home

For The Record . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:07:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Hunter writes (Let me give credit to Oliver Willis for a shrewd reaction to the PA results ("Yes, Clinton won. Doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things.") Calm and cool is the approach for Obama and his supporters imo.)

:

The overall delegate margin has barely budged, however, and it is now even more assured that there is no reasonable scenario where Clinton can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates.

(Emphasis supplied.) There also is no reasonable scenario where Obama can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates. Hunter is offended that the Clinton campaign is arguing why the superdelegates should support Clinton. I am hard pressed to understand his outrage. Would he have them argue for superdelegates supporting Obama? Of all the blog outbursts at the Clinton campaign, being enraged at the Clinton camp for arguing for support from the superdelegates strikes me as among the most unreasonable. More . . .

Hunter continues:

If Clinton wants the superdelegates to overturn all the voting up until now, fine: she's got every right, according to the rules of the contest, to campaign for that. All I'm asking is for her surrogates to come up with rationales that aren't absurdly premised and/or dismissive of the electorate. Given that I can't think of any such non-absurd arguments, that may pose a problem.

(Emphasis mine.) As to what constitutes an absurd political argument, I'll leave us all to our own thinking, but I do think it is dismissive of the electorates of the upcoming states to ignore the fact that there are elections still to be contested. I can not think of a more dismissive argument to the electorate than to tell them their votes do not count. That goes for the upcoming contests and for Florida and Michigan.

Comments closed.

< Voters Scream At Elites: Let's Count the Votes | Prison Nation Update >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    For The Record . . . | 290 comments (290 topical)
    I actually ventured over there (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:15:16 AM EST
    and read that. I usually enjoy Hunter's wit. It appears that someone has spiked Hunter's drink though if he think only Clinton supporters are spinning.

    Hunter was abstaining for the longest time. (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:30:34 AM EST
    I actually liked Kid Oakland's "Unity" diary better than Hunter.  That's a total reversal for me because Kid O was shredding Clinton constantly.  

    Any time they want to start supporting Obama over there instead of attacking not-Obamas and not-Obama supporters, they can.  The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

    [ Parent ]

    what you said, and (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:54:12 AM EST
    I love your sig over there in the belly of the beast: so subversive...

    :-)

    (and I too am a member of the Cult of Issues and Substance...)

    [ Parent ]

    He never says that there isn't Obama spin (none / 0) (#14)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:31:07 AM EST
    He just buys into the Obama camp's spin, and thinks that the Clinton spinmeisters are insulting his intelligence.  He's perfectly entitled to that view.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm tired of spin. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:38:28 AM EST
    Both sides.

    Let's hold our primaries, count the votes and let the SuperDs do their jobs.

    It's not over yet.  There are voters waiting to do their patriotic duty.  

    [ Parent ]

    Spinning (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:21 AM EST
    regardless, of who does it, is an insult to intelligence. I fail to see how one makes the leap that one supporters side spinning is somehow more offensive simply because of who they support. As I said, normally I enjoy Hunter. The entry that BTD excerpts from is not anywhere near what I expected from him. Then again, that's my opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    A quick review of NYT, LAT, (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:15:19 AM EST
    Huff Post would lead one to believe Clinton lost PA.  Amazing.

    A review of the comments on TL (none / 0) (#9)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:29:33 AM EST
    would suggest that Hillary was ahead in the pledged delegate count, about to seal the nomination, and is a lock for the White House.

    Many seem to be ordering their outfits for her inaugural ball.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL. Say pledged delegates (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:30:36 AM EST
    some more. Maybe if you repeat it enough times Obama's 10 pt loss wouldn't matter.

    [ Parent ]
    Kind of a sanctuary. But she (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:30:49 AM EST
    DID win PA.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes she did (none / 0) (#289)
    by vigkat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:47:19 PM EST
    And she did it with style and substance.  Go Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Although when my Obama-supporting (5.00 / 1) (#296)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:52:47 AM EST
    freind asked me what happened in PA prim. and I sd. a little less than 10 point win and 200,000 votes for Hillary Clinton, my friend sd., that is not is not much.

    [ Parent ]
    What steal? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by coolit on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:31:55 AM EST
    She just won one of the most important general election states?  You're trying to dismiss that because you don't want the voters to go against your narrative.

    [ Parent ]
    What narrative? (none / 0) (#81)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:00:01 AM EST
    Obama is ahead in delegates.  Therefore he is more likely to get the nomination that her once the supers vote.  It is an easier path for him to get to the required number than it is for her.

    [ Parent ]
    So then what's the problem? (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:03:31 AM EST
    He just needs to do it.

    [ Parent ]
    The problem is the GE (none / 0) (#150)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:26 AM EST
    and winning it no matter who is the nominee. I am a Democrat and have always voted that way. I've been voting Dem for 20 years now.

    My grandfather was a Dem mayor in Michigan; I just ate breakfast in the kitchen I remodeled thanks to the great economy during Bill Clinton's presidency and when people comment on the kitchen I always say "thanks to Bill Clinton"; I worked in 06 to help Dems get back the House -- Indiana picked up 3 seats; I've commented on this site and have not said anything bad about Hillary, I said I'd vote for her if she were the nominee; I said it was immature to say what many on this site have said about never voting for Obama.

    But now even I am having those feelings that it seems unfair, that I'm done with the Clintons, that I just won't vote for her.  I just don't know how either candidate can achieve the unity needed.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you mistaking this site for others... (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    ....most of the posters here have not said that they would never vote for Obama. At worst I have said that he will have to earn my vote now as his campaign has taken it for granted and done many things that I don't agree with. But I'm no hypocrite so if you don't feel like you can vote for Hillary Clinton then I would say to you, don't do it. And I'll reserve the same right for myself with regards to Obama, though I never said that I wouldn't vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry dear (4.66 / 3) (#196)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:07:42 AM EST
    I'm a Democrat too & have voted that way for 21 years -- and it is not democratic to disenfranchise FL & MI no matter what the "rules" are -- such "rules" are per se null imo. I advocated for re-votes in both FL & MI -- Obama stopped them.   And he wants to be the nominee for the Democrats? Not by my definition -- being a Democrat means counting all the votes whether that helps your candidate or not.

    [ Parent ]
    It's possible that they can't. (none / 0) (#170)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    If support really is hardening on both sides, as polls suggest, then all this song and dance is ultimately for nothing. Obama and Clinton are merely competing for the privilege of losing to McCain. Obama can't win without Clinton's supporters, but Clinton can't win without his.

    In which case, we need to start thinking about our nominee in a longer term. Just because we're hosed in '08 no matter who we run with doesn't mean our nominee doesn't matter. It just means electibility isn't as important as legacy.

    [ Parent ]

    It is about delegates and it is not (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:47:00 AM EST
    The problems with delegates are that they come from crossovers, Dem for a Day, caucuses, and weighted area. Why should my vote in my county be counted as one but in someone else's neighborhood, it is counted as two? Expecially when they got people in that neighborhood to vote this time.  In a GE we are all counted as one.

    Delegates are what it takes to win but the general ones are not always accurate as to what the real vote is with the people. That is why Supers are so important. They look at electability and they are also AFTER the votes are in and possibly after a controversy that early voters were unaware.

    [ Parent ]

    I am (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:36:33 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Can you imagine if Obama was... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:40:24 AM EST
    ...ahead in the popular vote at this stage in the game? Wouldn't he be the front runner? But, Hillary? Quit!

    [ Parent ]
    He is (none / 0) (#68)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:55:50 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    In DeNile, Egypt, yeah (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Regency on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:58:39 AM EST
    Not when you count her truly legitimate popular votes in Michigan and FloridA.

    [ Parent ]
    No who is spinning (none / 0) (#88)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:02:51 AM EST
    Michigan is not "truly legitimate."  And I've lurked around here to know the myriad of responses I'll get, but only in Hillary land is Michigan where his name wasn't on the ballot called legitimate.

    [ Parent ]
    He has a shot at getting his name on the ballot (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:12:02 AM EST
    It isn't like Hillary isn't willing to have a do over. Guess who doesn't want one? That's right, the guy who you seem to think had it so "unfair" because his name wasn't on the ballot. I don't see why Michigan should have to be graded on a curve because Obama is afraid that the results won't favor him. Then again, I'm a huge proponent of democracy and not that big a fan of a candidate that gets the vapors over the idea of exercising it.

    [ Parent ]
    She said at the time (1.00 / 2) (#127)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:17:51 AM EST
    that it didn't count. And can't you see thatusing results from a contest where one candidates name wasn't even on the ballot seems unfair to a large group of people.  Does anyone see a problem come the GE no matter who wins this thing?  

    [ Parent ]
    She never said the voters of (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:28:38 AM EST
    Michigan didn't count. She knew the DNC rules inferred that the delegates would likely not count. Then again, they might not have HAD TO if Obama were able to close the deal in populous states and the delegate count were not close enough that the two states that were penalized NEED to be counted. He hasn't. I see no reason why the Michigan voters shouldn't get a say in the process after the 48 other states have had their say(Florida too if Obama likes). I don't see why the 50 state strategy should become the 48 state strategy smply so Obama doesn't have to do the hard work to win Michigan or Florida voters over. If Obama doesn't perform well there I'd rather know that now rather than later(during a GE).

    [ Parent ]
    You're (5.00 / 1) (#279)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    making the same illigitimate claim over and over again.

    'his name wasn't on the ballot'

    Your argument, in effect, allows a candidate to null a state by refusing to participate and then refusing to allow an accomodation for participation.  Nullification.

    Your point has no merit yet you go on repeating.  

    Nothing original in any of your comments.


    [ Parent ]

    I have a hard time with the argument (none / 0) (#254)
    by IzikLA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    that you should NOT count Hillary's votes in Michigan because it is quite clear that 55% of the voters actually did vote FOR her, whether the other side likes it or not.  The sticky part, which is of Obama and his campaign's own doing, is that he took his name off the ballot so you can't come to a true account of how many of those votes were his (since the 40% also included Edwards votes).  I personally believe the most accurate thing you could do is give Hillary her 55% (again I don't see how you can argue this part) and go ahead and give Obama the other 40%.  Assume that the overrepresentative part of that makes up for the unfairness in as close a manner as possible.  

    [ Parent ]
    He wasn't on the ballot (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:16:45 AM EST
    because he removed his name.

    Why is that, I wonder?

    I live in MI.  My husband and I would like our votes to count.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's leadership & judgment.... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:00:33 AM EST
    Michigan, Iowa and the Games the Politicos Play
    by: Lynda Waddington
    Oct 11, 2007 at 15:09 PM

    Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.

    http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do? diaryId=1264

    [ Parent ]

    Fixing link -- a good report for the record (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:10:06 AM EST
    even if IndiDemGirl won't address it. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Then your party leaders (none / 0) (#130)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19:58 AM EST
    in the state shouldn't have moved up the primary.  Your state did that knowing it would lose it delegates.  Why should your state get a pass?

    [ Parent ]
    You didn't answer (none / 0) (#134)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    my question.

    Why did Obama remove his name from the ballot?

    [ Parent ]

    The same reason Edwards did (none / 0) (#156)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    it was a punishment.  Look, I'm not one of the "Obama is the sun and moon" supporters.  I really try to live in reality.  It was a mistake for Obama to not do the re-vote.  I'm unhappy with the "protecting the lead" strategy his campaign has taken.  You never look strong protecting the lead.  Don't like it when my team does it, don't like it now.  I have a long list of complaints about the Obama campaign (and a longer one about the Clinton campaign) but I just don't think it is fair to give Hillary the MI votes and nothing to Obama.  Of course, the entire argument is moot, to me, because it isn't decided on popular vote.  

    [ Parent ]
    hopefully, your complaints (none / 0) (#210)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:21:38 AM EST
    about the Clinton campaign are based on facts.
    There is much disinformation at DailyO.


    [ Parent ]
    I really do avoid (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:32:12 AM EST
    the Hillary/Obama diaries over there.  Too much Obama cheerleading.  I want the hard facts, not spin.  

    [ Parent ]
    And heh (none / 0) (#141)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    where are you in MI, if you dont' mind saying?  I'm in Northwest Indiana now, but I'm grew  up in Michigan (downriver) and my entire family still  lives there.  It will always be my home.  And when I heard about the primary move-up and the delegate stripping I knew at the time it would be a mess and that was before there was even a contested nomination.  

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (1.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:51:14 AM EST
    Downriver is nice.  If it's good enough for General Custer, it's good enough for me.  I'm from Oakland County myself.

    Here is a diary that you might find interesting.

    [ Parent ]

    Nice... (1.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    a supposed democrat envoking the name of a mass murderer as positive.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh please (1.00 / 0) (#209)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:18:48 AM EST
    I hope your fall from that high horse is gentler than Custer's was.

    What is with these people who prowl the blogosphere, looking for excuses to exile people from the Democratic Party?  Gosh, take away my liberal privileges, because I mentioned that General Custer is a famous local resident.

    [ Parent ]

    I suppose... (2.50 / 2) (#218)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    if someone said 'If it was good enough for Hitler, its good enough for me', thats all good for you too?  Because there are places where Hitler is considered a local hero, but that doesnt mean he actually was a hero.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (1.00 / 0) (#221)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:30:32 AM EST
    I ask again, where do you people come from?

    [ Parent ]
    So... (1.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:32:50 AM EST
    are you unable to come up with a response that actually addresses my point?

    [ Parent ]
    Give me a break (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:37:27 PM EST
    I never said I considered Custer a hero.  Just go away.

    [ Parent ]
    You said... (1.00 / 1) (#256)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:50:12 PM EST
    if an action is good enough for him then its good enough for you.  How else is this supposed to be interpreted other than a positive?

    [ Parent ]
    I get your comment Steve, (none / 0) (#219)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    but then I'm from MI, too.  And I really liked your comment below about the Supers deciding based on what's good for them. I agree.

    [ Parent ]
    What is there... (none / 0) (#224)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:31:18 AM EST
    to get?  I seriously doubt the local Native American tribes consider him a hero.  So with that being the case, who exactly does consider him one?

    [ Parent ]
    Do we really need to argue about this (none / 0) (#229)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:35:19 AM EST
    cuz I don't have time -- I'm off to deliver some Obama yard signs here in Hobart, Indiana. Haven't seen any Hillary signs yet, but there are several Obama signs on my street -- mine included.  Of course, if signs voted here in Indiana, Ron Paul would win!  

    [ Parent ]
    Any comment... (none / 0) (#234)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:40:09 AM EST
    that glorifies such a vile individual needs to be smacked down on a liberal blog.  It's the principle of the thing.  Maybe Dredge or Redstate can say those things uncontested, but that's why conservatives go there.

    [ Parent ]
    Reread the original comment (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by tree on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:49:50 AM EST
    Custer was called a "famous local resident", not a "hero". Lighten up. You aren't making the point you think you are making. The one you are making says more about you than Custer.  

    [ Parent ]
    Ok... (none / 0) (#243)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:51:29 AM EST
    so what exactly does it say about me?

    [ Parent ]
    I guess... (none / 0) (#248)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:06:34 PM EST
    what it says about me isnt clear enough to post.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (none / 0) (#201)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:12:26 AM EST
    I'll read it

    [ Parent ]
    I'm near (none / 0) (#145)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:27:57 AM EST
    A2.

    [ Parent ]
    Only in Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37:31 AM EST
    is where he took his name off the ballot. A rookie move. Where else have you 'lurked' around?

    [ Parent ]
    Lurk at the "orange" site (none / 0) (#165)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:48:42 AM EST
    for its coverage of the house/senate races?  Did you see what happened in the Mississippi special election last night?  Never commented there - just signed up; don't like the "Hillary is the devil" posts, but they do have lots more there than that.  I always enjoy reading opinions that are different than mine or that challenge my assumptions.

    [ Parent ]
    Honest answer (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:00:02 AM EST
    Most of us are former long time DK commenters. It got too nasty for us over there. Sometimes in life, arguing with a door knob is just not worth the trouble.The door is sealed shut. I always say, we were voted off the island and swam over to this lifeboat.

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards and Biden and Richardson (none / 0) (#247)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    also took their names of the ballot.  They aren't rookies.  

    [ Parent ]
    Michigan (none / 0) (#99)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    will be seated.  How they split the votes may be a concession on Hillary's part if Florida is handled fairly.

    [ Parent ]
    Right now they aren't (none / 0) (#114)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:13:59 AM EST
    and I don't include the totals from Michigan in her column.  And another problem with the entire "popular vote" is the only standard spin is how do you count the caucus vote.  Whether you l like them or not they are part of the current process and people took time out of their lives to participate.  Didn't people in Kansas wait 4 hours in the rain to caucus?  How are there votes counted in the Hillary camp popular vote total?  

    [ Parent ]
    realclearpolitics.com (none / 0) (#237)
    by tree on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:41:23 AM EST
    includes all the caucus votes in the popular vote total, and now has Clinton slightly ahead with all primary and caucus state totals plus FL and MI. Four state caucus totals(WA,NV,ME, and IA) are estimates because the states haven't released official totals.

    [ Parent ]
    That's why Caucuses are a crock (none / 0) (#267)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:44:37 PM EST
    outside of the first couple of states.

    It's a sweet way to start the party, but we really need to scrap the method for supertuesday and beyond.

    One case in point.

    Washington state had a primary that was a dead heat. Obama trounced her in the caucus.

    That's plainly absurd and anti democratic.

    [ Parent ]

    Even if you account for Obama's (none / 0) (#106)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:08:35 AM EST
    share of the uncommitted vote in Michigan, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]
    The Secretary of State for Mich and the voters (none / 0) (#238)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    Would be surprised at your charge that they are somehow not legitimate Dem voters, cause your wrong they are. Spin what you will the votes count, it was campaigning that was banned and not seating delegates ANY (dumb) from those two and a Primary observer, a Party member, the media or SD's, anyone can legitimately consider these voters in the Popular count and should. That Obama was bone headed by removing his name as a political stunt was a naïve boneheaded blunder that voters are not and should not be punished for.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm (none / 0) (#277)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:33:01 PM EST
    a lifelong Michigander.

    OUR VOTES MUST BE COUNTED.  

    Your statement is an outrage.  Obama (as did Edwards who I supported at the time) took his name off the ballot to taint an obvious Clinton win. He took his name off the ballot. Gee, that's tough.

    Obama had an opportunity to support a Michigan re-vote but went back on his promise to abide by the DNC's approval of the re-vote plan. He prevented a Michigan re-vote.

    So leaving out the popular vote in Michigan and Florida, pretending that no one voted is acceptable to Obama people.  Talk about saying or doing anything to win. Despicable.

    Only in Obama land is ignoring the 8th largest state in the union and crapping on its voters somehow passed off as legitimate.

    [ Parent ]

    afaic, if either candidate doesn't have the magic (5.00 / 1) (#285)
    by thereyougo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:53:02 PM EST
    number, it should not matter whether they have more by the end of the primary. Its  the reason the super delegates are there for. Parsing the numbers don't do anything but cause anxiety and it won't serve to bring about a solution.

    Hillary is right to take it to the floor of the convention -- the next level. Thats what the convention is designed to do. Let the process, albeit ardous at this point, play out.

    Obama people totally turned me off when they were shouting at her to quit because she was behind.Its totally undemocratic to call on your opponent to quit apparently, to me, Obama is getting tired because its the first time he's had to break a little sweat at campaigning.                  

    Not Hillary, she knows the rigors, and she impressed me saying she'd continue to fight for us. Thats leadership.

    [ Parent ]

    According to CNN (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:41:08 AM EST
    Clinton is winning the delegate race in PA, 80-66.

    [ Parent ]
    If my calcs are right (none / 0) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:50:31 AM EST
    She won by 9.4%, not 10%.

    [ Parent ]
    Can I tell you how much I love (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:52:23 AM EST
    that Markos latched on to the "it's not really 10%!!!!!" argument? He's implicitly rejecting his own spin that Hillary needed to win by 19.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't read Markos (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:07:23 AM EST
    That was my number that I calculated myself -- I don't read KOS unless I want a satire fix....but if we don't round these election results, we need to go back and not round a whole bunch of other election results.

    I will say I have bragging rights.  I said yesterday that the election will have a 9.5% spread, which will be enough for the Hillary folks to round up and say she took double digits and the Obama folks to round down and say she didn't.

    And guess what happened!

    [ Parent ]

    Still counting absentee ballots (none / 0) (#202)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    and others handed out at polling places with machine problems, I read.  Any "official" counts now for PA are as silly as media's pledged delegate counts based on guessing how caucus state will come down months from now in the last rounds there.

    All are projections, and that's why PA is not done allocating pledged delegates, either.

    [ Parent ]

    heh. good point. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:52:01 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    According to the Sec of State its 8.6% (none / 0) (#75)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:52 AM EST
    link via Mark Halperin at Time.

    That would put paid to the "double digit" margin spin.  On the other hand Hillary has had some good press already based on the "10 point" double digit win already so I'm not sure how much of a difference it will really make.

    [ Parent ]

    Brilliant - the Sec of State site just updated (none / 0) (#83)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    now showing the same margins as AP and CNN,  which rounds to 10 points.

    Mark Halperin still has the 8.6% margin up though.  I assume it just means the new org's are faster!

    [ Parent ]

    No official numbers for a few days (none / 0) (#101)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:07:22 AM EST
    That government site has the unofficial numbers; the same as the media--unofficial.  They're within 1% in a close contest (about 2,000 votes or so, I believe).

    And when has Mark Halperin ever cited down to the tenth when doing a political spread?  Never.  Of course, it can't be bias.  Gosh no, it's just good reporting, I'm sure.

    [ Parent ]

    Unofficial: PA: 9.2%; CNN 10% (9.6% rounded up) (none / 0) (#116)
    by Davidson on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:14:37 AM EST
    With 99.44% reporting, the unofficial numbers by PA have her at 9.2%.  If she could just inch up to 9.5%--unofficially of course--she'll be able to hold off the inevitable media spin ("It's not really 10%!").

    I think she'll pull it off when the vote count is official, but she needs the perception of a double digit to remain solid.

    [ Parent ]

    Have to use AP (none / 0) (#178)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:53:05 AM EST
    Most agree they are more accurate.

    [ Parent ]
    Give me a break... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:12:07 AM EST
    This is how "point won" is alway calculated.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm just trying to work out/find out the final (none / 0) (#144)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:27:25 AM EST
    margin.  If it's over 9.5% then it rounds to 10%, ir it's under then it rounds to 9%.  Obviously that makes a difference in terms of perceptions whoever you support.  9% sounds a hell of a lot closer than a "double digit" 10 point win as it has played so far.

    I'm certainly not criticising that the figures are being rounded,  if that was what you took from my comment.

    [ Parent ]

    Media perceptions (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37:08 AM EST
    Media perceptions are usually biased in Obama's favor (e.g., the constant assumption that FL and MI votes don't count, and that drum beat a while ago that she must drop out, etc), so I'm not going to worry that on this rare occasion, the media perception tilts in Hillary's favor.  

    [ Parent ]
    The way its done in media (none / 0) (#158)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:44:30 AM EST
    Is candidate a rounded x% (45)
    Candidate b rounded x% (55)

    Difference is 10

    Deal with it. they won't change it because Sen Obama lost.

    [ Parent ]

    If that's how it works then fair enough. (none / 0) (#192)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    Though I suppose we should wait for the finalised results.

    [ Parent ]
    I know, and that's never how it is... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:01:42 AM EST
    ...calculated. You round to the nearest number and subtract the two totals. And double digits = double digits.

    [ Parent ]
    Wasn't it 9.48% (none / 0) (#157)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    I think we should carry it out to 10 digits, maybe there is a secret hidden message...

    Hey, at least this is good for basic math skills, right.

    [ Parent ]

    Which means ....... (none / 0) (#62)
    by aequitas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:52:50 AM EST
    .....she is still losing overall.

    [ Parent ]
    No, not winning (none / 0) (#159)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:44:55 AM EST
    Not same as losing. He is not winning either.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD -- Check this out... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    According to CNN's delegate calculator if you plug in current polling the rest of the way, figure Puerto Rico is winner take all, and you split the supers 55-45 toward Clinton... and the result I'm getting is Clinton with 2000 and Obama with 2017 -- neither having enough to reach the nomination threshold. It seems to me that a third option is not being discussed that much: the very likely scenario where neither will have enough votes on the first ballot.

    [ Parent ]
    but is Puerto Rico winner takes all? (none / 0) (#195)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:06:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    According to WaPo PR is not winner take all (none / 0) (#200)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:11:30 AM EST
    It has just looked that way in the past as there was normally only one candidate left in who "won" all the delegates.

    link

    [ Parent ]

    Dang... (none / 0) (#216)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:26:26 AM EST
    Well, but even figuring PR proportionally, she could still put the breaks on an automatic Obama nomination if she got a little over 60% of the supers.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely, PR should still be a big win (none / 0) (#230)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:36:45 AM EST
    for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Enthusiasm (none / 0) (#42)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:57 AM EST
    is very strong today among Hillary supporters, for sure.

    She got the double digit win she needed.

    NOW, she needs money.

    [ Parent ]

    Wolfson says $3.5M since last night (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:01 AM EST
    She'll be able to compete.

    [ Parent ]
    An Amusing Take on MoDo (none / 0) (#194)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:06:38 AM EST
    from Daily Howler as well as a remark on KO.

    [ Parent ]
    The only response they have (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:18:39 AM EST
    is to scream "She can't win!!!!!"

    I think that's obviously not true, and that fact is painful for them.

    The Lemming Rules (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:27:19 AM EST
    Considering that Hunter (or was it Kos?)...put the entire Obama campaign spin, word for word on the front page, is it any wonder?

    They recognize that their candidate limps to the finish line and their only play is to try to run out the clock and say, well we are leading and therefore, we have won.

    Their implicit logic is 'super' delegates must support their candidate, even if they judge that he does not have a chance to win in November.

    Let's officially call this the Lemming Rules

    He's winning, therefore he's won? (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:34:14 AM EST
    Goal posts?  They've moved the finish line!

    [ Parent ]
    I prefer the "moving the goalposts" (none / 0) (#58)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:46 AM EST
    rule. I noticed there seems to be no cries of the superdelegates must vote based on "popular vote" any longer. Today there criteria seems to be limited to voting based on who has the most delegates at this point.

    [ Parent ]
    moving the goal posts... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    is hardly unusual.

    The fact is, there are no goalposts or rules for 'super' delegates at all and any/all attempts to constrain 'super' delegates are folly anyway.

    The point is that 'super' delegates MUST be concerned with electability.

    [ Parent ]

    They are - just today (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:08:09 AM EST
    Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry gave his support to Obama.    The problem with your "electability" argument is that it is subjective.  Some people disagree that Hillary is more electable.

    [ Parent ]
    since when is a subjective argument... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:15:51 AM EST
    a problem? I fail to see any issues with that.

    The simple fact is that neither candidate will reach the necessary delegate totals to remove the 'subjective' arguments.

    As for some people disagreeing that Hillary is more electable...sure...but the 'super' delegates will all have to account for this 'subjective' decision and make their best guess.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    A lot of superdelegates aren't necessarily concerned with Clinton's or Obama's electability as much as with their own political fortunes.  For example, Oklahoma politicians may be convinced that they'll have an easier time winning reelection with Obama at the top of the ticket, because Hillary is too polarizing.  That doesn't mean they have any opinion at all on which candidate is more likely to win on a national level; that's not necessarily what they care about.

    Of course you're correct that people can legitimately view either candidate as more electable.  I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't assume every superdelegate uses that as the metric.

    [ Parent ]

    makes sense... (none / 0) (#270)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM EST
    but the down ticket issue might very well be a problem - at least the way Russert was projecting last night and on MSNBC First Read today is running an article titled "McCain asks NC GOP Not to Run Ad"

    Seems pretty clear what the down ticket implications might very well be.

    Not that I agree with the tactic...I don't. I find it repugnant in every way. Do I think the American public is too smart to be swayed - yeah...for the most part.

    [ Parent ]

    and some (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    isagree that Obama is more electable. I guess the best way to find out is to let the process play out. Right now, neither has the process locked up IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    Correct me if I may be wrong (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:26:54 AM EST
    But Hillary won big in Oklahoma?  

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 0) (#173)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:51:56 AM EST
    but the supers aren't bound by any rules and they can declare for whomever for whatever reason.  Crazy system yes?

    [ Parent ]
    Guess What. Your Arguments Fall Into The (none / 0) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:22 AM EST
    the "Some People" realm of sujectivity. IOKIYAO

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely agreed n/t (none / 0) (#103)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:07:25 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I like Hunter a lot (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:28:42 AM EST
    But I agree that saying:

    no reasonable scenario where Clinton can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates.

    is a silly statement.

    It's inartfully worded (none / 0) (#20)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:35:11 AM EST
    however given the likely projections for the remaining races it looks like Hillary will need to pick up 70-80% of the remaining unpledged superdelegates and/or flip significant numbers of Obama's pledged/super delegates.  

    That's her play,  and her camp is spinning to the super delegates to make it happen.  Given that no Obama superdelegates have flipped yet, while a number of Clinton's have,  and that the endorsements from super delegates since super tuesday have gone about 6-1 for Obama,  I'm not sure I have seen any gamechanging dynamic that will change things in Clinton's favour.   I just don't see it to happening.

    [ Parent ]

    or (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:59:19 AM EST
    she could continue to stay ahead popular vote wise and that may help push some of the superdelegates to vote for her instead of Obama. Superdelegates don't have to vote for who has the delegate lead you know. They can use whateer critera they want for their decision.

    [ Parent ]
    JoeA... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:37:16 AM EST
    whats your motivation for these posts?  Your arguments for Obama over here aren't going to win anyone over to his side.

    [ Parent ]
    Is this suddenly a Clinton Supporter (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:05:59 AM EST
    only zone?  Given the contempt voiced for how bitter and one sided certain "A list blogs" have become I assumed that  the implication was that both sides were welcome here?  

    Especially since BTD, is still nominally at least, an Obama supporter.

    If BTD or Jeralyn want to ask me, and other Obama supporters to stop posting then I'm more than happy to. Otherwise I suggest that you feel free to ignore any posts I make.

    [ Parent ]

    I have no problem... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:25:54 AM EST
    with you posting regardless of the 'side' you take.  For me Im not Pro Obama or Pro HRC, Im Pro Democrat and will gladly vote for whichever gets elected.  

    My point is that the divisive tone of your posts only enforces the 'them vs. us' mentality affect democrats lately.  So I was just wondering how you felt your posts would be helping us in Nov, regardless of who our nominee is.

    [ Parent ]

    That's certainly not the intention of any (none / 0) (#146)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:28:35 AM EST
    of my posts.

    [ Parent ]
    That may not be the intention... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37:31 AM EST
    but its the end result.  Maybe, rather than coming over here and telling HRC supporters that shes going to lose, why not try to help mend fences?

    [ Parent ]
    Another voice (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:49:18 AM EST
    Saying you come across as aggressive and unfriendly. No problem with supporting your candidate, but I want to add my voice that there is no reason to be divisive or try to convince people x or y can't win.

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough. Point taken (