Obama Supporters' Sour Grapes

Supporters of Barack Obama continue to spin the 13-12 delegate count story as if it proves he won in Nevada. Their sour grapes attitude is so unbecoming.

One more time, here's the deal.

  • Nevada Democrats
    Just like in Iowa, what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention, of which Senator Clinton won the majority. No national convention delegates were awarded.

    if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct.

The delegate count will occur in February at the county convention and in April at the state convention. No delegate totals can be predicted before then. [More...]

Hypothetical is not reality, it is a possibility based on unknown future events. The only reality is that Hillary Clinton won 51% of the vote in Nevada and Obama won 45%. Neither one received a single Nevada delegate to the national convention in Denver.

A screwy system? To be sure. But that's no reason to misrepresent the impact.

< Nevada: Why Hillary Won | John Edwards Will Stay and Fight for Nomination >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    But He Lost the Popular Vote (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BDB on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    Don't you think it would be bad to go to a convention and nominate a person who lost the popular vote, but won more delegates.  I think it would be a disaster.  I thought that when folks were arguing Clinton might be able to do it and I think that now.  

    I'm not talking about the rules, I'm talking about how democratic voters are going to react.  We've been turning out massive new voters, what do you think their reaction is going to be if the person who won the votes, isn't the nominee?  Will the hispanic maid who caucuses yesterday for Clinton think her vote matters?  Will she show up in November?

    I'm not arguing about the rules, I'm arguing about the politics.  It's one thing for Obama to point to the delegate count as  a silver lining.  But to tout subverting the will of the voters as a win is a huge mistake, IMO.  Made even more so by the fact that he's running in a Democratic primary where a lot of us are still pissed about 2000.  I don't think "I won on a technicality that deprives voters of their voice" is a good message, particularly for a guy who claims to want to change politics.

    Honestly, I don't understand why his campaign is doing this.   It just seems stupid to me.  

    But you are arguing about the rules. (none / 0) (#15)
    by converse on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:47:25 PM EST
    You're saying it would be wrong to have more delegates if you didn't win the popular vote.  But that is exactly what the rules allow.

    If you don't like the rules, change them.  Or tell the Clinton's to change them; it's their buddies who run the Nevada State Democratic Party.

    But don't attack or try to discredit a perfectly good Democratic candidate because he wins by playing the rules that are set.  That's the low road.

    If you do want to argue about the politics and turn-out, then Obama wins again.  In the three primaries that have counted, he's brought out more new voters that all the other Dem candidates combined.  He's in the best position to win in the general.


    You are now limited to (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:52:37 PM EST
    four comments a day. You are chattering, repeating the same point over and over with the intent of dominating the discussion.

    You are over the limit now. Please come back tomorrow if you wish, but future comments today will be deleted.

    Our commenting policy is clear on this.


    Just read your comment policy (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Coral on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:26:06 PM EST
    It's great! I wish other blogs would limit repetitive commenters.

    But (none / 0) (#24)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    the traditional base still has a say it this. The Dem Party is in the best position to win the general election with either of these candidates.

    In the three primaries that have counted, he's brought out more new voters that all the other Dem candidates combined.

    We still count. Once the candidate is selected, there will have to be a "bringing together". In that ... Sen Obama just blew it. Why didn't he just acknowledge Sen Clinton's win in Nevada?


    sour grapes and immaturity (4.50 / 2) (#6)
    by lily15 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:30:41 PM EST
    Exactly as to sour grapes....Plus Obama did not call to congratulate Hillary.  She won by 6 points when he had an advantage with the casina caucuses. She just campaigned harder ....Bill compaigned at the caucus locations to make sure it was fair.  She improved her numbers with different groups were voting...winning the over 100,000., winning women, winning 1/2 the men, She just keeps improving her demographics...and all we hear are sour grapes...How can anyone even conceive of Obama as a leader, let alone uniter?  Plus, who among us can imagine a woman, with only state senate experience and one year in the Senate, running for Presidency?  Can we all imagine what would be talked about?  So why can Obama do it?  Does his race make the difference?  And why should it?  A woman running is just as historic.  And considering the fact that woman are still slaves in many countries....why isn't that important to talk about and consider?  Women have been discriminated against for centuries...and we should not accept the argument that because Obama is African American, he can get a pass on experience that a woman would not be allowed. Or that his race is any more important than HIllary's gender.  

    Losing papers (none / 0) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:43:34 PM EST
    Well, everyone laughed at his joke about losing papers, but really folks.  The memo warning Bush about Osama before 9/11 was a paper, the Abu Ghirab report was a paper, I don't want another delegator who will lose the papers.  Hillary will not lose the papers.  I repeat, really do take the time to watch both interviews.  Where Obama sits back in the chair and postures and blathers, Hillary truly answers the questions in depth.  Yes, I want a competent president.  It's not funny to lose the papers, Tim Russert and Chris Mathews.  

    Sour Grapes (none / 0) (#16)
    by gtalkpolitics1 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    Did Sen. Hillary call and congratulate Sen.Obama When he won Iowa? NO she did not why is there a set of rules for him and another set for Sen. Clinton?  

    Wrong (none / 0) (#25)
    by standingup on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:08:26 PM EST
    Let's compare how Hillary handled her loss in Iowa with Obama's in Nevada.


    The following is a transcript of Hillary Rodham Clinton's address to supporters after the Iowa Caucuses, as provided by Congressional Quarterly via The Associated Press.

    SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Well, we're going to take this enthusiasm and go right to New Hampshire tonight. This is a great night for Democrats. We have seen an unprecedented turnout here in Iowa. And that is good news, because today we're sending a clear message: that we are going to have change, and that change will be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009.

    I am so proud to have run with such exceptional candidates. I congratulate Senator Obama and Senator Edwards. I thank Senator Dodd, and Senator Biden, and Governor Richardson, and Congressman Kucinich. Together, we have presented the case for change and have made it absolutely clear that America needs a new beginning.


    Sen. Barack Obama won't deliver any post-caucuses remarks in Las Vegas today. He's on his way to Chicago. Read into that what you will.

    Sun Times (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:33:55 PM EST
    I think he had to rush to Chicago to deal with the Sun Times developing story and giving back 40,000 in donations when in truth he got more like 160,000.  This story, I don't get it, if it was Hillary, everyone would have been all over it.  

    Did he have to handle that in person? (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:35:50 PM EST
    Also, techinically he didn't "give back" the donations.  His campaign donated them to unidentified charities.  

    BTD wrote a post yesterday, I think, (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:38:17 PM EST
    stating the Rezdo connection shouldn't be a media event.  Maybe it shouldn't be but I think it will be if Obama makes it to the GE.

    He went back to be (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:30:25 PM EST
    with his daughters, same as he did right after Iowa (when the plane incident occurred.)

    They probably have some pre-arranged schedule of family time. He has said several times said he doesn't want to get her mad, she's the boss.


    here's the article on why he left Nevada (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:35:34 PM EST
    Senator Barack Obama hit the Vegas strip one last time this morning before flying home to Chicago. He had planned to leave prior to the start of the caucus, which was held at noon local time. "I'm going to try to see my kids before I go down to South Carolina," he explained to reporters as he greeted employees of the Mirage Hotel and Casino in the "back of the house." That's Vegas-ese for employees only part of the casino.



    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by standingup on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:48:57 PM EST
    I can't fault a father for trying to spend time with his children whenever possible during a busy campaign.  But that still would not prevent him from making a call or statement at least acknowledging the Clinton victory.  

    He apparently (none / 0) (#41)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    Managed to call a phone conference with reporters after the loss, but he made no statement of congratuations to Clinton...Sour grapes is really gonna count against him with many folks...

    He should have called (none / 0) (#39)
    by mexboy on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:46:48 PM EST
    It only takes 3 minutes to make a statement and maybe 2 to make a phone call.  He would have gained more than he lost!

    I wish (none / 0) (#1)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:58:17 AM EST
    Obama supporters would stop and think that what they are doing now (i.e. twisting and spinning a win out of a loss) is exactly what they have decried and hated about the MSM doing in the past...Give respect to the voters and respect their choices....

    Let's all just ignore the truth (none / 0) (#2)
    by converse on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    and quote Hillary's buddies from the Sun.  That'll make it right.

    Converse (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:23:02 PM EST
    You are really annoying and totally twisting the truth, just like the MSN has done in the past...I hope you realize that that isnt a very democratic way to act....You are totally not respecting voters in Nevada.....

    All candidate played by the same rules (none / 0) (#5)
    by converse on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    in a game to win delegates.  In fact, Nevada Dem officials who set the rules were Hillary supporters.

    Obama won more delegates.

    What's twisted?


    Your logic, like a pretzel! (none / 0) (#8)
    by RalphB on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:33:39 PM EST
    Ever Read The Newspapers (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:35:13 PM EST
    They can't all be wrong and you the only one correct. Sounds like republican tactics, repeat, repeat and repeat and eventually people will believe it. Well sell it somewhere else, you are not doing the Democrats any service, America is sick of eight years of that kind of Rove BS.

    No, seriously, (none / 0) (#12)
    by converse on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:41:34 PM EST
    do you not know that this is a race for delegates and the caucus in Nevada yesterday clearly, according to the Nevada State Democratic Party, positioned Obama to win 13 delegates to Hillary's 12?

    Or was that sarcasm?  Sometimes I'm just not sure whether there's really that much ignorance, or whether people are just joking.


    YOu Are Ridiculous (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:46:46 PM EST
    Transparent as glass. You are not helping OBama or the Democratic party and are not fooling anyone.

    Lets assume you're right (none / 0) (#42)
    by mexboy on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:03:56 PM EST
    that Obama did indeed get 13  delegates to Hilary's 12. The point you seem to be missing is that the the will of the people. i.e. the majority of democratic voters chose her by 6 points.
    To spin his popular vote loss into a victory is bad sportsmanship and politics. It's beneath him. I like Obama, but actions like that disappoint me and make me re-evaluate what I think of him.

    Wrong. No delegates awarded yet at all. (none / 0) (#35)
    by lily15 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:16:25 PM EST
    This will be in March.  So no one knows...and that is what the head of the Nevada Democratic Party stated.  Obama is spinning a loss.  Hillary won by 6 points...3 more than McCain's win in North Carolina...but McCain's win is big and Hillary's is not a win at all?  You know there is something wrong with that logic, don't you?  Hillary got 51% of Democratic voters...Obama did not get that in Iowa.

    The truth is that this is a show of strength by Hillary especially in light of the Culinary Union endorsement which represented 60,000. members and the caucus was something over 100,000 voters.  Hillary won against big odds...and the media and Obama supporters want us to see a win for Obama in delegates?  Did they do that when Hillary got almost equal delegates in Iowa?  Delegates weren't even mentioned.  This double standard is justifiably brewing resentment...because many of us wonder why?  Is this what an Obama presidency would look like?  An administration of double standards?


    South Carolina (none / 0) (#3)
    by BDB on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:22:33 PM EST
    I wonder how worried Obama is about South Carolina.  I haven't doubted for weeks that he's going to win there.  But his supporters were very quick to try to write off NH through the Bradley effect.  It took Jesse Jackson, Jr., about ten seconds to get on national television and try to wedge African Americans against Clinton over Katrina.  And now this.  

    All campaigns try to downplay their losses and pump up their wins, but the Obama campaign seems to be doing it in a much more aggressive way.  It could backfire as making them - and by extension their candidate - look immature or a sore loser.  I can't believe they would bother if they were really confident in South Carolina.  They should have a win coming up that could help re-establish his momentum.

    Can't find (none / 0) (#10)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:38:40 PM EST
    any national media that has claimed Sen Obama the winner. I have seen that they have said/written that more delegates went to Sen Obama than Sen Clinton.

    Has any one actually found national media coverage (other than blogs) that declares Sen Obama the winner of Nevada?

    FAT Tuesday (none / 0) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:51:08 PM EST
    Look, Super Tuesday, which actually is also Fat Tuesday this year is two weeks away, all this stuff will not mean a thing after February 5th.  This is nickel and dimming.  The elections coming up have a lot of non crossovers and lots of winner take all.  If this does not do it then, we still have to wait.  Arguing with the sophists about one delegate is just another infantilsitic tactic.  

    I am proud (none / 0) (#23)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 12:56:30 PM EST
    that I am a democrat....As it is being proven that no matter what the MSN is touting and no matter what the vicious rumors being spread, the Democrats are not listening and are voting their hearts....Bravo for us and bravo for our party!!

    disappointing (none / 0) (#26)
    by katmandu on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:12:35 PM EST
    that we've made it to the 21 century, and still
    use rules established in the horse and buggy age.
    One person's vote should not count more than any
    other's vote.  The person who wins the most votes
    should win in both primaries and elections.
    Also, states should hold primaries whenever they
    wish.  Michigan loosing all voice in the primary
    just disenfranchises voters, and wastes the public
    funds used in the primary.
    The Democrats are coming across as dishonest--
    yeah yeah I know they're a political party, of
    course they're dishonest.  

    converse and obama share the same mind (none / 0) (#31)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 01:58:05 PM EST
     they cannot accept defeat and they cannot give appreciation or credit when it is due. Obama won Iowa and I must give him credit. Hillary won NH and NV and I must give her credit. Furthermore, its obvious that Obama is on a downward slope, and if him and his comrades cannot see this and change their approach, instead of giving false hope, then this thing will be over before 02/05.
     on a lighter note, I just have to say, GO PACKERS GO. BRETT FAVRE for VP candidate. BRETT and HILLARY.

    OH, you will be absolutely no (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:14:14 PM EST
    help on my football question:  what the heck is the "nickel" defense the Chargers hope will stop Brady?

    Why aren't the blogs (none / 0) (#32)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    highlighting the fact that it was Congressional District 2 - a heavily Republican district - that gave Obama 4 of 6 delegates when the rest of the state split almost 1 for 1.

    Is it possible that the media (none / 0) (#33)
    by talkingpoint on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:07:54 PM EST
     is emphasizing the delegates issue, regarding Obama to make the race between Hillary and Obama appear closer than it really is? Remember that the media need news to report. What would be the attraction if Hillary was given credit for running away with this? None. Its news worthy to talk about a tight race even if a tight race no longer exist.

    4th estate (none / 0) (#36)
    by athyrio on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:55:08 PM EST
    I have always been for the "4th estate" media, when it was used for good investigative journalism but now that it is being used as a propaganda machine for the extreme right wing part of the party I am offended by it....

    Obama: The Clinton's are being mean to me! (none / 0) (#43)
    by JoeCHI on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 06:29:00 AM EST
    So Obama went on GMA today to whine about how the Clinton's are being too mean to him?

    Pass the smelling salts!

    Someone needs to inform the Obama's that this is Presidential politics. Further, if this is how Obama is going to over-react to what has been a very, very, mild and civil campaign, it gives me no confidence in his ability to withstand the the ruthless GOP attack machine.

    Meanwhile, Obama picks up another African American ex-gay minister's endorsement: