home

Late Night: The Rising

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:22:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Check out the location.

Open thread, your turn.

< Texas Caucus Results Start Coming In | The Day After: Who Can Run Best Against McCain And The GOP >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Late Night: The Rising | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    She delivered (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by vigkat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:30:37 AM EST
    And we need to deliver for her.

    I donated again tonight, even before (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:39:11 AM EST
    Ohio was called for her. I was thinking of how she has not given up . . . and I needed to show the faith, too.

    Parent
    Yeah, I just realized... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:12:12 AM EST
    The money I donated since Super Tuesday is looking like a sound choice. Also, I suspect Obama supporters will not stop by TalkLeft as often to mock us for our "surreal" comments on this or that aspect of the nomination!

    Parent
    Thanks for your live blogging.... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jerry on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:37:35 AM EST
    I didn't watch the news tonight.

    I confess I wouldn't mind hearing for old times sake Clinton refer to herself as the Comeback Girl....  That's probably not a wise statement for her to make.

    Regardless of who wins the nomination, for BOTH of these candidates, I think the long nominating process is a mostly very good thing.

    Query: will Obama call for additional (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:43:56 AM EST
    debates with HRC?

    comedy (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:45:34 AM EST
    As long as they're on SNL

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#14)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:19:45 AM EST
    I hope he doesn't run ads attacking her if she doesn't accept... that didn't work out so well for his opponent the last time around.

    We're up to, what, 20 debates?

    Parent

    I doubt it. (none / 0) (#34)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:11:37 AM EST
    If Obama manages to follow through on announcing a $50 million dollar February fundraising total and roll out another 50 superdelegate endorsements then I think it will become clear in the next week or two that this thing is over.

    The superdelegates can see that Hillary's only path to the nomination lies in attempting to destroy the probable eventual nominee,  and I don't think they will feel that they can allow that to happen.  Once all the votes are counted and delegates parcelled out from 4th March it's likely that Obama's lead will be within 10 delegates of where it started the night and if he can continue to roll out superdelegate endorsements then his overall delegate lead is likely to increase.

    Parent

    If I were an as yet uncommitted SD (none / 0) (#76)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:34:57 AM EST
    I would be thinking very carefully about whether I wanted to commit to Obama now, for the simple fact that by losing in Ohio and Texas, he has failed to demonstrate that he can win the states that Democrats must win in a general election.  I know Texas is not likely to go blue in the general election, but the loss in Ohio should be making every uncommitted SD take a step back.

    Am I impressed with the turnout in traditionally red states, and am I willing to give props to Obama for being a big factor in that?  Sure.  But many of those wins were in caucus states, and if there's one thing we should all know by now, it is that the caucus system is the most undemocratic and non-representative way to assign delegates and choose a nominee.  

    If he can't close the deal with Democrats in solidly blue states, he has an electability problem.

    Parent

    I agree Angel... (none / 0) (#77)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:44:05 AM EST
    ...last night's results should give all superdelegates pause. Like it or not, this needs to go on, and they should let voters be heard.

    Parent
    Obama has only rolled out 3 (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:21:04 AM EST
    Super-Ds so far today.  

    Parent
    MSM polls and the primaries (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:46:18 AM EST
    I would just like to say that the media's efforts to bury Clinton will not abate. This past week, I was very critical of how polls represented the race (and felt a bit nutty about it--polls are rorschachs!). Yet, nearly every poll that placed Obama up by 5 points predicted extraordinary turnout for young voters and voters under 45. We now know that the accurate polls, like PPP and Insider Advantage, had the care to weight turnout by age.

    For 1-2 weeks, "teh momentum" narrative about "the most recent poll" distracted from what really was happening in Texas and Ohio. In fact, the outcome is nearly the outcome predicted two weeks ago before these questionable polls hit the newsstands. Clinton held her own throughout the past 2 weeks.  Nonetheless, the inaccurate polls remain significant because many (MSNBC and pro-Obama) analysts are saying that Clinton's negativity changed the momentum in this race.

    We should reject that on the grounds a) that Clinton never "went negative," and 2) that the polls were wrong, Clinton always had a lead.

    Oje, you make a prescient point. (none / 0) (#19)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:22:41 AM EST
    The pundits got it rolling tonight, the whole "she won because she went negative" narrative. They'll try to STEAM-ROLL Clinton with it in the next couple of weeks.

    It dove-tails into Obama's talking points. With Obama  flat-out saying Hillary's "kitchen sink" approach is the whole reason the press started asking him questions this week.

    Any more ideas anyone, for a truthful counter-narrative to this new line about 'blaming' Clinton for Barack's losses?

    Parent

    Looks like the NAFTA/Goolsbee thing (none / 0) (#25)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:59:56 AM EST
    Sunk him bad.

    I still haven't quite figured out exactly what happened there but it certainly looks bad. Not sure what Obama can do about it now, though.

    Parent

    i agree with that... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:09:13 AM EST
    NAFTA/Goolsbee did smack Obama right on--what I think we should start calling--his "crystal jaw" strategy. The whole "authenticity and new kind of politician" schtick is such old politics--it is modern form, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," began in the Depression era (resolute, resolute!). Yet, it rarely works because it is one of the most fragile political narratives that a candidate can present about him-/herself (that movie is a lesson, in itself, because the media easily dismantled Mr. Smith's character, despite the moral suasions Mr. Smith directed to the public on his own behalf).

    And it has nothing to do with Clinton "going negative." Clinton had nothing to do with the the facts of that story (Goolsbee did that). Clinton had nothing to do with leaking that story (Conservatives apparently are not trustworthy in Canada either. Perhaps there is a lesson in that for the postpartisans among us). And, most definitely, Clinton did not counsel Obama to stick to the "fact patterns" just enough to obfuscate and deflect his campaign's meeting with the Canadian consulate.

    It is worth noting that the modern Republican practitioner of "Mr. Smith" is good ole' boy, St. John McCain the Maverick. McCain took a similar hit recently for his alleged lobbyist affair, but he was able to weather that for a variety of reasons (including the a similarly favorable press). McCain did have the benefit of two accusations rolled into one--the most tawdry proved unsubstantiated, so both blew over. And, he was able to cite his record (though superficial to us) as evidence of his straight-shooting maverickiness.

    Obama took a typical political hit, but his "crystal jaw" strategy created far more blowback for him as a relatively unknown politician running on the power of rhetoric, hope, and promises. His only response is, "I mis-spoke earlier but the 'fact patterns' are unchanged and I give you my word now that there is nothing to see here." That will (should) not cut it heading out of Ohio and Texas.

    Parent

    Oje, sounds good. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:38:58 AM EST
    ----------------------------------------------------
    As a push-back strategy for Hillary, can you clarify why you would say Obama has a "crystal jaw" vs. a "glass jaw".

    It might be useful to drill down on that evasive, pretentious "fact pattern" response. That could be easily subject to some well-earned criticism of Obama's overall tendency to wordy obfuscation and/or sloganeering, intangible rhetoric.

     Bumper Sticker Rhetoric, that could stick (har, har).

    Parent

    my 2 cents... (none / 0) (#46)
    by ding7777 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:51:16 AM EST
    "crystal jaw" vs. a "glass jaw" - probably riffing at the "creative class" thing.

    Parent
    Like someone else mentioned (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:50:55 AM EST
    I didn't have to watch any television because I just refreshed the blog to keep informed. So even though I didn't participate in the discussion I was here reading what everyone at TL mentioned.

    So thanks to you all.

    Go Hillary!!!

    I skipped the TV and read here also (none / 0) (#8)
    by trishb on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 12:57:43 AM EST
    It was much saner that way.

    Parent
    Yeah, I almost caved in (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:05:41 AM EST
    when I kept reading about the anchors on MSNBC going ape **. I hope people will make YouTube vids of some of the highlight of the talking heads having meltdowns.

    Parent
    that't what I'm doing, waiting for Youtube (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:16:41 AM EST
    can't stand to watch MSNBC in  real time.

    Parent
    Check out ABC News front page for Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:03:33 AM EST
    http://abcnews.go.com/

    "Big Win" and a great picture.

    Love this quote: "Never underestimate (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:07:11 AM EST
    the intelligence of the voter."

    Parent
    Do you mean (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Korha on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:21:01 AM EST
    Never "overestimate"? These are the same people that gave us two terms of George W. Bush.

    Parent
    Kohra, you're wrong about voters. (none / 0) (#20)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:29:06 AM EST
    The voters did not elect George W. Bush in 2000; and pursuant to that point, they couldn't possibly have re-elected him in 2004.

    So, you have no grounds for your own under-estimation of the electorate.

    Parent

    It's 12:30 am here and CNN is changing its tune (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:06:37 AM EST
    Toobin says the race is now wide open.

    Blitzer calls it a huge win.

    He says Obama "managed to win" Vermont.

    Even John King is coming around, slightly.

    Race to the Finish (none / 0) (#31)
    by Athena on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:48:38 AM EST
    John King just said that calls for Clinton to exit (based on delegate counts) are absurd: "that's like calling the Indy 500 at 475 miles because you're ahead."

    Unbelievable night for Clinton; well-deserved victories that take the political world by storm.

    Parent

    Obama needed to win big tonight (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Josey on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:22:33 AM EST
    to stop Hillary for good because Rezko's trial will last until summer.
    yep, now the Rezko floodgates may open (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:33:32 AM EST
    Clinton campaign now has a better idea of what stuck and what didn't.

    Tons of exit polling data to work through for them.

    Parent

    Going Negative (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:36:01 AM EST
    Let's see, how the Obama people play the going negative blather.  When Hillary points out any shortcomings or policy differences that is going negative.  When JJ Jr.  derides the NH "tears" (there were no tears by the way, it was a slight chocking up), that is not negative.  When Obama's other surrogate the blogosphere throws at her every heinous Republican attack that is not going negative?  When Obama equates her to McCain in his speech that is not going negative?  When all his sugar daddies call for her to drop out that is not going negative.  

    Obama  stop whining and no eight questions is not too much to ask of a Presidential candidate.  

    Cruised to see what they say (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:37:14 AM EST
    Have not read the other bloggers for a while, simply no time and I don't need the aggravation.  What is fascinating is the chorus of
    Hillary drop out I am tired of this; make this end; do it for the good of the country; get out of the way for change

    There seems to be little tolerance or ability to handle a real struggle.  What does that say about the "movement".  Well, will they be able to handle the compromise and the hard work that it will take to get anything done?  Will they expect instant solutions:  out of Iraq in 30 days, health care plan in 90?  Can they handle the reality of what it will take to clean up the mess our government is in?  I find that Obama depicts the same attitude, just let me win already.  Change does not happen with a vote, it takes years of hard work.  It's not a click of the heels, it's losing and going backwards and sweat, tears etc.  Change has been oversold as an easy solution to joy, contentment, justice and peace.  But change is lots of heavy lifting over a long time.  Something that I don't this "movement" has an interest in.  

    Tweety warms my heart with his folded arms... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Avoca on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:21:29 AM EST
    Things always seem a little brighter at the intersection of msm media and politics when Chris Mathews has his arms folded protectively in front of him, don't you think?
    He always does it when either Hillary or someone like Jon Stewart puts him in his place, exposing the impotence he must be feeling when for a moment it's clear that he's got nothing on either of them. That despite him and his misogyny, a capable woman might actually get her due. Or that a guy on Comedy Central not only understands better than he does what actually matters, but can influence the outcome of what the Villagers consider a just a game.
    Bill Clinton is off the hook tonight (none / 0) (#17)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:22:24 AM EST
    He won't have to worry about that quote about "having to win both Texas and Ohio" to have a chance anymore.

    He worked VERY hard for his wife in Texas during the final days... the media will never give him credit though so the campaign hides him away now.

    Penny Pritzger (none / 0) (#22)
    by Division on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:36:05 AM EST
    Hey Jeralyn, I thought either you or BTD might find this link interesting. I haven't seen either of you mention this yet and I thought y'all might wanna give it some coverage...

    Congrats (none / 0) (#23)
    by muffie on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:36:26 AM EST
    looks like good news for Hillary tonight.  Winning the TX primaries is big.

    Anyone know how hard or what legal (none / 0) (#24)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:59:19 AM EST
    stuff would be involved in forming a group like colorofchange.org?

    It just dawned on me that in this primary Hillary has won the bulk of the Latino/Hispanic vote and maybe we need to lobby Latino/Hispanic SDs the way colorofchange.org is doing with the CBC.

    Caucus is getting closer. HC was 12 down and (none / 0) (#28)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:40:31 AM EST
    now just 4. A long way to go though.

    yea, surprising (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:42:10 AM EST
    Shows that Hillary had some real strength there and will end up winning more delegates overall from March 4th.

    Parent
    Obama was probably hoping for more (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 02:42:55 AM EST
    in other words

    Parent
    Maybe not. The TX Sec. of State site only (none / 0) (#32)
    by Teresa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:00:18 AM EST
    has HC with two more delegates in the primary. Obama will have a bigger edge than that in the caucus. I think they allocated the primary results by an average based on past voter history too.

    I think the story for tonight from the Clinton side will be the particular states she has won and the popular vote from tonight when it looked like Obama was headed for a victory.

    Parent

    No I meant overall with all the states considered (none / 0) (#36)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 03:21:48 AM EST
    Plus I don't even think delegates are going to matter from this point forward.  I really don't.  Neither can win without working in the abstract realm of convincing superdelegates and the media that one is more viable in November than the other.

    Chuck Todd will be off in the corner with his calculator but it not be the deciding factor.

    Parent

    Hillary would like it to not be about (none / 0) (#40)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:25:15 AM EST
    delegates,  but to quote Mark Penn from 3 weeks ago," it's a contest for delegates".

    Parent
    well things change (none / 0) (#48)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:54:58 AM EST
    We're all for change amiright?

    Neither candidate is going to win on delegates so it's time for everyone to sober up and accept this reality.

    Parent

    Projections showClinton with a net 2 delegate (none / 0) (#39)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:13:53 AM EST
    gain on the night,  narrowing Obama's 159 pledged delegate lead to 157.

    If that is borne out in final results,  surely Hillary's path to the nomination just got that bit more difficult?

    In bizzaro land maybe (none / 0) (#52)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:08:26 AM EST
    Where winning two more major states, dispelling your opponents "inevitability" and crushing his momentum all results in the "path to the nomination getting more difficult."

    Also up is down, left is right, etc, etc...

    Parent

    The only way she wins... (none / 0) (#54)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:14:12 AM EST
    ...is for superdelegates to overturn the results of a competitive, democratic (however flawed), system.  Those are the rules, but that's not how I would want my candidate to win. (I do find it interesting though that while I respect the rules of the superdelegates many Clinton supporters don't support the rulings on Michigan or Florida, but anyway...)

    Still, when it's all said and done, Obama will have more pledged delegates, won more states, and probably won the popular vote. If she takes the nomination with superdelegates, it's hard for me to see her winning in November. Maybe a Clinton/Obama ticket will fix that problem, but I think that possibility becomes increasingly remote the nastier this gets.

    All I want is a Democrat to win in 2008, which should not even be a question mark. Our two exciting, but incredibly risky candidates, and now long, drawn out, and inconclusive primary,  are putting what should be a banner year in jeopardy.  Nobody should be happy about that.

    Parent

    Did you just (none / 0) (#65)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:43:00 AM EST
    Copy and paste this? I swear I just saw this in the other thread and responded.

    Parent
    Obama Dirty Tricks Watch (none / 0) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:35:14 AM EST
    CNN

    Obama campaign lawyer Bob Bauer crashed a conference call convened by Hillary Clinton's campaign Tuesday evening, sparring with Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson in an exchange that lasted several minutes.

    Bauer dialed into the call that was intended to update the media on alleged irregularities in Texas caucus voting and identified himself to Wolfson's surprise.

    "Nice of you to call. How are you?" said a startled Wolfson when Bauer introduced himself.

    Class act.

    It seems like the supposed (none / 0) (#42)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 04:55:55 AM EST
    "dirty tricks" were happening on both sides.  

    Parent
    Didn't pay too much attention (none / 0) (#43)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:07:50 AM EST
    last night because I was so afraid it would mostly be over for Hillary Clinton. I just didn't want to face it. So I put in a movie and decided to wait until the results were all in. (I also cannot stand listening to a bunch of bloviating talking heads speculating with 1 or 2% of the vote in.)

    I clicked on this morning and find "She's Alive!" and there is still joy in mudville.

    So in spite of a left Blogostand that attacks her relentlessly, a media that hates, demeans, and derides her, and a formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton pulled out wins in 3 of the 4 contests last night. Wonder how this will be spun.

    And not being a sweet little old lady, I am not at all concerned about how much damage this will do to Tweety's blood pressure. He and his little boys clubs must be feeling like someone in one of those hokey slice and dice horror movies where the monster is killed about 35 times and still isn't dead.  

    Another Song (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:13:40 AM EST
    For those late night.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx9br5ISRpo

    Hillary Was Outspent (none / 0) (#45)
    by bob h on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:25:05 AM EST
    what, by 2,3, or 4 to one, when you throw in the Union spending for Obama?

    Republican crossovers? (none / 0) (#47)
    by miked on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:52:30 AM EST
    Look for some of Obama's supporters to claim that Clinton's victories are caused by a horde of Republicans following Rush Limbaugh's advice to vote for Hillary in order to prolong the Democratic nomination process. My impression - and of course it is only anecdotal - is that logic doesn't hold up. Based on discussions I've had with a few conservative friends I'd guess that the number of Republicans following this tactic is outweighed by the number who either:

    1. Are still going to vote McCain in November, but prefer Obama as the Dem candidate because they prefer him as a potential president to Hillary Clinton - even though they mostly perceive him to be a stronger opponent in the general. And,

    2. Actually like Obama enough to consider voting for him in November. Alot of conservatives have a real problem with McCain, especially because of his activity on campaign finance reform, which they see as blatantly unconstitutional.

    My point is, even though it is clear that there has been alot of Republican crossover voting in the primaries, I'd be very skeptical about claims that Rush has had meaningful influence here.

    Obama still won the Republican crossover vote (none / 0) (#49)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:55:45 AM EST
    just not by as wide a marging as he had in previous primaries.

    Parent
    Hillary is going to (none / 0) (#50)
    by ding7777 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:56:34 AM EST
    my PA vote. (wow, did I enjoy writing that!)

    A compelling victory to be sure... (none / 0) (#51)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 05:59:39 AM EST
    ...but again, you hate to hear it, but you will, again and again, today..

    The math:  she netted possibly 3-4 delegates tonight.  That will be erased next week by Mississippi and Wyoming.

    If she becomes the candidate, it will be because superdelegates - perfectly by the rules - will have overturned the democratic (however flawed) and competitive process.  The only thing that could come close to fixing this would, I think, be a Clinton/Obama ticket. And right now, for practical reasons, I think that would be the Democrats' best bet in 2008.

    Let me make it clear before you all jump down my throat:  I will support Clinton with time and money if she wins (I wish all Obama AND Clinton people would say the same about their opponent, but some are too selfish to do so).  AND I respect the rules.  But I don't have to like them, and I don't think anyone should ever be happy if their candidate wins through superdelegates (which were not designed to compensate for any deficiencies in the caucus system). I would not be comfortable if this is how Obama were to win.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ineedalife on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:21:42 AM EST
    Superdelegates were designed to overcome any unforeseen flaw. The "deficiencies in the caucus system" is the exact type of thing that they can compensate for. In both states with parallel primaries and caucuses, TX and WA, the results are very different underscoring the undemocratic nature of caucuses. They represent one type of organizational strength but, in my opinion, that is closer to mob-rule than the will of the people. The superdelegates should be free to exercise their political judgement in this case.

    Neither candidate can win by pledged delegates alone, both need supers. That is the reality.

    Parent

    Superdelegates and caucuses... (none / 0) (#57)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:26:54 AM EST
    ...compensating for the supposed (remember, both sides had an opportunity to win them, one side did better) deficiencies was not what superdelegates were designed to do.  Where did you ever get this idea?

    Parent
    Are Clinton supporters here... (none / 0) (#58)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:31:08 AM EST
    ...really comfortable with the idea of winning through superdelegates, and according to who has more pledged delegates (yes, yes, I know - that's not how someone wins - but I feel that superdelegates should, ideally, confirm that result).

    I sincerely hope - for the good of the party - that if this is how it works out the nominee can at least claim they've won the popular vote. If Clinton takes this through superdelegates, but loses in terms of pledged delegates and popular vote, it will be a disaster. It's about perception, and the narrative that she won on a technicality, not democratically, and that the voters were overturned, will be overwhelming.

    Look, these are the rules, I respect them.  Don't like them, but it's how the system works.  I think you, too, would find it pretty awful if this is how Obama were to win.

    Parent

    How about this? (none / 0) (#61)
    by ineedalife on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:36:13 AM EST
    All superdelegates vote in the first round according to how their states voted? It would verify the will of the people and produce a candidate that can win an electoral-style election, which what this all about.

    Of course since the winner would be Hillary, that would be a bad idea. Very democratic, but very bad.

    Parent

    I would be fine with that... (none / 0) (#75)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:27:23 AM EST
    ...and I'm not sure how that would lead to a Clinton victory.  Have you done the math on this?

    The best solution in my opinion is for superdelegates to confirm the overall popular vote winner.  But if they vote with their states, fine.  It would still be a flawed result in my opinion, but given the inherent flaws in the system, it would be sufficiently democratic to create a compelling narrative going forward.

    But again, superdelegates can vote however they please.  That's their privilege.  I just think that any result that runs counter to the popular vote and pledged delegates is undemocratic.

    My greatest hope is that this mess will be fixed through a fundamental reform of the entire rotten system.  No more superdelegates, no more caucuses, regional primaries determined by the party, not the states. No more Iowa/New Hampshire nonsense.  And a system that almost guarantees that delegate counts reflect the popular vote.  That hope will, of course, never be realized.

    Parent

    Popular voter winner + superdelegates (none / 0) (#62)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:39:12 AM EST
    That would be legitimate grounds to me.

    We have to decide if we actually want to win in November or not.  Then let's look at the demographics and the states in play and be realistic.  Clinton/Obama is the remedy.

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#71)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:00:01 AM EST
    ...the candidate with the most popular votes could make a very good argument for superdelegates to push him or her to 2025.  I'll support that (accept it I must, as I'll support any Democrat and these are the rules).

    I'll also accept it if superdelegates go with the candidate who has lost in terms of pledged delegates and popular vote.  I'll have to.  But I certainly won't like it, and would hope that my candidate wouldn't win that way.  I find it troubling, honestly, that anyone would be happy their candidate wins this way.

    And for the record, I also wouldn't be happy with an electoral college victory in November that doesn't reflect the popular vote.  I'll accept it, because that's how the system works, but I sure wouldn't want to see my candidate win that way. In principle, that is.  Of course, I'll take the health care reform, environmental legislation, tax policies, and everything else that either Democratic candidate will bring!

    Parent

    Clinton/Obama (none / 0) (#73)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:12:32 AM EST
    ...as an Obama supporter, I will agree that this is the remedy.  But it may fade as a possibility if this gets uglier, and it will.  

    No one here should deny that negative campaigning worked here for Clinton.  And I have no problem with that.  I don't believe in this "don't go negative" nonsense.  It almost always works, and I hope that the Democratic candidate will "go negative" in the general (so long as they're good at it).

    But, it could make a Clinton/Obama ticket difficult.  And, if Obama is the nominee, he might be damaged goods.  Right now, you could make the argument that there is a Clinton-McCain stop Obama ticket working right now.  Clinton effectively said that McCain would be a better president than Obama the other day, crossing a line I didn't think she would. Why would she make Obama her VP if she thinks he wouldn't be as good a president as McCain?

    Parent

    I am good with it (none / 0) (#69)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:50:17 AM EST
    :)

    Note a slight amount of humor, probably from the results of last night.

    Parent

    Agree on Clinton/Obama (none / 0) (#53)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:12:36 AM EST
    But can you please acknowledge (if you insist on constantly saying delegate count) that Obama can not win the nomination by pledged delegate count alone either? And he would have to win Super-delegates to win? And how is either one clinching it "overtuning the democratic process?" Because, you know, the process is what you are seeing going on. And if one or the other goes over the top with SD, that is again the process.


    Parent
    Marvin... (none / 0) (#55)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:18:26 AM EST
    ...we've been through this.

    Okay, okay, Obama will also need superdelegates to win the 2025.  Happy?

    BUT - will you concede that there's a huge difference between superdelegates confirming the results of a democratic and competitive process in which one candidate accumulated more delegates and popular votes, or overturning those results to put the candidate who received fewer pledged delegates and popular votes? Come on! That's a lot uglier - and more undemocratic - than the first option.

    If you can't see that that is fundamentally different, then I really don't know what to say anymore.  You can have your technical point, I'll take the moral one.

    Parent

    We are in the middle of race. (none / 0) (#59)
    by ineedalife on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:32:58 AM EST
    And alot can happen still. If Hillary pulls ahead in the popular vote but Obama backs into the convention with a small lead in "pledged" delegates will you concede a role for superdelegates?

    Parent
    Sure.... (none / 0) (#64)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:41:15 AM EST
    ...then a compelling, democratic argument could be made.  And I sincerely hope that if it does come down to superdelegates, then they confirm the popular vote. That would make for a more compelling narrative.  

    But if, as looks likely, Obama maintains a delegate lead of 100 or more, and has the popular vote, it will be detrimental for the party if superdelegates overturn those results.  

    You've seen the math.  Unless Obama implodes (which may happen), he's more likely than not going to add a few more delegates in the remaining states and maintain his popular vote lead as well. If that holds, and superdelegates still hand it to Clinton, there's no way to put a good face on it.

    Parent

    After Pennsylvania, the popular vote argument (none / 0) (#60)
    by diplomatic on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:36:04 AM EST
    Taking into account the results from March 4th and Florida and Michigan, Hillary Clinton may now be approaching (or has) the popular vote lead.  And then comes Pennsylvania.  So if she adds to her popular vote and has the lead after that, then there is nothing undemocratic whatsoever about superdelegates choosing her to head the ticket.

    The caucuses which have given Obama the pledged delegate lead were not too representative of Democratic voters.  Add to that the fact that the Republican crossovers have often been the margin of victory for Obama and it's really disturbing that we would deny the person who actually got the bulk of Democratic voters (Hillary)

    Parent

    But, umm... (none / 0) (#66)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:44:09 AM EST
    ...we really can't take into account Michigan.  I'll concede Florida, but Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

    That said, if this is how it turns out, I hope that this argument is made convincingly, as it's the only way to put a good face on it.  I don't buy it, but it's better than nothing.

    Still, the remaining states - barring an Obama implosion - will likely allow Obama to maintain a slim popular vote total as well, even if we were to throw Michigan in.

    Parent

    With Michigan... (none / 0) (#68)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:49:00 AM EST
    ...Hillary would take a slight lead, as of now, with the popular vote.  Of course, that's enormously problematic for many reasons.

    Now I understand why the Clinton campaign does not want revotes in Michigan and Florida.  Obama would almost certainly do better in Florida and would gain at least 40% of Michigans delegates and popular vote, thereby erasing Clinton's lead in the popular vote (as she would almost certainly need Michigan to claim it).

    Parent

    Honestly I don't agree (none / 0) (#67)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:47:58 AM EST
    You are using the old lawyerly debate tactic: "sir when you killed that child did you enjoy it?"

    SD are not bound to follow any particular vote. This is a fallacy propagated by the Obama campaign. I will grant you that if one or the other candidate was clearly leading and was winning the nomination outright any move the SD to change that result would be highly suspect and wrong. But take a step back and realize: this is not where we are today, nor where we will be when this race if over unless something extreme happens. You will have two viable candidates in a very tight race, both far away from winning outright.

    And as for popular vote: are we correcting for caucuses when we talk about this? And what would you say if Sen Clinton ends up being ahead in popular vote by the convention?

    For the good of the democratic party this is what I wish: the SD should decide which candidate to support based on which candidate has the best chance to win in Nov as the race gets closer. Or I hope they figure out a way to create a Clinton-Obama (no order implied) ticket. Now that would be really following the will of the people.

    Parent

    You're not getting what I'm saying... (none / 0) (#70)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:53:35 AM EST
    ...I agree, superdelegates can vote as they wish.  Absolutely.  I find it highly problematic that they might not confirm the winner of the pledged delegates and popular vote.  But as I've said time and again, those are the rules.  I just think that this outcome would be bad for the party, and would certainly not want my candidate to win the nomination this way.

    IF, however, one candidate has more pledged delegates but has lost the popular vote, I think that the superdelegates would have good reason to vote for the other candidate.  

    You, on the other hand, seem to have no problem with superdelegates denying the nomination to the winner of the pledged delegates and popular vote. Here we just disagree.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#72)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:08:04 AM EST
    That we disagree. I have watched a couple of too many GE where the democratic nominee won the election, but didn't fight to claim the office hard enough, or a democratic party that  didn't put up the strongest candidate. I used to be more idealistic, believed in hope, beauty, truth, and yes, even that someone doing the right thing could put partisanship aside and work for the good of the country. Now I am older, wiser, and much more pragmatic.

    Make no mistake: the republicans are in it to win. They are much more realistic and brutal in their methods. They will try to take down the democratic candidate, and they'll do it hard. Let's go into this fight with every weapon in hand. No need to surrender in the name of idealism. Too much is at stake, it has too much effect on real peoples lives to leave it to theoretical concepts.

    Parent

    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#74)
    by sar75 on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:19:09 AM EST
    ...but I am still yet to be convinced that Clinton is absolutely the better general election candidate.  This is a debate that is still going on (although she made some headway last night in it, to be sure). This is still an open question for me.

    My argument is not just idealistic, however.  As a purely practical matter, I believe that overturning the popular vote through superdelegates would hurt the Democratic nominee's chances in November.

    No matter how it turns out, I'll accept the results and support the Democratic candidate. While some may argue that this long campaign helps the Democrats, I think we've past that point.  I think now it begins to hurt, and I wish it were over (even though my vote in North Carolina will now matter!)

    Parent

    Joe Scar (none / 0) (#63)
    by chrisvee on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:40:05 AM EST
    This morning, Joe Scar told Senator Obama that the math doesn't work for him either.  And Hillary asked Joe Scar to be her running mate.

    It's up to FL, MI, and the superdelegates.  And I think those superdelegates need to look long and hard at the list of states she's won before they endorse Senator Obama.

    Jesus, Mary, Joseph..... (none / 0) (#79)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 01:25:06 PM EST
    and the sheep!  This is unreal.  I guess drug prohibition is not enough for some people, now Chicago wants small plastic baggie prohibition.

    Brilliant!!

    And I'm getting a kick out of the "shock" towards the theory that Moses was trippin' balls when he came up with the Comandments.  Seems to be a very reasonable theory to me...guy hears voices, sees bush on fire yet the fire does not consume the bush.  Yep, sounds like trippin' to me.  One time I climbed a tree on 'shrooms and could swear I could see, hear and feel the tree breathing.  Now me and Moses have something in common:)

    Late Night: The Rising | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment