posted by Republicans for Obama on May 7, 2008 8:57 PMLiberals give Rush way too much credit.... although he is a favorite scapegoat when things continue to disintegrate for the Dems.
The numbers are impressive. The polls show clearly that the Democratic Party is coming unglued and fragmented worse than the Republicans have ever been (according to Democrats).
Win at all costs, scorched-earth tactics, politics of personal destruction. The cancer that has been growing at a healthy pace in the bowels of the Democratic Party is eating away at the face of the Democratic Party revealing the twisted horror beneath the surface.
It was predictable. Repubs will keep the WH once again after a contest that never should have been.
Congrats you liberal lunatics. This is your undoing.
Posted by Maggie Mae on May 7, 2008 6:50 PMThere is one thing I will be willing to bet on and that is if McCain wins the WH(which I believe he will), the Democratic party will lose alot of credibility with it's peeps for quite some time and rightfully so.
"As a dedicated Democrat I will not vote for Obama. I will vote for Mccain and many of my Democratic friends are going to do the same.
We smell two black rats out for themselves."
Wow, what total bullshit.
"Two black rats"? Way to slip your bigotry into your fake Democrat rant.
"Do I have this right, the only way for Obama to win is by NOT counting all the votes such as Michigan and Florida who heavily favored Hillary?"
No, that's not right. It's sort of the reverse; the only way for Hillary to win is by counting the "elections" in MI and FL. Problem is, she ran virtually uncontested in those states, because due to the results not being counted (and a public pledge all the candidates made) Obama took his name off the ballot in one state, and didn't campaign at all in the other. The fact that Hillary is trying to have those incredibly skewed results count shows how desperate she is, and to what lengths she'll apparently go to get the nomination.
Now, I'd agree with her if she was pushing for re-running the elections with new campaigns and all (if that was possible in terms of time). That would be fair. Just accepting a boatload of votes that she got because virtually no one else was running is a whole other matter.
Posted by Jack on May 7, 2008 4:39 PM"Yea, you say that. Problem is, you still havent given me one name from that large list of people Hillary has "Destroyed" so I really cant trust your "Perceptions". You seem to have nothing that backs them up."
You're responding to the wrong guy there, JW. I wasn't the one talking about people Hillary has destroyed. In fact, I agree with you on that point.
I also agree with you that the only way to accept results from MI and FL is to allow new campaigns and re-run the elections. But that's obviously not going to happen. I think the DNC made mistakes here all the way along (though so did MI and FL, who were arrogant enough to think that they wouldn't be penalized when it was stated that they indeed would be--in this, the state leaderships there backed DNC into a corner...), and it's the voters who are suffering. But at the same time, you can't throw around terms like "blowing off" the votes in those states, because the candidates aren't doing that. And neither is the delegate math.
I understand that people from MI and FL will be pissed off. I worry that just as many people are annoyed at Hillary for jumping on McCain's gas tax holiday nonsense and harping on about counting votes from the incomplete and largely uncontested non-primaries in MI and FL. I know I am.
This is the challenge for you, me, and all democrats--to come together again when a candidate is finally apparent.
Posted by Jack on May 7, 2008 4:33 PMjay do you think Obama will be a tougher opponent for McCain then Hillary would have been?
Or do you not believe the polls in this case because you want the very very Liberal Obama to be the nominee?
Just one time you Democrats should put your personal agendas aside and pick the best person who might have a chance at the Presidency.
Algore and Kerry were pathetic in the least.
btw, still waiting on that pesky link backing yourself up about this previous statement of yours:
"did you see mccain's chief economic advisor admit in the last week that mccain's economic plans would actually increase the deficit? he also admitted that his planned corporate tax cuts alone would add another 1.7 trillion dollars to the debt over the next 10 years."----jay
Nothing you have produced says anything remotely close to what you stated.....oops, I forgot....we both agreed that you were lying...once again....as usual....
Posted by Shaggy on May 7, 2008 4:11 PMThe Truth..., Get a clue, anyone w/ half a brain knows your not a democrat. A democrat would never vote for 4 more years of this insanity. Nice try though.
Posted by on May 7, 2008 3:57 PMjay,
So where is the DNC rule that says the Super Delegates must vote a certain way?
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Somebody needs to castrate our Federal government on May 7, 2008 3:19 PM"Electing a nominee with only 48 of the 50 states does not = democracy...I am sorry."
no need to be sorry....as i stated...i'm all for revoting in florida and michigan...but then we'd have to revote in 5 other states that didn't tally popular votes.
if the dems decide to do that, i'd be all for it...but again...i highly doubt they're going to revote in 7 states because of the actions of two state election committees who knowingly invalidated their own elections.
Posted by jay on May 7, 2008 3:12 PM"then you don't believe in the process of democracy. period"
Electing a nominee with only 48 of the 50 states does not = democracy...I am sorry.
Sounds to me like it is more selective democracy than anything. If I lived in Florida or Michigan I would be coming to Denver to raise hell with the Democratic party.
btw, the Florida party leaders have called for just that if they do not get to be counted.
"As a dedicated Democrat I will not vote for Obama.
I will vote for Mccain and many of my Democratic friends are going to do the same"
remember kids....i can smell bullshit like a fart in a car
"truthy", what bush accomplishments do you believe warrant a vote for a third bush term under mccain instead of a vote for obama (who is running on a platform nearly identical to hillary's...or were you not planning on voting for hillary either?)
Posted by jay on May 7, 2008 3:05 PMi agree 2:35...the policy's of mcsame's third bush term are much easier to beat on the campaign trail than hillary's policies.
sick balls chopper
Posted by jay on May 7, 2008 2:57 PMLets call a spade a spade here and get to the truth and quit being PC for fear of offending someone for christ sakes, we are talking about someone running for President.
This just isn't fair for Hillary.
She has worked her ass off for 16 years to get to this point and then have a rookie senator with no experience, no back ground, has never bleed and swetted to get ahead come in and take it away from her because he is black.
That is the only reason why Obama has made it this far. Everyone was too scared to ask him any hard questions or question his past for fear of being labeled a racist while Hillary was getting grilled at every turn.
Rev.Wrights comments came after the majority of pledged delegates went his way. If the comments came out sooner he would be out of the race by now and Hillary and Mccain would be debating.
Obama and his wife have used the color of their skin to get to where they are right now.
They played the black church to get where they are right now.
I question their loyalty to America.
Anyone should be ashamed to vote for this phony.
As a dedicated Democrat I will not vote for Obama.
I will vote for Mccain and many of my Democratic friends are going to do the same.
We smell two black rats out for themselves.
Lets talk about the real truth that people are so damned scared to mention for fear of being labeled a racist and get the toughest opponent to face Mccain instead of trying to avoid hurting someones feelings.
This whole Democratic process of electing a nominee makes me sick and not very proud to be a Democrat.
Or should I say "I have always been a proud Democrat until recently?"
Beware overconfidence 2:35, as it has been the undoing of many
Posted by on May 7, 2008 2:43 PMTime for Barack Obama to start ignoring Hillary, and set his sights on the highly vulnerable and inadequate John McSame.
Once Obama exposes McSame's flip-floppy Republican Sheeple tendencies, this game is OVER.
Posted by on May 7, 2008 2:35 PM"If this is the case, I think Howard Dean should be removed from duty for not letting the people of Florida and Michigan count."
then you don't believe in the process of democracy. period. this may sound like a shaggiesque strawman argument, but i have little choice to deduce as much due to the fact that obama wasn't even on the ballot in one of those states and hadn't campaigned for voters in either.
to state now that all of a sudden that corrupted data must count would be a miscarriage of democracy...not a fair election.
period.
hillary has the same math problem now as she has since february 19th....only now the insurmountable odds that she will get the nom either by delegate or popular vote count have only gotten impossible.
she can't win....unless of course some of you get your wish that we simply throw the fair and accurate democratic process out the window.
don't get me wrong...if we're going to all of a sudden count the poular vote, then we have to revote in not only michigan and florida, but five other states as well...states that didn't track popular vote tallies.
8 states revoting because two state election committees broke the rules and chose to have invalid elections?
not gonna happen.
i think hillary would have made a great president. i really do, but it's time for her to step aside and help her party get elected in november, not hinder it.
Posted by jay on May 7, 2008 2:31 PMHILLARY PROMISES TO DROP A DOOMS-DAY "ATOMIC OBAMA" BY JUNE. The Clintons have something VERY BIG on BO and they plan to use it as a last DOOM'S-DAY resort. The rumor mill has it of Hiroshima magnitude.
Talk about CHAOS--Hillary plans to top Limbaugh!
This could be the end of the Democrat Party as we know it and the end of loyal Black support.
Posted by SASQUATCH on May 7, 2008 2:26 PM
Do I have this right, the only way for Obama to win is by NOT counting all the votes such as Michigan and Florida who heavily favored Hillary?
If this is the case, I think Howard Dean should be removed from duty for not letting the people of Florida and Michigan count.
I think Howard Dean is a afraid to take it away from Obama and thus make him look racist.
It's too bad the Rev.Wright comments didn't surface some time ago because I think Hillary would be the sole nominee at this point which would be the right candidate to challenge Mccain.
Is there anyone more disgusting than Rush Limbaugh? What a fat phony. Thrice divorced man of family values. Pathetic hyocritical hillbilly heroin addict. What a stooge. Only people worse are the ones who actually listen to him.
Posted by just sayin' on May 7, 2008 2:12 PMIf Obama wins (the nomination), then Obama loses (the election), guaranteed
Posted by Psychic Predictor on May 7, 2008 2:09 PMThe real point here is to move forward to November. The main goal is to not have 4 more years of Republican policies.
It is time for change and we have a chance to make that happen.
If Bill Clinton said that "politics is a contact sport and not one for sissies," it is time for Hillary to bow out gracefully to allow the Democratic Party to focus on winning in November.
This prolonged battle needs to be over.
"Rush Limbaugh was tampering with the primary," lamented John Kerry, the failed Democratic candidate of 2004. "If it was not for Republicans taking Democratic ballots, he would have won by a comfortable margin," Kerry said of Obama.
Meanwhile, Al Gore remains AWOL and MIA regarding the Democrat's chaotic political fandango, preoccupied counting the surging receipts to his bulging personal fortune being generated by his Global Warming hoax.
Posted by SASQUATCH on May 7, 2008 2:02 PMhahahahaha......look at you idiots:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-confirm-operation-chaos-abject-failure/
Posted by Tbone on May 7, 2008 1:54 PMThe looney left conspiracies are multiplying, now with the purported 6 percent net advantage to Hillary from the estimated 11 percent of crossover voters in Indiana. 6 percent of 11 percent is a small number indeed. But not to the lunatic morons who will be the reason the Democrats once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Posted by Chris on May 7, 2008 1:53 PMThe looney left conspiracies are multiplying, now with the purported 6 percent net advantage to Hillary from the estimated 11 percent of crossover voters in Indiana. 6 percent of 11 percent is a small number indeed. But not to the lunatic morons who will be the reason the Democrats once again snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
Posted by Chris on May 7, 2008 1:52 PMLosing an election has to be tough.
Losing an election within your own party has to even tougher, especially when you consider yourself to be the chosen one.
But losing an election to a man who is not as experienced, a man who is not as well-known, a man who is, well, a man has to be crushing.
But what will keep Senator Clinton awake and staring at the ceiling for many nights to come is knowing how much public humiliation she voluntarily subjected herself to because she knew she couldn’t get to where she wanted to be without her husband's help only to watch him prove to be more of a liability than an asset on the campaign trail.
But it couldn’t happen to a more deserving couple.
Kathy - And multiple posts are YOUR priority.
Posted by on May 7, 2008 1:32 PMNOT EXACTLY A SQUEAKER W/O "CHAOS"
In an e-mail entitled “The Limbaugh Effect in Indiana = 7 percent,” the Obama camp today asserts that "Operation Chaos" deliverd HRC the narrow 2 pt. win that translates into a not so narrow 5 pt. loss without the Limbaugh Effect!
HRC's failure to withdraw, therefore, gives further life to "OC" even without any operatives!
Posted by SASQUATCH on May 7, 2008 1:22 PMHillary is going to fight this to a nasty conclusion at the DNC. The party is not her priority--SHE is.
Posted by Kathy on May 7, 2008 1:21 PMHillary is going to fight this to a nasty conclusion at the DNC. The party is not her priority--SHE is.
Posted by Kathy on May 7, 2008 1:19 PMHillary is going to fight this to a nasty conclusion at the DNC. The party is not her priority--SHE is.
Posted by Kathy on May 7, 2008 1:17 PM"I know you're an HRC supporter, but it is time to wake up there buddy."
Then youre missing the point of my posts.
"Also - You push Critical Thinking, but continue to pander to this mythical 'popular vote'. That doesn't exist, there is no popular vote. What about the states that run Caucuses... how do you count them? (which BO won overwhelmingly)."
Critically speaking, the Popular vote thing matters for two reasons. 1. the numbers are in the media, correct or not people can look at them. 2. Voters think they matter. IF Hillary won the pop vote, but Obama got the nom, half the Democratic voters would say "Fuck, its Bush/Gore all over again, but this time our own party screwed us". What do you think that would do for Dem chances in the GE? Pop vote may not matter in the rule books, but if it matters to the people who will end up voting, then it matters strategically speaking.
"I'm not blowing off Michigan and Florida. They blew themselves off."
No, the National and State Democratic Committies did it to the voters of those states, who are the ones getting punnished, and are likely to be pissed off about it. Not a good move strategically speaking.
"I agree that the DNC's decision on this might alienate some voters in FL or MI, but that's not Obama's fault, and we can hardly hand the candidacy to Hillary to make up for it."
I agree. There is no equitable soulution. But it is this issue that is lending legitimacy to Hillary's arguments. They may not resonate with YOU, but they resonate with alot of people, and come the GE that will matter.
Im not saying Hillary should get the nom at all. Im saying they need to re-run Florida and Michigan and hope Obama wins the popular vote. He will win the Delegate count regardless. Thats the only way I see that you have the largest numbers of Dem voters not pissed, and that is what you need to beat McSame, and beating McSame is ALL I care about. Hillary, Obama, I dont give a shit. Just not McSame.
I dont see any way for Hillary to win even the popular vote, but Im glad shes still in the race because Im hoping the DNC will wake the fuck up and rerun Michigan and Florida before she drops out.
That, and Im hoping Obama runs a successful GE against McSame and can beat him. Then Im hoping the guy doesnt go all populist on us.
"I'm no Hillary-hater. I've been a fan of the Clintons for a long time. But the more I see how she chooses to run this race, the less I like her. That's not prejudice, mind you--that's a change in my perception of her based on what I see her doing and saying. "
Yea, you say that. Problem is, you still havent given me one name from that large list of people Hillary has "Destroyed" so I really cant trust your "Perceptions". You seem to have nothing that backs them up.
Posted by JW on May 7, 2008 1:06 PMClinton is done... end of story...
I was playing with this on cnn.com. It is the Delegate counter for the Democratic party. (check it out, it's kinda cool)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/index.html
Anyway, for Sen. Clinton to be able to overtake Sen. Obama she would have to win EVERY state left with a spread of 70% - 30% and also have the superdelegates break for her 63% to 37% just to lead Obama by ONE delegate!
It's over!
She's done... really this has been over for weeks.
Now unite the party and pound the snot out of McSame! Which should be easy considering he offers nothing but 4 more years of the Bush disaster!
Obama/Clinton '08! The un-beatable ticket!
Posted by JMH on May 7, 2008 11:51 AMWhy should Florida and Michigan count when they openly and knowingly defied their own own party's rules?
Both Obama and Hillary agreed early on that they should not be counted and if Hillary were leading right now this would not be an issue.
If Hillary were to convince the Super D's to let her steal it from the black man, the Democratic party will never be he same...neither will Denver for that matter.
I really don't think Obama knows what it is going to be like in the General election. He thinks he has already weathered the toughest part of his campaign.
General elections are a totally different ball game than the primaries where one just has to weather peeps of their own peers.
I really think the Democratic party did Obama and their people a disservice by not exposing Obama to the tough questions early on...I don't think he would even be in the race right now.
I think Hillary would be the nominee for quite some time now and the party would have joined together and behind her leaving the Republicans with an uphill battle to over take her.
In fact wasn't this the plan everyone thought would happen when she announced she would run?
Obama is the spoiler.
Sorry for the double post...thought I caught that in time.
Posted by Jack on May 7, 2008 11:14 AMSas, and your proud of Rush and his antics. Again, the right can't win w/o cheating, lying and smearing. Sas, get on your meds and get some therapy.
Posted by on May 7, 2008 11:09 AMI'm not blowing off Michigan and Florida. They blew themselves off. I agree that the DNC's decision on this might alienate some voters in FL or MI, but that's not Obama's fault, and we can hardly hand the candidacy to Hillary to make up for it.
The only way that the Dems could count those states is if they were actual races in which the candidates ran as they normally would, and then the results were nullified after the fact. But that's not the case. Obama withdrew his name from the ballot in Michigan because the results had already been nullified. Obama did not run in Florida for the same reason (and didn't withdraw his name from the ballot there only because it was illegal under state law to do so.)
In contrast, Hillary publically committed not to participate in the primaries as well, even though she chose not to remove her name. For her to call for those results to count now is beyond disingenuous.
I'm no Hillary-hater. I've been a fan of the Clintons for a long time. But the more I see how she chooses to run this race, the less I like her. That's not prejudice, mind you--that's a change in my perception of her based on what I see her doing and saying.
Posted by Jack on May 7, 2008 11:08 AMI'm not blowing off Michigan and Florida. They blew themselves off.
The only way that the Dems could count those states is if they were actual races in which the candidates ran as they normally would, and then the results were nullified after the fact. But that's not the case. Obama withdrew his name from the ballot in Michigan because the results had already been nullified. Obama did not run in Florida for the same reason (and didn't withdraw his name from the ballot there only because it was illegal under state law to do so.)
In contrast, Hillary publically committed not to participate in the primaries as well, even though she chose not to remove her name. For her to call for those results to count now is beyond disingenuous.
I'm no Hillary-hater. I've been a fan of the Clintons for a long time. But the more I see how she chooses to run this race, the less I like her. That's not prejudice, mind you--that's a change in my perception of her based on what I see her doing and saying.
Posted by Jack on May 7, 2008 11:06 AMJW,
I know you're an HRC supporter, but it is time to wake up there buddy.
Yea, if you count FL and MI, then HRC is only 200k short of Popular Vote (including a state where BO wasn't even on the ballot)... still behind. She is behind in states won, she is behind in pledged delegates, and she is soon going to be behind in SDs.
Also - You push Critical Thinking, but continue to pander to this mythical 'popular vote'. That doesn't exist, there is no popular vote. What about the states that run Caucuses... how do you count them? (which BO won overwhelmingly).
By every measurable metric, HRC has lost. She doesn't hold any advantage against McCain, and BO is the Presumptive Nominee.
Posted by benn on May 7, 2008 11:00 AM"Clinton keeps trying to use that same line, that she and Obama are in a virtual tie. But it's just not true, and anyone looking at the math can see it's not true."
Provided youre willing to blow off Florida and Michigan, youre right.
I wonder, will you remember that if it comes down to Florida again, and it goes Republican, allowing McSame to defeat Obama? Will you still feel blowing those voters off was the right move because Obama got the nomination even if it puts McSame in the WH?
Posted by JW on May 7, 2008 10:43 AMClinton keeps trying to use that same line, that she and Obama are in a virtual tie. But it's just not true, and anyone looking at the math can see it's not true. Clinton is significantly behind in delegate count, and her superdelegate lead is slipping sharply (and after Tuesday, will continue in that direction). She's just trying to frame the argument in her favor--but words don't affect numbers, and that's what she's ultimately fighting. Here's hoping she has the grace to accept defeat and move on before more damage gets done on the national level.
I also love how Rush Limbaugh and his sheep still seem to think that they're at all relevant to this race. Do the people who listen to his show not understand that they're a shrinking minority? This isn't the mid-90s anymore. "Operation Chaos" isn't anything more than a publicity stunt for a desperate radio political schlock-jock.
As for polls saying that Clinton is the stronger candidate against McCain, those things mean nothing until there are actually two candidates. It's all just noise. It's just flak in the air, hoping to hit something.
Posted by Jack on May 7, 2008 10:29 AM"I do note that I said "political opponents" Clinton has destroyed. I should have dropped the word "political" and just said opponents, which expands the list greatly. Thank you for questioning my semantics."
And again Id ask for names. This is a typical "I hate Hillary" statement that I've never seen backed up by anything but insinuation.
"but a quick check to Wikipedia reveals that as it stands now, if the Michigan and Florida delegates were seated, Clinton would gain 38 pledged delegates from MI, 18 pledged delegates from FL, and it would still be virtually impossible for her to catch Obama."
This is probably true regarding Pledge Delegates. Not so for the popular vote.
Again, its the DNC that has screwed this up. Obama will likely be the nominee. Thats ok with me, Ill vote for the guy. But if you look at the numbers coming in, Im not sold that its the smart move. Its too bad a hand full of DNC and FNC people made decisions that could quite possibly screw which ever dem gets the nom. As in the past, Dems are still their own worst enemy.
But there is still a GE campaign, and things will change. The fact that more Hillary supporters say they will vote McSame if Obama is the nom than Obama supporters will vote McSame if Hillary is the nom shows what people think NOW. That may change over the course of a GE campaign. And while the voters of Florida and Michigan may be pissed at getting disinfranchised, it doesnt necessarily follow that they will vote Republican or not at all come the GE.
Anyway, however people see it, I think this is a cluster fuck not becaue of anything Obama or Hillary have done, but because of the DNC's stupidity, and the media.
Posted by JW on May 7, 2008 10:28 AMHILLAY GOT 7 PT. CHAOS BUMP IN IND!
Barack Obama’s campaign issued an e-mail on Tuesday night that appeared to relegate Hillary Clinton’s lead in Indiana to efforts by Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc in the Democratic presidential primary contest.
In an e-mail entitled “The Limbaugh Effect in Indiana = 7 percent,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton wrote: “According to the latest exit polling data, 17 percent of voters in the Indiana primary today said they would vote for John McCain in a Clinton/McCain match-up. Forty-one percent of that number is constituted by people who voted Clinton in the primary but also indicated they will vote for McCain in the general election. That comes out to just under 7 percent of the primary electorate the number that may be attributed to a Limbaugh Effect.”
“The Limbaugh Effect” referred to “Operation Chaos,” which the conservative radio talk show host launched early in the primary season to create “balance” in the 2008 primary contest after he said liberal influences helped John McCain emerge as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
Limbaugh has said his scheme to tilt the Democratic primary exceeded his expectations.
THE WHOLE DEMOCRAT PRIMARY FANDANGO HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A CHAOTIC AND MEANINGLESS HOAX--A CERTIFIED 24K PHONY!
Posted by SASQUATCH on May 7, 2008 10:27 AMThank you for your insight Anonymous, but a quick check to Wikipedia reveals that as it stands now, if the Michigan and Florida delegates were seated, Clinton would gain 38 pledged delegates from MI, 18 pledged delegates from FL, and it would still be virtually impossible for her to catch Obama. So after looking at your "they are basically tied" rationale, I find it intriguing, but false and therefore I continue to ask for any more credible motive for Hillary's continuance other than her own promotion at the expense of the party.
I do note that I said "political opponents" Clinton has destroyed. I should have dropped the word "political" and just said opponents, which expands the list greatly. Thank you for questioning my semantics.
Hillary's done, and she should know it. Who knows if she'll admit it to herself or not? Whatever the case, the Dems have to stop doing the Republican's work for them.
I find it fascinating that so many on the right--Rush and his dittoheads specifically--seem to be focused so much on tearing down the Democrats, and so little on supporting John McCain.
It reminds me of the way the 2004 elections went, when so many of Kerry's supporters weren't so much for Kerry, but against Bush. And we all know how well that turned out.
Posted by Speak Up! on May 7, 2008 10:10 AMHillary's speech after the results were in was a concession of sorts--she was already talking about her and Obama as a "we". I think she knows it's over, but we'll have to see if she acts on that for the good of her party.
At the very least, I think we'll see some of her supporters--staffers, superdelegates, and the public at large--start to recognize the writing that's clearly on the wall now, and begin the switch to Obama.
Posted by Captain America on May 7, 2008 10:06 AMI like the Loverboy version better: " I'ts OVER, I'ts OVER, I'ts OOOVVEERRR..."
Posted by AB on May 7, 2008 9:56 AMObama's name was mentioned in the Rezko trial. The defense has rested, and if he is found guilty, you can bet that he will start singing and the Hillary will finally have her straw that breaks the camel's back. Hillary will never give up.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_mentioned_at_rezko_trial.html
In in the same way that the DNC can disenfranchise the voters in FL and MI, they can give the nomination through the Super Delegates.
"all delegates are equal, but some are more equal than others." Animal Farm comes to Denver in August.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Republican, because not everyone can be on welfare. on May 7, 2008 9:24 AM"Given Hillary's propensity of destroying political opponents on both sides of the aisle in the past, I can't help but wonder if Hillary is trying to damage Obama to the point of non-electability so that she may try again in 4 years rather than waiting 8."
Hmmm. A "propensity of destroying political opponents on both sides of the aisle". Concievably, with a statement like that, you ARE able to list more than one opponent she has "destroyed". And by "destroyed" Im sure you don't mean "defeat in a campaign just like every other Democrat who beats other Democrats for their party's nomination".
"Can anyone offer another reason - specifically, a more credible, logical reason - why Hillary is still in the race?"
Sure;
If you count Florida and Michigan, they are basically tied at this point. Now, I know people have come down on one side or the other here. Hillary supporters say those states must be counted, Obama supporters say they broke the rules, fuckem.
Im not going to get into that. Im going to talk about that issue STRATEGICALLY. Both of these states have people who want to vote because, you know, they are like "American Citizens" and for some screwed up reason that makes them think they have a right to do so. Call 'em crazy.
But their Democratic leaders in those states made a decision, and then the national Dem leaders made another...and now they feel they have been "screwed". Anyone think maybe the PEOPLE of these states have a point? They didnt chose to move up the primaries after all.
Anyway. We now have a situation where the people of both theses states who are Democrats may get screwed out of their votes through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN.
Can anyone tell me how that MIGHT not be a good thing? Anyone remember how pivotal Florida has been in the last few General Elections? That being the case, can anyone give me a GOOD reason why the Dems would want to fuck the entire Democratic voting population of Florida?
So, Hillary staying in may be due to the fact that if everyone got their right to vote, she's actually in a dead heat with Obama. What ever YOUR personal oppinion on that might be, from a strategic view point, screwing the democratic voters of Michigan and particularly Florida probably isnt the best move if you actually want to beat McSame come November.
Shaggy and Sasquatch sitting in a tree, K.I.S....
You guys are pathetic. Rush means that much to you? Aren't you embarrassed you follow a ratings tool? An advertising generator. You listen to a machine, that's all. But these blogs have told you that and you still can't reason on your own. Basically, your the perfect mall shopper. Just buy it, tools.
Does 'shock the monkey' mean anything to you guys. Give a monkey in a controlled caged environment a choice for a prize. Of course the monkey wants the prize where he/she has to endure a shock to have. And the monkey will get shocked over and over and over to have that same prize. Rush-shock-Shaggy. Rush-shock-Shaggy. Rush-shock-Shaggy. Over and over and over.
Posted by shock the monkey on May 7, 2008 9:10 AMThe party is not over. No fat lady, or for that matter, fat man, has sung squat. Hillary Clinton will win the nomination--Obama has way too many skeletons in his closet, which will emerge, one by one, until voters finally get a clear picture of who he really is--full of hot air, lots of empty promises, and nothing to back what he says up.
Posted by wait and see on May 7, 2008 9:09 AM"He's never been a governor or even a mayor. He's barely been a Senator, honestly, and as to whether all it takes to be a great president, and we need a great one, is 'great' ideas remains to be seen.----Lyle Johnson
Neither has Hillary.
Hillary has never ran anything in her life and has little experience as a Senator.
Good to see you again Harry. Why did you stop posting your name?
Posted by gr8fuldude on May 7, 2008 8:58 AM"The numbers" have said it's mathematically impossible for Hillary to win for 2+ months now. If she didn't back out then, why would she now?
However, this also brings up the point that there is no rational, Democrat party-friendly reason for Hillary to stay in the race. What is her rationale then?
Let me play Devil's advocate here. Hillary Clinton will be 61 by the time we reach Nov elections. If McCain wins, he'll probably be in office 4 years (Even Republican's view the guy as "conservative enough" or the "lesser evil"). If Obama wins, he'll probably be in office 8 years. Hillary would be 69 at that time, and we know how age is dogging McCain in the media. Given Hillary's propensity of destroying political opponents on both sides of the aisle in the past, I can't help but wonder if Hillary is trying to damage Obama to the point of non-electability so that she may try again in 4 years rather than waiting 8.
I'm not trying to go conspiracy theory here. Can anyone offer another reason - specifically, a more credible, logical reason - why Hillary is still in the race?
"Every poll shows Hillary to be the tougher opponent for McCain but what will the Democrats do?... They will put up the weaker of the two....must be a Liberal thing about cheering for the underdog."
I hate it when I agree with Shaggy, but this is pretty obvious at this point.
That said, Hillary is the better match against McSame RIGHT NOW. Who knows what happens in a GE campaign.
Posted by JW on May 7, 2008 8:55 AMI think its funny that the vast majority of the loony left that posts here doesnt seem to get up till noon, unlike hard working righties who get up and go to work. I also find it funny how quick like the pot head lefties forget that polls showing support for gays was very high till those very same lefties got into a private voting both and crushed the right for gays to marry. Will probably be the same case for Barrack when everyone secrectly turns on him. I am no fan of McCain, but he is going to be the next president regardless of what you lefty nimrods think
Posted by on May 7, 2008 8:50 AMMISSION ACCOMPLISHED: "OPERATION CHAOS!"
The Doctor of Democracy and Commander-in-Chief of Operation Chaos, now in its unwinding and exit phases, Rush Limbaugh is enjoying victory like Gen. McCarthur did on the Big Mo while getting an unconditional surrender from Japan. RL engineered the peeling of BO, the Dem's candidate who suddenly lost his Messiah status. And RL managed to sink the SS Rhodam in the process. If it weren't for Rush, America would not have seen the peeling of the inexperienced Marxist--BO--and his pals Jerimiah Wright, Bill Ayres, the angry Michelle and whoever else is to come!
Congrats on a job well-done! November: McCain,45--BO, 5!
Posted by SASQUATCH on May 7, 2008 8:42 AMHillary isn't done yet...she has yet to throw her Tonya Harding attack against Obama to impress the Super D's.
Seriously though...it looks like the tougher opponent to McCain just got racially voted out of the race by the black voters.
This is a disaster for the Democrats because they will be stuck with Obama after another one of his racially hate whitey/America bombs gets exposed that makes him unelectable.
His gibberish talk to cover up/lie about his past may work with the Democrats but not the working white class of America and Independents.
Every poll shows Hillary to be the tougher opponent for McCain but what will the Democrats do?... They will put up the weaker of the two....must be a Liberal thing about cheering for the underdog.
Silly Democrats....you just don't learn...ever!!!
Posted by Shaggy on May 7, 2008 8:42 AM
I totally disagree and hope that both candidates will stay alive to the DNC. Why? Because they are the two best candidates to run for the Presidency in our nation at the same time in maybe 100 years. They are keeping each other honest, something we don't get when there's just one candidate with which to contend. Who's keeping McCain honest? No one, and once the opposite party rhetoric which, unfortunately, we can take iwth a grain of salt, we have no more transparency or honesty. If I were in charage of the universe, though, I'd ask Obama to step back and wait. I'm not sure why he's running in the first place with so little political experience. He's never been a governor or even a mayor. He's barely been a Senator, honestly, and as to whether all it takes to be a great president, and we need a great one, is 'great' ideas remains to be seen. I would prefer to see Hilary Clinton as our next President, and Mr. Obama as our Vice-President. This way we could ensure the best of both worlds and 16 years of sensible, normal, logical leadership. It is going to take more than 16 years, probably to clean up this mess, but who better to do it than these two?
Posted by Lyle Johnson on May 7, 2008 8:35 AMThe graceful thing now would be to bow out, and try to unite the party behind Obama. I truly believe though that pride, ego and vanity are preventing her from so doing. Sad really, as it prolongs the inevitable and gives up valuable time to strategize against McCain.
Posted by gr8fuldude on May 7, 2008 8:25 AMTHE FAT LADY HAS SUNG!
Posted by SASQUATCH on May 7, 2008 8:25 AM