home
Demographics | 307 comments (307 topical)
I'd prefer a Merry November. (none / 0) (#13)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:37:40 PM EST
There's numerical defeat staring you in tha face.

[ Parent ]
I agree (1.00 / 0) (#22)
by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:40:57 PM EST
that Obama will have an awful hard go at it now that Wright is in play and that Hillary would be the better GE candidate.

Still, it's just plain embarassing to keep grasping for new metrics as old ones pass away.  She lost or will soon lose - fair and square.  We should rally around the nominee.

[ Parent ]

Fair and square? (5.00 / 4) (#28)
by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:43:11 PM EST
Without FL and MI voters having their say? Nonsense.

[ Parent ]
I'm not wonky enough to work the calculators, so (none / 0) (#44)
by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:48:04 PM EST
answer me this:

Would Hillary be ahead in delegates or popular vote if both MI and FL were included as is?

[ Parent ]

I think she would be within 14 (5.00 / 5) (#57)
by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:51:00 PM EST
delegates, and after WV and KY she would be ahead, so yes, it would have changed everything had those states counted.  It would have had a measurable impact on his momentum after those states primaries, imo.

[ Parent ]
He wasn't on the ballot in MI (1.00 / 0) (#74)
by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:54:24 PM EST
How close she'd be if both had actually campaigned an been on the ballot in all states is an open question.

She agreed to these rules until she decided that she didn't.

[ Parent ]

The RULES allow for a revote (5.00 / 3) (#86)
by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:56:41 PM EST
that is what you keep leaving out.  And by the way, if you read the pledge all she agreed to was not to campaign. She did not agree the votes would never count.

[ Parent ]
I keep leaving out? (1.00 / 0) (#111)
by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:03:34 PM EST
Show me anothe rcomment where I left it out.

I fully supported a re-vote.  Tough for a good portion of the time, Hillary Clinton opposed one.  In fact back in the early part of thsi year I used to find it curious how most of the Hillary supporters on the blogsphere ignored the suggestion.

[ Parent ]

Chorus: he asked to have his name (5.00 / 4) (#105)
by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:01:12 PM EST
taken off the ballot in MI.  He did campaign in FL.

[ Parent ]
Wrong wrong wrong (5.00 / 4) (#110)
by Trickster on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:03:20 PM EST
Clinton fully honored every agreement she entered into regarding the campaign.  She NEVER agreed that the Michigan and Florida delegations should not be seated, (nor did any other candidate, by the way, even to this day).

[ Parent ]
IIRC, Hillary was ahead in the popular vote (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:54:04 PM EST
before last night if you counted Michigan and Florida.  The delegates are uncertain, I believe, because Florida and Michigan would have to apportion them.

As I understand it, the argument about Florida and Michigan is all about the popular vote.  It's unclear to me if WV and KY, etc., could make up for Hillary's lost ground in NC.

I think both states need to be seated and counted, and the decision must be made pronto.  

Otherwise, we'll lose any chance in both states, because Obama slow-walked and blocked the revotes.

[ Parent ]

Not quite (none / 0) (#273)
by IzikLA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:06:19 PM EST
But she would be very close, and the whole narrative that was built against her would not have been in the media every day of this campaign.  And once these last 6 contests were done, they would probably be about even, thus ensuring that the SD's could just make decisions based on their own electability assessments rather than the media calling this whole thing for us.

[ Parent ]
I'm not grasping (5.00 / 5) (#31)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:45:08 PM EST
I'm pointing out that obama has riden a series of close seconds and provinicial blowouts to the nomination.

A Beat tester for a video game would get a pay raise for pointing out the system flaw--not the chairmanship of the company.

Break this electoral architecture!

[ Parent ]

yes please :) (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:49:36 PM EST
Winner take all Republican style, no supers, wrap the next one up on Super Tuesday.

[ Parent ]
Isn't that counter to... (1.00 / 0) (#81)
by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:55:58 PM EST
...Clinton's current "all voters must have their say" position?

[ Parent ]
Don't be absurd (5.00 / 0) (#134)
by Trickster on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:08:45 PM EST
Isn't that counter to... (none / 0) (#81)
by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:55:58 PM EST

...Clinton's current "all voters must have their say" position?

You couldn't have spent two seconds thinking this through.  No one is taking the utterly ridiculous position that it's wrong for the early states to settle the nomination by near-acclamation.  That's all for the best; everybody recognizes that.

Clinton's position is that you can't go all the way through the roster of states, and at the end when everybody else has voted and the outcome remains razor-edge close, intentionally tell two states that their voters and their voters alone will not be allowed to vote.

[ Parent ]

Not her positon at all (none / 0) (#225)
by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:37:52 PM EST
She has been arguing in recent weeks that we need to finish the primary calendar to give every voter a voice.

That does run counter to winner take all.

 

[ Parent ]

I'm not a Clinton supporter (none / 0) (#102)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:00:28 PM EST
Might seem like but i'm not.

[ Parent ]
If I remember correctly - you were strong Edwards (none / 0) (#117)
by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:05:34 PM EST
The point remains - winner take all is counter to "everybody must be heard".

[ Parent ]
After this? (none / 0) (#113)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:03:55 PM EST
Try undoing this system.

His win guarantees the power in charge will now manipulate this for their own purpose for decades.

Mark my words.

Trying to renegotiate this sytstem will be as fruitless as Hillary trying to get a win in NC.  :)

[ Parent ]

Ugh (1.00 / 0) (#126)
by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:07:08 PM EST
I don't see any basis for that assertion other than your obvious distaste for the guy.  

[ Parent ]
nah (none / 0) (#187)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:27:01 PM EST
It's got to have all sorts of interesting characters salivating about the means of manipulation.

[ Parent ]
As BTD (none / 0) (#262)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:54:55 PM EST
points out.....demographics.

I could cook up a similar plan right now, after watching this.

[ Parent ]

Not fair and square (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:46:06 PM EST
but by the rules in place that favored him (see Donna Brazile)...I am sorry, I will vote for him and in time even get excited, but he only has himself to blame for not letting MI and FL revote...it will never be fair and square in my mind.

[ Parent ]
New metrics? (5.00 / 6) (#43)
by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:47:55 PM EST
We'd like a victory in November.

Obama can't deliver, IMO.

Were some of you sleeping in 2000 and 2004, or just too young to know what was going on?

[ Parent ]

Take the nomination away from Obama (2.00 / 1) (#65)
by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:52:50 PM EST
while he has a pledged delegate and popular vote lead and there will be hell to pay with AA's and to a lesser extent, the youth vote.

It will be the Democratic Party itself that will be impotent for years in that situation.

Yes, voters made a bad call.  Yes, Obama is wanting too much too soon.  But Obama won and that's the hand that has to be played.

[ Parent ]

What. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:56:21 PM EST
About.

Florida.

And.

Michigan?

[cricket cricket cricket]


[ Parent ]

Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#119)
by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:05:54 PM EST
has 55 delegates and they have been allowed to vote as a block.

[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#300)
by Just another person on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:29:43 PM EST
as long as the AA vote and the youth vote are appeased. /snark

[ Parent ]
Do you really think (5.00 / 6) (#87)
by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:57:01 PM EST
that the Democratic party is going to be potent because they pandered solely to the African American community and the fickle youth vote? They're losing everyone else by this move and also proving they're so spineless that they'll cave as soon as someone throws a tantrum. Sorry but I don't want to be a member of a party that's held hostage by Those Who Yell Loudest. No amount of liberal guilt or name calling's going to win me back.

[ Parent ]
Meh, (1.00 / 1) (#92)
by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:58:55 PM EST
I would rather not have grandchildren being shot at in Iraq.

[ Parent ]
well you will (5.00 / 3) (#125)
by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:06:37 PM EST
if McCain wins

GO HILLARY

[ Parent ]

As of last night, (1.00 / 1) (#171)
by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:23:22 PM EST
there is no plausible, non-Obama meltdown, scenario for Clinton to win the nomination.

Check please.

[ Parent ]

Before the check can I order (5.00 / 1) (#199)
by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM EST
One Obama meltdown special please? With an order of ex-friends on the side. ;)

[ Parent ]
Does that come (5.00 / 2) (#234)
by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:40:45 PM EST
with or without the waffles?

[ Parent ]
Lol (none / 0) (#248)
by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:47:14 PM EST
:)

[ Parent ]
Sarissa...even when obama followers have a (none / 0) (#246)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:46:28 PM EST
win under their belt, they still have to act like d!cks.

[ Parent ]
This is the stupidest reason (5.00 / 2) (#146)
by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:11:13 PM EST
to vote for Obama.

Just sayin'.

[ Parent ]

Obama hasn't won yet. (5.00 / 0) (#228)
by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:38:29 PM EST
Also, let's be a bit realistic here about the AA vote. African-Americans WILL NOT vote for McCain. Some of them might sit out, but a large block will still vote Democratic.

But I turn your thought back to you: what about working class voters? Can Democrats win without them? They are far more likely to vote McCain; they'll likely break Republican.

It's absurd to play this game: Vote Obama or the African American community will be angry; Vote Hillary or the working class voters are gone.

Is this productive AT ALL?

[ Parent ]

Obama has to cross the finish line (5.00 / 1) (#276)
by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:07:40 PM EST
Bring it on.

He can't keep pausing and doing victory dances, only to have HRC pass him again.

Superdeez aren't in his pocket, as his whispering astro-trolls keep feeding the rumor mill.

Let him call a press conference and put all of them on the record tomorrow, standing with Dem leadership, and declare the nomination race over.

Can't do it? Then voters, not redoing the Math and the Roolz. Incidentally, explaining why Democratic arcana justifies purging millions of voters off the books is pure Bush League.

Explain that for the media and see how Obama's support holds.

[ Parent ]

This may or may not be true (1.00 / 1) (#101)
by AdamSmithsHand on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:59:53 PM EST
But frankly we have no evidence that our party ever had a stronger nominee.

Obama's got a tough road ahead.  So would Hillary if she were the nominee.  I guarantee you the GOP was fully prepared to use her gender against her effectively.

If we beleive the things we espouse as progressives, time to stand against glass ceilings of any kind.
 

[ Parent ]

Blech. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:12:01 PM EST
But frankly we have no evidence that our party ever had a stronger nominee.

Stronger?  

No way.

[ Parent ]

Maybe not (none / 0) (#312)
by vigkat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:10:18 PM EST
And certainly not yet.

[ Parent ]

Demographics | 307 comments (307 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft