For The Record . . .

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.


    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...)


    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


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

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

    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.

    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.

    She said at the time (1.00 / 1) (#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?  

    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).

    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.


    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.  

    He wasn't on the ballot (5.00 / 0) (#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.


    Obama's leadership & judgment.... (5.00 / 0) (#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


    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. :-)

    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?

    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?


    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.  

    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.

    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.  

    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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!  

    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.

    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.  

    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?

    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.

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

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

    Only in Michigan (5.00 / 0) (#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?

    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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?  

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

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


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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%.

    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.

    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!


    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.


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


    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!


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


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

    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.

    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.

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



    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?  

    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?

    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

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


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    Another voice (5.00 / 0) (#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.

    Fair enough. Point taken (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:03 AM EST
    I'll exercise the very good advice received from my Grandparents (and promptly forgotten about) about taking a deep breath before saying anything in future.

    It's very inartfully worded (none / 0) (#132)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:21:11 AM EST
    I do agree that Clinton's shot at this is a long one. In fact I think it's an extreme long shot and her not quite double digit win doesn't really change her odds significantly.

    However, none of that changes the fact that in the end this thing will be decided in the court of superdelegates. Both candidates need them to cross the finish line.

    It is likely that Obama will need substatially fewer of them and this is what makes him the overwhelming favorite. Nevertheless he will need "intervention" as much as she does.

    Obviously the word intervention is a reference to the coup meme as understood by the Obama camp. And given his audience is DK it's not suprising he would leave it implicit. But the wording is very sloppy indeed.


    It's called (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by coolit on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:29:03 AM EST
    having a temper tantrum.

     These college kids are so upset that they are not getting their way that they are gonna have a hissy fit if Obama isn't just given the nomination.  

    The best thing to do is just sit back and let them implode.  Their tantrum wont look pretty.

    And that's called being patronising (none / 0) (#23)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:36:47 AM EST
    to Obama's supporters.  Because of course they are all College Kids.  Maybe you should call them latte drinking prius driving hollywood liberals while you are at it?

    So let me get this right... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by coolit on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:50:22 AM EST
    It's great when he signs up new voters that are college students.

    It's great when the college students are inspired and go out and volunteer.

    That is clearly his base, is young college educated folk.

    But if I say his supporters are college kids, I'm patronizing?

    Sounds like a double standard gotcha to me.


    Nice trap coolit... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:04:44 AM EST
    but you know the tone of your post was negative and meant to demean Obama supporters.

    I could be wrong (none / 0) (#198)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:08:49 AM EST
    but I don't see the Hillary supporters in the same light.

    I see that they know that they are moderate to conservative Democrats.

    They will vote for the candidate who best represents their interests.

    And that would likely be McCain over Obama.

    It's not the "anger" retaliation vote, in other words.  It would be more about self-interests.

    They are probably a little edgy even about some of Hillary's plans, but they like her more traditional stance on key issues.  Obama?  His "movement" isn't what they are looking for.

    Not everyone in America believes his rhetoric about change.  These are seasoned voters.  They have lived through many "change" candidates who never really "changed" much.

    He's pretty much a classic in that regard.  He's as tied into Washington as any other candidate, so only those who "believe" buy the message.

    The fact is for this group that they will vote for the candidate who seems most stable and is a "known" quality over someone who hasn't convinced them of who he is.  For that group?

    The Wright tapes were shocking.  That raised huge questions.  Ayers is shocking.  Another red flag.  Bitter was off-putting.  This is the group not persuaded by pundits.  They watch their TV regularly and know full well whose doing the negative campaigning.....and he's no babe in the woods.  You can't fool this group.


    For a group... (none / 0) (#208)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:18:39 AM EST
    unswayed by pundits, from the way youre presenting them, they readily accept the whole 'maverick' lie.  No one with the full support of the bush administration can be qualified as a 'moderate'.  Sorry but theres nothing 'moderate' about neocons.

    The ROOLz require the SDs to vote (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:31:00 AM EST
    for the delegate leader. Didn't you know? Oh, it's not in the ROOLz? Well, it should be, because its so obvious. The SDs were created to make no difference at all in the nominating process other than to lower the magic number needed to win the nomination.  That's what Donna Brazile told me, and why would she mislead me?  She's NEUTRAL.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:52 AM EST
    I think if CLinton (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:39:16 AM EST
    still did not have a chance to catch Obama in popular vote, including FL, then she should drop out. But it is still possible.  And maybe we should even count MI since Obama blocked a revote there.  So, IMO she needs to win IN and stay within 5 points on Obama in NC, then it is on we go to Puerto Rico.  If she has the lead in popular vote, if I were a SD, I would seriously consider voting for Clinton. She is the one with the best chance to win in NOvember.

    Relatively fair summation (none / 0) (#43)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:45:20 AM EST
    though there is no way that MI gets counted.  If Hillary can win the PV including Florida then I do think she has a good case.

    I would be very surprised if she doesn't lose NC by more than 15 or 20 points though.  Of course those votes won't "count" because of the AA vote and that NC is one of the increasing numbers of states that "don't count".


    Will Indiana count? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:04:57 AM EST
    I'd say that the Obama camp has been equally dismissive of the states where Hillary has won. Yesterday Rhodes was on TV saying Clinton won the "white trash vote." We also have heard that it wasn't REALLY a win because Hillary didn't win by huge margins from Maddow. Kos is on the record as stating Florida really doesn't matter.

    now that post grads prefer Clinton per exit polls (none / 0) (#108)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:08:44 AM EST
    I wonder if that meme will change?
    on page 2 of CNN exit polls postgrads 51 Clinton to 49 Obama

    Horrible (none / 0) (#181)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:55:04 AM EST
    Are these people trying to lose the GE?! And, who is Rhodes?  Of course PA is a win  - even Obama said a win is a win.

    Be prepared to be surprised (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:56:19 AM EST
    SUSA has Obama up by 9 in NC, with 5% other and 5% undecided. I'll be surprised if Obama turns that into a 15% lead.

    I'd love (none / 0) (#118)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:15:00 AM EST
    to see her get the money to actually compete in NC.  

    My reading of the results indicate he's softening in some key areas.

    Hillary carried one of the suburbs with upper-class "latte" drinkers that surprised everyone.

    I suspect that his support in that group could be a vulnerability right now.

    That could make a difference in NC.  He's expected to carry the tech crowd.

    But look at the numbers.  She did almost as well as him among college educated and above.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:18:31 AM EST
    her money is better spent in Indiana. The demographics are more in her favor. She needs to pull double digits to offset NC where as BTD has pointed out she has hurdles she is unlikely to oercome(large AA population).

    It's the women. (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    They're finally starting to notice us.

    Joe - forget "counting" FL & MI (none / 0) (#205)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:16:00 AM EST
    Do you really think Obama could win those states in the general??
    I don't.

    She does have the lead in pop vote w/Fl & MI (none / 0) (#262)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:29:00 PM EST

    Hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:42:10 AM EST
    I keep hearing that McCain loves this but since we never see him it is hard to know.

    DNC rules (none / 0) (#119)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:15:02 AM EST
    Look, repeatedly we were told the DNC rules are sacred.  These are the rules and she is playing by them, the race is not finished, the SDs will speak and the other voters will speak.  Ooops, forgot Mi and Fl.  

    If they did not like the rules they should have stopped the proceedings and hand the nomination to him.  My suggestion, change the DNC rules for primaries.  The rules are destructive.  Should be winner take all, Hillary would be winning and things would be settled.  

    Now play within the rules, they either matter or don't.  


    Agreed on the DNC rules (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:01:05 AM EST
    I don't think it's the candidates going at each other that is the cause of Democratic dischord.  It's the possible disenfranchisement of MI and FL that underlies all the dischord that we are seeing.

    The conversations on the blogs and in the media would have a very different tone if MI and FL weren't sitting under the guillotine the whole time.

    Some party elders thought the solution would be to try to force Hillary to quit.  Fortunately, that didn't work, but it underscores the problem that the DNC is unwilling to take a stand now and say MI and FL will be seated with full voting priveledges.  That is the question they need to address now, and the sooner they do, the better it will be for the party in the GE.

    So, Howie, if you're listening, repeat after me... the MI and FL primaries are legit and will count, and I'll bet all the coversations in the blogs and in the media will change and we'll have time to get our undies out of a twist well before the general.  Leaving this to the last minute is the worst possible coure, imho.


    My take (none / 0) (#204)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:15:19 AM EST
    is that people don't like the bullying that has gone on to push her out of the race.

    THAT is viewed as inherently unfair.

    I swear that's why a lot of men suited up and showed up to help the little lady out.

    That was a very traditional response in PA we saw.  They saw her getting skewered.  And they could have stayed at home.  They don't really like her all that much.

    But ...... his surrogates went too far.  They aroused a natural protective instinct.

    This is so my 2 cents and worth about that much.

    The editorialists are screaming that she's negative.  The real public knows that's not what's going on and responded.


    Leeeeave Howie Dean aloooooone (none / 0) (#214)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:24:30 AM EST
    to let him keep telling the super-delegates, the state Dem party pols and officials, that they gave him this job and paid him all this money for it so that he could screw up a clear win this year -- unless they fix it.  And then they have to try to keep getting donations and/or votes from the majority of Dems, who have voted for Hillary.

    My mantra on campus, dealing with administrators, comes to mind and, despite blog rules here, allows me to communicate what I think of Howie:  

    Dean is just a four-letter word.


    Chaos? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:51:42 AM EST
    Da Roolz don't seem to be so good at staving off chaos.

    Delegates (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:43:00 AM EST
    versus electability.  

    Hillary's decisive win makes it very clear that she, not Obama, is the favorite with core Democrats.  Her supporter, moreover, view Obama as ultra-left.  His remark about bitter, while polling directly suggested wasn't a big deal, obviously was a big deal to pocket-book Democrats.

    She increased her sway over church-goers, which is a reversal from Obama's earlier races.

    Obama is losing ground.

    The more the far left of the party screams, the more clear it becomes that Obama's core group is simply not the group that wins national elections.

    Again, in exit polls, we see the falsehood of the OBama threat:  My people won't vote for her.  His supporters are more likely to vote Democrat than her supporters are likely to vote for him.

    That fact is now glaring.  

    Most of the temper tantrums from the editorialists show such a lack of objectivity  (Oh, like Bosnia was not her albatross?) that I can only conclude that these glaring truths are really upsetting them on an emotional level.

    Talk about shrill.

    This is the worst... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    argument for HRC in this comment section so far.  How is being far Left a bad thing?  Give me a 'far left' view point thats bad.

    Some of us (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:58:48 AM EST
    do not equate the Obama gang with the 'far left.'  Maybe a bit left of Reagan and Bush1?

    Just a thought... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:55:34 AM EST
    But there's being green and earth friendly...and then there's burning down homes to promote your opinion re: green and earth friendly--

    On March 3, five luxury homes in an exurb of Seattle, Washington were torched. The arsons reflect the ELF's determination to fight "rural cluster developments" and suburban sprawl. The group left a calling card at the scene that read: "McMansions + RCDs r not green." After a 2001 attack, the group inverted the classic line from the movie Field of Dreams, turning it from "If you build it, they will come," to "If you build it, we will burn it" to show their affinity for arson. It has since become their slogan. Radical environmentalists are not without their humour.

    Those actions arent... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:30 AM EST
    'Liberal', theyre criminal.

    They are criminal... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:02:53 AM EST
    But to deny that there aren't some really wacky and criminal folks out on the edges of the left wing is ignoring reality. The same can be said for the Eric Rudolphs of this world who live on the outer edges of the right wing.

    The actions are criminal...however, the place they start from is ideological.


    Youre right, they are... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:12:23 AM EST
    wacky and criminal, but thats a comment on them personally.  Liberalism is about social justice, and not about destroying things.

    So ought a Dem candidate associate (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:27:11 AM EST
    and take donations from such domestic terrorists?

    He did.  And it's not going away.  See an even worse story in the Chi Trib today about Dohrn, Ayers' wife -- the one who was convicted and served time, even though he got off.  And she did not stop, either.


    You asked for "far left" (none / 0) (#115)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:14:31 AM EST
    Not everyone on the Left is a Liberal.

    Thats just a... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:18:18 AM EST
    semantics argument.  And Im find to agree to that definition for the sake of mutual agreement that Far Liberal is a good thing.

    I don't know... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:25:11 AM EST
    since I haven't a clue what that means to you...

    You asked for examples of the "Far Left." And so far as I can tell, not all on the Left are Liberals.

    As I said, there's a huge difference between being green and earth-friendly and forcing your ideology onto others by way of the giant bonfire.


    Again... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:29:58 AM EST
    thats fine, I agree with that, but starting giant bonfires isnt inherently a liberal trait.  Can we at least agree that social justice is a good thing?

    I don't know where I said that (none / 0) (#278)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:46:34 PM EST
    social justice wasn't a good thing.

    Indeed, I didn't say anything of the sort...so it seems irrelevant to me that you'd bring it up as a "can we agree" scenario.

    The problems occur when you've got people engaging in actions that are counter to social justice in order to attain social justice.

    I think the thing you're missing is the value structure factor. We tend to rank various issues differently depending on what we think is important. Some folks put gender equity high on their list whilst others put other items higher.

    For me, what differentiates Far Left from the other degrees of Lefthood is what actions will be taken in order to attain the various goals that the Left works towards.

    ELF exists on the outer reaches of "The Left" in the same way Army of God sits on the outer reaches of "The Right."


    I think... (none / 0) (#280)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    this line of posts is based off of a miscommunication.  We really arent disagreeing about anything, since my most important point is: Liberal ideals are positive.  And we both agree that destructive actions are bad, regardless of the reasons theyre committed (liberal or not).  At most what we'd have to talk about is what constitutes 'Liberal' ideals, but I suspect we'd agree on that anyway.  

    But as far as Social Justice is concerned, cant you just say youre in favor of it?  Its an important enough position to agree with anytime its brought up, whether its relevant to the conversation or not.


    Whether or not I'm for (none / 0) (#282)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:19:17 PM EST
    social justice is irrelevant to your request for an example of the "Far Left." And from what I'm getting, the concept of "social justice" or a "just society" means different things to different people.

    What I consider a just society may well be different from what you consider a just society.

    Indeed, there are anti-choice folks (my neighbors) out there seeking social justice for the "pre-born."


    Ok, how about this... (none / 0) (#283)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:32:33 PM EST
    can we both agree that, if Social Justice includes equal rights for women, can we both agree that that aspect of Social Justice is positive?

    Arguably that would fall under Rawls... (none / 0) (#284)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:50:15 PM EST
    and his basic liberties:
    * freedom of thought;
        * liberty of conscience as it affects social relationships on the grounds of religion, philosophy, and morality;
        * political liberties (e.g. representative democratic institutions, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of assembly);
        * freedom of association;
        * freedoms necessary for the liberty and integrity of the person (viz: freedom from slavery, freedom of movement and a reasonable degree of freedom to choose one's occupation); and
        * rights and liberties covered by the rule of law.

    The problem is that it's not about the idea...it's about what is done in order to attain that goal. As I said...being green and earth friendly is great. Setting fire to someone's apartment building to attain your goal of being green and earth friendly (a fire is neither)...quite frankly...sucks.

    The Far Left is filled with folks who've decided that extreme action is necessary in order to attain the ideals. Those actions (and the ideology that says that these actions are okay) undermine the ideals those same people claim to have. And they do damage to the larger, nebulous thing we refer to as "The Left."


    The thing is... (none / 0) (#286)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:58:17 PM EST
    those people are all criminals.  They are capable of doing these deeds regardless of their political affiliation, theyve just found away to 'justify' their destructive actions.  The ideals of liberalism and blowing stuff up really have nothing to with each other.  Actions are different than ideals.

    Basically I think its best to separate an ideological movement from criminal activity, so calling them far left only feeds into the established rhetoric.  So rather than calling them far left, just call them criminals and leave it at that.


    They may be criminals... (none / 0) (#288)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:07:21 PM EST
    But frankly, it's irrelevant. These folks consider themselves (self-identify) as Progressives and Liberals...and their actions stem from their fervor re: their ideology.

    For example, Bill Ayers came out and said that they hadn't bombed enough locations...and that he didn't regret it. Now he's a professor. But the fact that he opted to go out to the edge (and--in some ways--stay there) for his Liberal ideals...that's relevant.

    They are criminals. But then again...according to the police, so is a friend of mine who handcuffed herself to the gate surrounding a power plant back in the 80s.


    They can consider themselves... (none / 0) (#290)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:02:21 PM EST
    liberals all the want, but, say if hitler considered himself a liberal, does that make it so?  Also, I have liberal and progressive ideals, but I dont go around blowing stuff up because Im not a criminal.  They are.  And yes I'm willing to make the claim that a true liberal, someone whose open minded, compassionate, and fair (Liberal) isn't going to go around torching houses.  These people may agree with some of the liberal ideals, but actions speak just as loudly as what you belief, and my assertion is that they act contrary to what a liberal is.  

    Also, I think we can both agree that handcuffing yourself to a gate and blowing up someone elses house are very different things... but if you want to go down that relativist road of semantics, that wont actually get us anywhere.  

    Where we to really have this conversation we'd have to agree on what actually constitutes a liberal set of ideals.  Because right now were talking to each other, but facing the wrong way.


    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#292)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:36:44 AM EST
    If you see the world in black and white either/ors, a criminal is a criminal regardless of whether that person stole gum or the Mona Lisa. I know people like that. And though I love them...dearly, I don't see the world with such clean and distinct lines.

    But we live in a world where crimes and people exist on some form of continuum. My friend did her community service while someone who blows up a home (ostensibly to promote their cause) does, we hope, serious time for the crime. Stasis theory asserts that there is a distinction between different types of crime.

    I think that one factor here is POV.

    ELF/Bill Ayers actions are contrary to what you see as Liberal ideals. But that's your POV...that a Liberal is X and doesn't do Y. That's fine.

    Hitler notwithstanding (is this Godwin?) if Ayers self-identifies as a Liberal, do we turn around and tell him that he's not because he was part of a group of people who went around blowing stuff up in the 70s and doesn't regret it even now?

    My question is...how far will you go to fight for something you believe in?

    Personally, I hope to never be put in a position where I have to make that decision.

    Ultimately, I'm not sure that you can just wave your hand and make all the folks on the radical fringes go away...or redefine them. I'm fairly certain they'll ignore you.

    Anyhow, this conversation seems to have wandered way off track. I would say that the extreme wings suffer from seeing the idea from an idealogue's standpoint (e.g. idea x 10 to the nth degree). And in that mindset, they lose track of a more standard version of reality.


    For one thing... (none / 0) (#293)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:30:35 AM EST
    I dont see the world in such absolutes.  When I said criminal, I was referring to those that commit the more violent crimes, which handcuffing yourself to a gate doesnt fall within.  Though I admit I wasnt clear on this, so thats my bad.

    As far as the point of view stuff goes, well let me put it this way:  I think its reasonable to say there are some basic tenets we can apply to liberalism.  To start with, Im quite sure you have a concept of what a liberal is, whether its overly detailed or not.  Im also willing to bet you and I would agree on a lot of issues that make up a liberal ideology.  Moreover, I'm sure we could also get the liberal wing of the poliosphere to capitulate, meaning more people agree to a generally unified definition of liberalism...

    See where Im going here?  Abstract ideologies can be defined, meaning we can apply this model to people like hitler and safely state: no this person is not a liberal.  The problem at this point for me is society at large has currently defined morons blowing stuff up as either associated with liberalism (by us allowing them to be called the far Left) or flat out directly falling within the category.  And unfortunately this allows them to attach a stigma to the label.  One they use quite successively in their narratives and talking points against us.  So ultimately its in our best interests to demonstrate how such reckless disregard cant be qualified as liberal or even `left'.  I mean, arent you tired of republicans controlling the narrative?

    P.S. its not important if the militants ignore us.  If anything they should be worried about us ignoring them.  Remember they need us to justify their actions, where as we dont need them at all.


    I go back and forth... (none / 0) (#294)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:24:27 AM EST
    criminality...in itself without context is generally considered bad. Stasis theory helps to give us guidelines for determining the seriousness of the action in question. But...there are times where rules and laws get broken in order to foment some sort of change.

    Jefferson...arguably was a Liberal in the classic sense...and a revolutionary who would've been tried as a traitor had the AR not succeeded. He lucked out when the colonials won.

    Rousseau was also a Liberal and a radical who wound up meeting the same fate he'd helped many an aristo meet.

    In both of those cases, we celebrate their Liberal thinking while turning away from the criminality stemming from their words as symbolic action. Yet their actions and their words form part of the foundation upon which Liberalism stands.

    Had they lived now, these two might be considered fringe outliers.

    What I'm tired of is the Democratic capitulation that helps enable conservative control of the narrative. I am tired of the attitude of acquiescence that allows this to happen.

    At some point, leadership needs to stand up and say "No more." For me, Liberalism |= spineless...but lately...it feels like it's standard behaviour.

    So long as you have different groups prioritizing different issues as more important than the others, you aren't going to get a single unified definition of Liberalism. There are too many people all wanting the attention at the same exact time. That's the problem with herding cats.


    ps. I'm out... (none / 0) (#295)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:27:46 AM EST
    This has been an interesting conversation. But I've got a stack of stuff that I need to take care of.

    Well.. (none / 0) (#297)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:12:27 PM EST
    Anyone applying a model should make allowances for exceptions, for only a fool thinks the complexity of thought and reality can always be diced up into bite sized rules.  And since humans are temporally disabled, being stuck in the present requires us to constantly observe the actions and words spoken to determine whether someone falls within a predefined category.

    At this point is where its tempting to take the relativist way out, but to me that's just lazy because people apply these ideological models to others all the time.  Translating this into reality, this is one of the bases for the whole media narrative.  The problem is theyve accepted the republican model of what a liberal is, some of which you point out: spineless and acquiescence.  Whats worse is there are many liberals whove also accepted this and have even adopted those traits.  But, as again you point out, all we have to do is look at history to see how liberalism sprang from strength; where passion wasn't twisted into just being oversensitive as it is now, but evoked glory and righteous fury.  

    So perhaps the militants of today might have been the liberals of long ago.  But not only are those days long passed, their actions don't even mirror those of the liberal founders - when aggressive action is unwarranted it because wanton destruction, which is anathema to core liberal values.  The most you can say for them is their hearts are in the right place, but it takes competence in action to merit the liberal title, not just good intentions.  And it's the rest of us who has to pay for their foolishness since all their glory ends up written down on talking points memos karl rove wannabes hang up during strategy sessions.  

    In the end they never learned that liberalism, like any ideology, can be liken to a live thing.  It evolves, adapting to new circumstances while retaining its most essential parts.  

    By the way those were some great points you made... oh and yes I realize this conversation is dead, but its been fun  :)


    How about (none / 0) (#203)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    militant liberal.

    (where militant means my way or the highway.)


    I'd say... (none / 0) (#212)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:22:59 AM EST
    no one so close minded as to spout 'my way or the highway' could accurately fall under the category of Liberal, regardless of what qualifier you put before it.  So at that point I'd just call them militant.

    Sounds good (none / 0) (#276)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    Not talking about Liberal (none / 0) (#117)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:14:52 AM EST
    Talking about 'Far Left'.

    There's a difference between being Conservative, and being 'Far Right', or haven't you noticed?

    But the point is that Obama's supporters, the very vocal few who seem to control the narrative online and off, are saying Hillary's too conservative, when in fact he has the same voting record, views on contributions, etc. The only thing Liberal about Obama is the amount of forgiveness being offered for his experience, or lack thereof.

    The vocal few controlling Obama's narratives seem to be the same drum-banging dredlocked losers screaming filth at cops at the A.N.S.W.E.R. rallies or WTO protests. They are about as far away from representing America as you can get.


    Dawning tinfoil hat (none / 0) (#110)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:09:57 AM EST
    I find it amusing that the ELF always attacks houses that AREN'T SELLING.

    The same thing happened to some houses in my neighborhood recently -- two that had been on the market for quite a few months.  Both torched.

    Hmmm, me wonders if someone's trying to recover some losses.


    I would too... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:17:21 AM EST
    but a few years back they torched an apartment complex.

    Far Left (none / 0) (#76)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:57 AM EST
    Is an "image."  My point is that she increased her percentage among:

    College educated
    More than 4 years of college
    Voters who attend church regularly
    Gun owners

    She also, btw, increased her percentage among the college kids.  They still broke for him more, but she pulled a very respectable percentage that was surprising.

    I don't actually think he's "far left."  I think her plans are far bolder and more progressive than his are.

    So I'm referring to his support groups, which have the image of being far-left.


    Ok... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:00:50 AM EST
    it was the tone of your previous post that felt kind of anti liberal.

    Probably my tone (none / 0) (#107)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:08:38 AM EST
    sounds scolding because I'm offended on behalf of core democrats who were called "white trash" by Randi.

    I'm really sick of that attitude.


    I am too... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    but you have to remember that the actions and statements of small minded people have no barring on beating McSame in Nov.  

    The big picture isnt about democrats destroying each other, its about securing liberal leaning Supreme court judges for the next 4-8 years.  Its about getting out of Iraq and not going to war with Iran.  These are the things that matter.


    the biggest thing that matters (none / 0) (#151)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:33 AM EST
    by far is reversing climate change. We have only about 7 years.

    Obama's ethanol/clean coal/nuclear boondoggle continues the amble towards our doom of the Bush...um, policy...as we roll over the tipping points.

    There will be more wars, but not lasting for a hundred years. Civilization will collapse by then: crops will fail, cities will riot, tax revenues dry up, water wars between states will cause our nation to crumble like the USSR did... so our oil-wars will end...as our ethanol crops fail in the droughts and water-dependant power (coal, nuke) turn off.

    or we could vote for smart policy like the Clinton energy plan to switch the economy to a clean energy economy like Germany's which used clever legislation to simply switch it over.

    Solar, wind, wave, geothermal, biomass electricity, and electric and plug in vehicles and some nuclear, some ethanol, but not only.


    AMEN! (none / 0) (#190)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:01:18 AM EST
    But I don't think going at that issue directly is the solution.

    What I do think is electing a president who has skin of steel and can take the slings and arrows while we make the necessary changes IS the solution.

    Guess who my candidate for THAT is?  :)


    I agree... (none / 0) (#197)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    but a McMoron administration would be far worse for the world than an Obama one.  And dont fool yourself into thinking a republican pandering to neocons is going to have a better environmental plan than either of our democratic candidates.

    McCain already vetoes every (none / 0) (#206)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:16:58 AM EST
    environmental bill we send him, he is going to be a do nothing president: thats why it is so important that we get to the WH.

    Veto record of John McCain: from crooks and liars

    He is really 'just talk' on the environment = doom.


    So we agree... (none / 0) (#241)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:49:44 AM EST
    that either democratic nominee would be better than him.

    Obama (none / 0) (#244)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:56:18 AM EST
    voted according to the will of his big doners....the oil companies.

    His record is deplorable.

    Now, to be fair.....I am sure he could cut them loose just as surely as he will run from being the darling of Moveon.org......if he gets power.

    I'm not concerned about his basic ideology.  I AM concerned that he caves.


    And thats fine... (none / 0) (#245)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    I am too.  But if we're worried about Obama caving to republican interests, I think its just as reasonable to be more worried about a republican caving to republican interests.

    You're reminding me (none / 0) (#249)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:15:18 PM EST
    I need to vote Democrat.  :)

    You're right.

    But I'm so mad!  LOL*

    I'm still in a punishing attitude.  

    BTW......Nader would be my vote.

    I am, by definition, a Clinton Democrat.

    There's no soothing my feathers.

    I feel this urge to vote for Nader as sure as I wanted a Miata when I turned 45.  :)


    I completely... (none / 0) (#251)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    understand the anger and frustration.  We just have to realize that this is just politics as usual.  And after all this is over, once the nominee is selected, we can then focus our energy to the real prize: a democrat in the white house.

    I am glad you explained (none / 0) (#135)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:22:52 AM EST
    because I was about to clobber you with examples of her being much more populist and progressive she is, like on the environment she follows Pew, NRDC, Al gore...like promoting planned parenthood in 3rd world, not Bush-lite abstinence....etc,etc

    He dogwhistles the selfish Independant Republicans on privatising Soc Sec (YOYO's) where she dogwhistles to get back the Marshall Plan Democrats who became Reagan Dems.

    But I trust her not to march us off to wars to appease Reagan Dems, while I do worry he'll have to appease his YOYOs on Soc Sec etc.


    This has all been so eye-opening for me (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Jim J on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:50:48 AM EST
    to see that the left side of the political spectrum can be just as, if not more, delusional and mean-spirited than the right side.

    I feel like a man without a country now. I swore off voting Republican some time ago, with Bush cementing that decision for life. And now comes a Democrat even more narcissistic and arrogant than Bush, with an even more mindless and obnoxious legion of followers. I honestly don't see myself voting for him in November. Democrats down-ticket, yes, but not him.

    So what does that make me?

    It makes you confused... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:56:03 AM EST
    and rightly so, considering how senseless these self destructive attacks are.  But please remember that all of this is political nonsense.  Its human nature to demean a perceived 'other side', and even though it would be nice if Democrats were able to rise above this, we're human too.  Basically, just remember that hes called McBush for a reason.

    Um sane? (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    There are so few sane folks.  Just embrace and enjoy your sanity.

    Might Make You Feel Better If You Take Into (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    consideration that many of the people leading the delusional and mean-spirited charge are in fact former Republicans. Kos and Huffington as examples.

    Also, Clinton has received the majority of ACTUAL Democratic votes in the the primaries.


    It is funny (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:45 AM EST
    to watch Obama supporters deplore the undemocratic notion that the superdelegates might weigh in for Hillary, at the same time other Obama supporters declare that the time has come for the superdelegates to weigh in for Obama.

    Especially since the needle is back (none / 0) (#63)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:53:27 AM EST
    to showing that Hillary is about even in the popular vote.

    HRC is ahead by 100,000+ (none / 0) (#222)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:30:50 AM EST
    in popular vote now, including all voters -- as they will be included in the general election (the DNC can't screw up that) and as they will be included in super-delegates' decisions, if that lead holds.  Interesting weeks ahead.

    Spread the News (none / 0) (#253)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    More people have now voted for Clinton than Obama.  It'll change probably after North Carolina, but it shows how close the race is and force the Obama folks to constantly repeat that Florida and Michigan don't count.  (Advice courtesy of Jerome Armstrong).

    That's by the way, the real reason why the Obama folks are spinning like crazy.  He's had a bad few weeks and, although still the favorite and frontrunner, this is the closest he's been to losing the nomination for awhile and he's been on a downward trend.  He needs to reverse that trend.


    More people now have voted for HRC (1.00 / 0) (#261)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:19:38 PM EST
    than for any primary candidate in history.  I saw that reported, so I went to the data for the last couple of elections, and it looks like it is so.

    Wow.  First woman to win a primary in American history, and now most popular candidate in American history.  You bet, spread the news as to how truly historic is this campaign!


    BTW (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:02:50 AM EST
    Using Obama's 11 million expenditure number and assuming an exact 3:1 spending ratio between Obama:Hillary?

    Hillary spent almost $3/vote to win.  Obama spent more than $11/vote to lose.

    You want to know why Hunter is full of crap... (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:21:42 AM EST
    (Blogwhoring alert)

    Obama is hemorrhaging support in states that Democrats should/could win in November, while Clinton is picking up support.

    SUSA released 9 new "Dem vs McCain" state polls last week, so I compared those states to where they were in late Febrary -- Obama did better than Clinton against McCain in February (by an average of 3.5 points), but now Clinton is doing better than Obama (by 1.5 points) against McCain.

    That's quite a shift in six weeks...

    Oh, no, the closest state last time (none / 0) (#231)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:37:48 AM EST
    is going red.  My state, Wisconsin.  Exactly what I feared.  The Republican crossover here worked to really confuse matters, as it has done before.

    I still think Clinton can win Wisconsin -- but Obama  has done a lot of damage to Dems here with his attacks on hunters, churchgoers, etc., and his minister . . . plus this is where Michelle Obama said her infamous "never proud of my country before."  

    That got a lot of local coverage, and in the two Dem strongholds of Milwaukee and Madison, since she said it twice here, in both cities.  And it will come back at us in Repub attack ads, as will the rest -- Rev. Wright, "bitter" and "clinging" voters, and the Weather Underground, since Ayers' wife who was convicted came from Wisconsin and still pushes hot buttons here.

    This is not good for Wisconsin or for the Dems nationwide, what Obama's "gaffes" have done already.


    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#240)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:48:47 AM EST
    could be a problem for the Dems -- Undecideds in Clinton v McCain are going with McCain -- Clinton hasn't lost the support she has, but her margins is taking a hit anyway.

    But not only is McCain picking up undecided voters against Obama, Obama is not holding the support he had in February.

    I'm working on part two of this, which looks at demographic categories.  I just checked WI numbers, and Obama margins took their biggest hits among women (-4.7%) and white voters (-9.1%) in the last six weeks...



    Of course he didn't hold his primary lead here (1.00 / 0) (#259)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST
    as we here, in our media and otherwise, know that we saw a lot of Republican crossover.  It's so easy here, it's one of the great winter sports in Wisconsin.

    And a lot more will have been lost with, as above, the "gaffes" since by Obama.  And of course, that primary was lost in part because of Clinton's bad campaign (between campaign managers) and horribly bad luck with the weather.  

    So it means that Wisconsin has seen Clinton for only one day, and hardly any events after cancellations, and none in Milwaukee.  I do think that she could get the state back in her column coming back.  I don't know that he could now.

    But I'll be looking forward to your analysis, even if I do not look forward to what it may say about the state of this state today.  This is so sad.


    How confident (none / 0) (#266)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:41:53 PM EST
    the blogeratti and Party Bosses must be about Obama...surely they have seen these numbers?

    Florida and Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38:05 AM EST
    However the superdelegates vote at least voters from the other 48 states still count. They may not win but they still count towards the total delegates of each candidate.

    So how is that more "dismissive of the electorate" than denying millions the right to vote in Florida and Michigan?

    MANY DO NOT UNDERSTAND ROLE OF SD'S (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:17:24 AM EST
    While perusing comments on different blog sites, it is clearly evident that MANY voters do not know why superdelegates were created and MOST definitely do not know how the system works.  All they know is that they think their boy, Obama, is being picked on and who the hell does Hillary Clinton think she is?  Honestly, all clarity of thought seems to have gone out the window.

    Clarity of Thought (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:30:57 AM EST
    Hillary won a significant victory even despite the fact that the media said her campaign was dead. This means the voters still think she has a right to be there. And she does.
    However, Obama will most likely still have the delegate lead and the popular vote lead when the primary season is over. [Clinton will only gain 15 to 17 delegates from PA and Obama still have big lead]. And IN will be close, NC and OR will go for Obama.
    So this means that she has to try and make a case to the Super Delegates that her wins in the big Democratic states means she is the better candidate.
    She could do this and she could win their support. But please consider how many voters would feel if she won with what essentially would be a backroom deal. Would not be pretty.

    Please also consider (none / 0) (#233)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    that her supporters will feel equally dismissed.

    That is really all I want.

    Please hear us, too.


    Well put (none / 0) (#236)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:41:20 AM EST
    One correction though: it is possible she will have the popular vote count if you do not exclude FL (and maybe MI). I know there are issues with MI, but FL is fair game.

    I can not think of a more dismissive (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:16:24 AM EST
    argument to the electorate than to tell them their votes do not count either.  As to Superdelegates, they have to do what they think is best.  That's why they are Superdelegates.

    the rules are the rules (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:17:57 AM EST
    they want to follow the rules to the letter when it comes to MI and FL.
    the rules are the rules.  and they say the supers can elect whoever they want and whoever they think can win.  you want to change the rules for next time.  fine.  to late for this one.
    let them have a hissy fit.
    it will be fun to watch.
    and we will still win the general.

    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#177)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:52:53 AM EST
    are more comfortable now that the electorate has been educated about their role.  Pelosi did the Democratic party great harm when she misinformed them that it was all about delegate count, indicating that is the only way to judge the "will of the people."

    Stuff and nonsense.


    Their reasoning is that (none / 0) (#15)
    by sander60tx on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:31:25 AM EST
    that Obama winning the delegate count, most states, etc. is a "win" without the superdelegates, even though he still doesn't have enough delegates to get the nomination.  That is what some people forget/ignore.  They think that the superdelegates should be irrelevant and that whoever is ahead by other measures should be the nominee.  I agree that the rules are the rules.  Superdelegates are part of the process whether one likes it or not.  

    Why do they keep talking about (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:34:17 AM EST
    the "number of states"? That's NEVER been a metric, either in the nomination process or -- if you're talking about GE electability -- the Electoral College.

    By that logic (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:52:23 AM EST
    Hillary won way more counties in Penn.  Shouldn't she get almost all of the delegates then! ;-).

    Sad that we have to tell Democrats just like we usually have to tell Republicans -- Real estate doesn't vote.


    No that isn't the argument (none / 0) (#47)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:47:04 AM EST
    or if it is, it is a silly one.  Supers are part of the process and they make their decision however they want.  Either candidate will need the Supers support to win the nomination.  But it is just as silly to claim that the pledged delegates are irrelevant, like Terry Macullife did last night.  He claimed it would/should only be the popular vote that counts.     Then there is the problem with MI.  Sorry to say, but nobody other than Clinton supporters believes that Clinton should be "awarded" the popular vote in MI when his name wasn't on the ballot.  

    Hillary's Republican Support (none / 0) (#21)
    by LizDexic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:35:58 AM EST
    I think everyone here is just discounting the Republican votes for Hillary. The Repubs are foaming at the mouth for the opportunity to run against her. THEY make up a large part of the people who said they'd vote for McCain over Obama.
    They'd vote for McCain over Hillary too and are dying to do it.

    Maybe you believe that Rush has no influence on the wingnuts.
    But I don't think so.

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    And here I thought winning Republicans was a good thing according to Obama supporters.

    That the big switchover was one of Obama's big accomplishments.

    The spin is something.


    Well Obama is making a play to actually (none / 0) (#34)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:42:02 AM EST
    win their votes now and in the GE.

    Not that I'm defending the spin in the original post,  I don't buy it to be honest.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:53:57 AM EST
    and he's doing it by abandoning the Democratic base.  That's a good share of the reason that many Hillary supporters won't vote for him.  We ARE the base. (or I was, until I went independent because of righteous indignation about this (s)election).

    Losing one language to learn another (none / 0) (#137)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:23:22 AM EST
    My parents adopted my brother from the streets of India when he was 6, and he'd suffered from some malnutrition... he grew up with about the iq of 75 or thereabouts. When he learned English, he completely lost Hindi, and can't remember a single word except for 'ganda', which I won't translate here. :-)

    Obama is indeed going for the GOP crossover vote, but in this case he's running a zero-sum game; every word he speaks that appeals to GOP folks is turning off someone else in the Dem core. I wish it were different, but his approach is startlingly brutish and inelegant.

    Hillary's approach is appealing to everyone, including fence-sitters in the GOP, because she keeps repeating what every american wants to hear: Healthcare system, better economy, better civil rights for everyone, get out of Iraq, less govt. power, etc. She's a savvy saleswoman, taught by years of public service. Obama is used to preaching to the choir, and doesn't know how to open his message up to everyone without switching polarities.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#180)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:54:26 AM EST
    for your analysis.  Food to chew over there.  I think you're absolutely right.

    He seems very petulant when not in front of the choir.  You probably have identified why that is.


    In Chicago, he never faced Republicans (none / 0) (#235)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:40:50 AM EST
    in any real numbers for state senate or for Congress.  Obama doesn't know how to parse carefully between both audiences, and he seems to really think that Republicans can be handled nationally as they are in Illinois.

    Experience does matter -- experience with Republicans.


    kookoo (none / 0) (#109)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:09:48 AM EST
    That's unprovable.

    also I suspect there are GOP in IOowa who saw the potential for fun back in Jan.


    As of right now... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:43:23 AM EST
    and having listened to Rush and Hannity yesterday as well as talking to some GOP friends, they are looking forward to running against either of the two Democratic candidates.

    FYI...the Ayers thing has been on right wing radio for a month or so now. And they've had a field day with running Wright clips.

    Neither of the candidates will skate when it comes to the Rushes of this world.

    But I don't think that we should choose a nominee out of fear for what the right wing "might" do with regards to real attack politics.


    I agree. Either candidate has some serious (none / 0) (#48)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    weaknesses,  but remember how Max Cleland got smeared by the right wing swift boating.  If they can manage that with a war veteran who lost limbs in service to his country then it's naive to think that either Hillary or Obama would skate on it.

    Neither will skate... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:59:05 AM EST
    But it's how they deal with responding to the right wing o'sphere that will make a difference.

    Youre right... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:59 AM EST
    we shouldnt choose someone based off of what the right will say.  But tearing each other up like this isnt helping us.

    There's some tearing going on... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:05:38 AM EST
    But there's a whole lot of "foot in mouth" disease going on too.

    I'm not sure that this was a big factor (none / 0) (#29)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:40:24 AM EST
    in PA.  Given that the Republicans needed to actually register as Democrats to vote in the primary I'm not sure that many would have been motivated enough to screw with the Democratic race.

    What do we care for what the GOP thinks? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:41:41 AM EST
    Besides, if I wanted to listen to a concern troll, I'd just read David Brooks.

    NONSENSE (none / 0) (#36)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:42:17 AM EST
    There is no way if any Repubs voted for her just as a strategy to get her in NOV it would be more than a handful.  Do you have ANY  evidence whatsoever that people(repub) pulled the lever to deny Obama the nomination?  No you don't! Because there is none. The repubs that listen to Rush aren't smart enough to have gone through the process of switching registration, it is too much work!

    Actually Obama once again won the Rs (none / 0) (#85)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    Last night, as has been the pattern, Obama won the Republicans that had re-registered as Democrats.

    All indications now are that..... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:07:02 AM EST
    ...Republicans would prefer to run against Obama.

    Again, some of us (none / 0) (#104)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:07:48 AM EST
    think that McCain would do better against Obama than against Clinton.  As for the group that says they will not vote for Obama in the GE, that is dem women for Clinton.

    Old and incorrect argument (none / 0) (#176)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    As of now most republican pundits are foaming at the mouth to run against Obama not Clinton. So please update your talking point files.

    Also while you are at it: Sen Obama does worse in most electoral college match ups than Sen Clinton.


    Obama Is Easier For Repubs To Beat (none / 0) (#215)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:25:11 AM EST
    As you know a large number of repubs changed party affiliation before the PA primary and voted for Obama....let's watch to see how many were only "dems for a day".  That would be telling in revealing who they want their guy to run against.

    Yes, the SD's will have to "intervene" (none / 0) (#50)
    by aequitas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:50:13 AM EST
    But the comparison ends there.  

    If they "intervene" for Obama, they will be intervening for the candidate with the most votes, most delegates, most states, most etc.  If they intervene for Clinton, it will be contrary to the design and intent of the nomination process.  

    But only if you (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:55:53 AM EST
    disenfranchise Florida and Michigan....

    What you said (none / 0) (#92)
    by Regency on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:04:27 AM EST

    Then wouldn't it be equally dismissive (none / 0) (#55)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:07 AM EST
    continually talk about the "big blue states" as being the only ones we should be concerned about in deciding the nominee.  Every time I hear Clinton supporters argue that point it seems dismissive of me here in Indiana.  We sure aren't a big blue state, and we won't turn blue in the GE, so by the Clinton standards we ARE being dismissed.  

    It's not dismissive to consider (none / 0) (#136)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:23:08 AM EST
    the voting trends of a state over a 20 year period: it seems more like prudent strategy. In a General Election, would you honestly say it's important to give equal focus on Wyoming when you could put a little extra focus on Florida?

    Besides, this scenario is quite different from saying that all Democrats should have the opportunity to choose the Democratic nominee.


    Atrios drank the kool aid... (none / 0) (#56)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:22 AM EST
    I can appreciate that he voted for Obama but...

    This post this morning at Eschaton means that he has signed on to Hunter's theory

    Bad bad bad Atrios

    He drank the koolaid (none / 0) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:52 AM EST
    a long time ago and then (I guess) seriously thought that coming out of the closet before Penn would help Obama somehow.

    I don't know if he was fooling anyone else, but I was never fooled by his pretense of "moderation".


    Funny (none / 0) (#66)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:55:33 AM EST
    A min Obama & Hillary spend tearing each other up is a min McCain does not have to worry about them and focus on raising money and organizing his people.

    I'm not at all concerned about the campaigning.  They're each trying to win the election.  It hasn't been all that negative, unless you feel that complaining about it somehow helps your candidate.

    Politics is a tough game.  If you can't stand the heat...  I doubt either Hillary or Obama would want to get out of the kitchen.  

    aftr the civention then, (none / 0) (#98)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    Looks like the dailykos is down (none / 0) (#86)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:02:20 AM EST
    HA!!... it s*cked anyways!! no more Hunter or kos or.. yada yada yada.

    You are right about one thing. (none / 0) (#91)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:04:22 AM EST
    I can not think of a more dismissive argument to the electorate than to tell them their votes do not count.

    I think you should remind HRC supporters of that when they diminish the voters in red/caucus states.

    By saying that delegates don't matter (which are won by having the electorate vote for you) you are essentially supporting such a scenario yourself. Popular vote is not reliable, as it undervalues caucuses. The race is about winning the most delegates.

    After last night, it is clear that person will be Barack Obama. He will also win about twice as many contests.

    Those are things that should matter a lot.

    Not ignoring, reasoning (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Regency on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:05:34 AM EST
    Who said delegates don't matter? They do. What you fail to see the significance of is the fact that neither will have enough delegates to win. Therefore, we need another metric to decide a frontrunner...

    Popular vote anybody?


    The metric will be whatever (none / 0) (#184)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:00:01 AM EST
    the individual super decides it will be.  See my other post about the OK Gov (a super) declaring for Obama today.  Hillary won that state big.

    Um (none / 0) (#131)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:20:58 AM EST
    The criticism of caucus states is that a great many people don't get to vote!  And it just so happens that the demographic groups that are left out by the caucus system are mostly favorable groups for Clinton.  If people feel "diminished" simply because someone points out the undemocratic features of their state's system, there's not much to be done about that.

    Casey and Catholics (none / 0) (#123)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    Did I hear a thud?  

    <did the Pope's visit (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:24:15 AM EST
    have any impact on Dem. primary in PA?

    On the issue of Popular Vote (none / 0) (#139)
    by suisser on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:24:21 AM EST
    Can someone please help we understand this.
    In Caucus states, counting only those that have released popular vote figures ( excluding Iowa,Nevada,Washington,Maine and Texas due to its combo system) I calculate that in Caucus States alone Obama has 307,835 and Clinton 139,258 votes.  So, how were these numbers arrive at? Is it simply proportional to registered Dems in each state? And how do these numbers relate to the actual number of people participating in the caucus?

    I know this is OT, but I really get frustrated by talk of popular vote advantanges if these numbers are based on tiny numbers of caucus goers and then extrapolated up to to vote elegible population as a whole.


    You are mistaken (none / 0) (#164)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:48:42 AM EST
    There is no extrapolation taking place, it is based upon real turnout figures.  There are only a few caucus states that don't report turnout.

    The number is not as rock-solid as an actual primary but it is a pretty accurate representation of real people casting votes.


    Thank you for the reply (none / 0) (#179)
    by suisser on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:54:26 AM EST
    I still find the caucus process a bit mystifying, but I appreciate the information.

    In most cases, its not (none / 0) (#186)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:00:16 AM EST
    In washington and Iowa, for example, the actual number of participants (and who they support) is not reported.

    So any "voter" number coming out of those states, based on the reported results of the caucuses, is pure BS.

    (In some states, like AK and ID, you get "real" numbers -- but the bulk of Obama's "caucus vote total" lead is based on estimated number of participants statewide times the percentage of the delegates won for each candidate.  And that is pure BS.)


    Well (none / 0) (#213)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    I believe there are only four states that don't report caucus attendance, so I wouldn't say "most."

    One of those states is Washington, where it's not even an issue as we have a popular vote number from the primary anyway.


    "most" refers to votes, not states (none / 0) (#232)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:38:35 AM EST
    allow me to clarify

    "most of" was a reference to the "votes" from caucuses that are being being used to determine who had the most support.

    And WA itself is "most" of the votes in question.

    I did some math -- used the RP numbers, except that I apportioned Michigan vote totals by the exit poll percentages on the question "who would you have voted for if everyone had been on the ballot" (clinton 46%, Obama 35%) rather than the 55% to 0 that RP uses, and sustituted the WA primary vote numbers for the "caucus estimates"

    Obama is up by a little over 69,000 voters, out of about 30,000,000 cast. -- Basically 0.2%.


    caucus numbers (none / 0) (#182)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:55:59 AM EST
    some states report precinct caucus participation.  Others (IA, WA) report only outcomes (number of delegates awarded).  And Texas does neither.

    In those states that do not report participants and who they supported, statewide "estimated" participation is used, and "popular vote" totals from those states are based on apportioning the estimated number of participants on the delegate outcome.

    And anyone who knows anything about how caucuses work know that the the results don't tell you anything about the number of participants.  

    In other words, MOST of the 'number' that are reported as caucus goers for either candidate is pure BS -- and should be regarded as such.


    IMO there's a problem (none / 0) (#228)
    by hookfan on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:34:06 AM EST
    in establishing what the popular vote is due to the caucus system. The conditions under which the caucuses are held leads to a sampling result that no way reflects the reality of overall voter preference for a caucus state. The skewing of voter results due to the different conditions suggests huge margin of error issues.The determination of realistic estimates thus is problematic, and I doubt hold much validity. A good example is WA where the results show a huge difference in percentage of outcome between caucus and primary.
      But people voted. But the results are of severely questionable validity. What to do? I dunno. It's like the Dem party wasn't really all that interested in having a clear voter preference established, else why the crazy voter dilution through the bizaare delegation system.
      So, let the superD's decide on whatever basis they want.

    Why isn't BTD's point getting to MSM? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:47:08 AM EST
    "There also is no reasonable scenario where Obama can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates."

    All I'm reading now on MSM websites are stories that switched from "Hillary Wins PA" to "Did Clinton's win come too late?". I'm assuming that this new spin has to do with not making a dent in Obama's delegate count. Why can't there be any MSM stories about recent trends towards Hillary which suggest Barrack too is starting to face a scenario where his only way to win is through Superdelegates and they're not liking what they're seeing.

    Surprise! (none / 0) (#226)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:32:19 AM EST
    Not sure if this post will be considered off topic or not, I'll let the moderators make that call, so here goes.

    The Republican commentators are already telling us what the October surprise will be. They have consistently said McCain most likely chance at a win would be some sort of security crisis. It's more than likely that Bushco will provide us with one. Probably in the form of Iranian militants crossing into Iraq.
    Why would Iran oblige us, or make such a seemingly foolish move, think "arms for hostages" here. The Iranian government has no need for an over abundance of militants in their backyard. So, much like the other governments in the region, with such a surplus, they will be more than happy to cull the herd as it were, by sending them into the meat grinder.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Hunter Grossly Mis-Represents (none / 0) (#239)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    The Clinton argument.  The arguement is based on what the popular vote ("all those votes") will be at the end of the process.

    Obama's argument is that Superdelegates should decide before votes are counted.  Superdelegates should decide without votes counted in two large states.

    I think Hunter is being pathetic here.

    Narcissism, Monarchy (none / 0) (#246)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:04:23 PM EST
    Hunter also says in this piece:
    [T]he person most deserving of the Presidency of the United States just miraculously happens to be the person married to the last Democratic President of the United States; it smacks far too much of the usual intra-Washington narcissism, and carries the strong whiff of American monarchy, something already wafting through the air after the ridiculous rise of the Boy King

    The only thing he failed to say is that NOT counting FL/MI smacks far too much of the dictatorship .. :)

    Which Roosevelt should we give up, (5.00 / 1) (#265)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    Teddy or Franklin? Which Adams should be struck off the Presidential rolls? Were Bobby and Teddy Kennedy wrong to run for President after their brother served? Both Bush presidencies were a mistake IMO, but it doesn't have much to do with them being related.

    This argument drives me crazy, because it seems to say that the wife of a former President can't run for that office, but sons and brothers are just fine.


    I am dizzy from the spin, and from the (none / 0) (#250)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:16:11 PM EST
    contortions of Obama supporters who refuse to open their eyes and ears, and engage their brains in the dispassionate and objective exercise of what the numbers tell us about electability.

    Hunter is just dead wrong when he omits the superdelegates from the calculation of what is a reasonable scenario for either candidate to win, once again trying to make the case that a superdelegate decision to support Clinton, and give her the nomination, is a travesty of the process.  It is not.

    I hate to use a sports analogy, but there are plenty of football games where the team with the most yards, the most first downs, the longest time of possession does not win the game, because the other team was able to score more points.  I understand that we determine the winners of football games by whichever team has the most points when the clock ticks down to 0:00, but the losing team does not claim that the winning team cheated, stole or got the "W" by less-than-fair means.

    I know the argument is that the "rules" award the nomination on the basis of delegates, but the superdelegates have the flexibility to make a decision that takes other factors into account - and one of those factors ought to be which candidate is more electable.

    If I'm a superdelegate, I have to be worried that in spite of his lead in the delegate count, and number of states won, he has not garnered the most support from the demographic Democrats must have to win in November, and the question is, do we want to win in November or not?

    What is really getting on my last nerve is what feels like an attempt by the DNC - or at least some members of it - to force Obama on us by manipulating the process.  It began with their decisions on Florida and Michigan, has continued through an absence of leadership on the part of Howard Dean.  Dean had, in my opinion, a duty and a responsibility to make crystal clear what the role and responsibility of the supers is - by failing to do so, he has allowed one candidate to define that role, exert undue pressure on them and continue the manipulation of the process.  Howard Dean should have confronted Donna Brazile, for example, and told her she needed to choose whether she wanted to be all over the TV as a "political analyst," or have a role with the DNC - that she was incapable of doing both, and was unnecessarily influencing the process.

    I'm sick to death of people who were apoplectic about what went on in the 2000 and 2004 elections now pushing an agenda whose message is that we don't really need to count all the votes.  We do, and we must, if this general election is to have any credibility.  Patrick Leahy screaming at Bradley Schlozman in the Senate Judiciary Committee over manufactured voter fraud suits has been rendered meaningless by his decision to announce that Clinton had no reason to stay in the race and should get out.  

    I am just disgusted beyond belief, and that feeling is not going away anytime soon; if my feelings, which many others share, result in a weaker Democratic Party in the future, well, I guess that's what happens when you systematically reject the voices and votes of a significant portion of the party.  Barack Obama is not going to heal that wound - he will be the salt that is poured in it on a daily basis.  He will not unify us around a leadership which went out of its way to exclude millions from the process.  He will not change the way things are being done, because only fools would believe that what has already happened is not the embodiment of old-style, dirty politics.

    [Grrrr.  Time for Advil and Zantac]

    To be charitable... (none / 0) (#252)
    by mike in dc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:25:04 PM EST
    ...towards interpretation for a moment, I think in this sense, "intervention" probably means "a disproportionate number of uncommitted superdelegates favoring one candidate over another".  

    If the race ends on June 3rd, with Obama having an advantage of 150 pledged delegates, and about 250 superdelegate endorsements, while Clinton has about 300 superdelegate endorsements, there will be about 250 uncommitted superdelegates remaining, and Clinton will have to get at least 100 more than Obama in order to be the nominee(I am excluding FL/MI from this, for a number of reasons).  That works out to a 175-75 split of remaining superdelegates, not impossible, but that would be a 70-30 split, percentage-wise, certainly disproportionate to the state of the race.

    On the other hand, Obama would only need about 1/3 of the remaining superdelegates to vote for him.  If there's competing narratives and equally heavy lobbying by each campaign, I don't see the supers breaking disproportionately in either direction.  Even a 60-40 split for Clinton would result in Obama being the nominee.

    Does that Include MI and FL? (none / 0) (#257)
    by Daryl24 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM EST
    If Clinton wants the superdelegates to overturn all the voting up until now, fine

    Lets be Honest (none / 0) (#260)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:18:39 PM EST
    Yes, the Super Delegates are part of the process. And, yes, I will abide by whomever they choose. I want the Democrats to win. But as we speak [even with FL] Obama has the popular vote lead. [We cannot count MI because his name was not even on the ballot].
    If Obama has the popular vote and the delegate lead and the Super Delegates choose Hillary based on her electibility that would be a coup for her that would not be pretty. And I hope you all understand why. I'm sorry but this is a democratic process. Why have this primary at all if at the end of it all the Super Delegates are the ones who get to choose?
    I'll conceded FL and MI should have been revoted. But it would still be very close with Obama leading. What a fine mess this could be at the Convention.

    Obama took his name off. Others didn't (none / 0) (#264)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:40:45 PM EST
    He didn't have to take his name off. Dodd, Kucinich, Clinton and I recall a couple others left their names on. I think MI counts. BTW, why didn't he want MI to re-vote?  Because he'd of lost.

    MI and changing rules (none / 0) (#281)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:09:13 PM EST
    I hear you. However Obama, Edwards and Biden all took their names off because the vote would not count. Do you think they would take their names off if they thought it counted? Look, I'll agree that maybe they should have left their names on. But you cannot now change the rules and say MI counts when it didn't before. That's like when you were a kid playing a game on the playground and someone changed the rules and then claimed 'you lost - nyah nhay nhay'.

    thank you. (none / 0) (#271)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:56:59 PM EST
    I read all the posts here, and I couldn't help but think how far we have fallen from 2000 to ever contemplate a candidate not choosen eitehr by popular vote or delegate count. There is no argument for clinton right now, and the only one she has on any reasonable scale is popular vote. If she wants to not piss off a lot of good democrats that is.

    "the will of the people" (none / 0) (#263)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:38:44 PM EST
    has not yet been determined yet. But so far, including MI & FL, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote.

    So if that continues, which seems likely, and the SDs go with the popular vote, that's not going to "overturn the will of the people."

    Tho by the rules, the SDs can do whatsoever they want. I think they should look at pop vote and the GE -- but that's just IMO.

    The point the poster is making is the one I make (none / 0) (#275)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:28:29 PM EST
    below. Namely, some of you seem to be arguing that even after MI and FL are counted that it doesn't matter if she is still losing the delegate count and popular vote. I think some of you seem to want to avoid the ultimate point. That regardless of who one supports- this kind of analysis, if that is the analysis being offered, is unacceptable.

    If she doesn't get either the popular or delegate (none / 0) (#268)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:53:17 PM EST
    vote you don't have a problem with her being the nominee?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#273)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:04:04 PM EST
    I have a big problem with it.

    Just seeking clarification (none / 0) (#274)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:24:32 PM EST
    Some commentors seem to have no problem with it.

    PS I find people as fustrating (none / 0) (#269)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    as on Daily Kos- seriously- you think there is an argument for her if she loses both the popular vote and delegate count. if so- what's that argument? touchy feely electability?

    If all the supers were good for was (none / 0) (#272)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:08:27 PM EST
    following the will of the people, what would we actually need them for?  Why not just dispense with them altogether?

    And if that is all they should do, shouldn't the SD's in states that went for Clinton, but who have come out for Obama, switch their commitment?  And what about the SD"s in states that haven't voted yet, but who have already announced a commitment to Obama?  Shouldn't they first see what the will of their people is before making that commitment?

    So, there goes the will of the people argument, don't you think?  Factor in the caucus states, where some miniscule percentage of the states' voters participated, and I think the argument gets even weaker.

    If Hillary Clinton continues to win in states the Democrats must have to win in November, if Obama cannot break the ceiling on the demographic he needs to be able to win in November, and if the popular vote totals put Clinton over or close to Obama, I think the SD's have a responsibility to commit to the candidate who can win.  In my opinion, that's Clinton, and I think insisting on this skewed "willof the people" argument is going to be cold comfort when John McCain takes the oath of office in 2009.

    A lot of incorrect assumption (none / 0) (#287)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:00:28 PM EST
    He can speak for himself, but BTD has NEVER said anything like what you imply. Most Clinton supporters do not say that the will of the people should be overturned. Some of say that:

    a) Will of people is in popular vote, NOT delegate count,
    b) If its close enough this is not a strong argument, extreme example what if they are within 10 votes of each other in pop vote?
    c) Some argue FL is fair game, some argue both FL and MI are fair game,
    d) SDs are supposed to exercise independent judgement.

    My personal opinion? If either is ahead in pop vote by less than say 200K its fair game, its just too small a margin to take seriously. If one side is far ahead then it would be a tough sell.