home

Hillary Raises 10MM Since PA Victory

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:59:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Kos and Todd Beeton:

On MSNBC a few minutes ago Terry McCauliffe announced the Hillary Clinton campaign raised $10 million online "with 50,000 brand new donors" since the polls closed in Pennsylvania last night. "The biggest day we've ever had." An impressive amount by any measure and, as I wrote last night, a clear sign that people do not want this primary to be over.

BTW, and speaking for me only, Kos is right that it is ridiculous to claim Clinton is winning the popular vote right now. Excluding the caucus states and giving Obama zero votes for Michigan is absurd. We can get an exact count if Iowa, Nevada and Maine release the numbers they have in their possession.

By Big Tent Democrat

< The So-Called Liberal Media | Um, You Think They Didn't Know? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Raises 10MM Since PA Victory | 222 comments (222 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Can't blame the campaigns for spinning... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    Well, you can, but it's not going to change anything. They're paid to spin.

    And that's a very impressive fundraising number for Hillary. Certainly enough to keep her in the game through the 6th. Has she gained any Supers since yesterday? You'd think a double digit win might lure one or two out of the shadows...

    Obama gained one from Oklahoma (none / 0) (#14)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    and she also gained one -- don't remember which state the SD is from.

    [ Parent ]
    TN - Rep. Tanner (none / 0) (#70)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:41:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    She has actually (none / 0) (#16)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:13:20 PM EST
    gained at least one so far today...

    Rep. John Tanner of TENN, co-founder of the BLue Dog Coalition in congress, member of the WAys and Means committee and member of the Foreign Relations committe.

    [ Parent ]

    The type of guy (none / 0) (#38)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:25:53 PM EST
    who always votes Republican.

    Right, Axelrove?

    [ Parent ]

    You really (none / 0) (#96)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    should NOT got there!!! Considering these are in both Camps...ie Claire.

    [ Parent ]
    Is $10 million so fast some kind of record? (none / 0) (#22)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    I think it probably is although I wouldn't be surprised if Obama has exceeded that in the past.

    [ Parent ]
    RCP appeared to include (none / 0) (#52)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:33:11 PM EST
    the caucus votes as far as they can be estimated.

    Also there is a version with the undeclared from MI somewhere.

    They are about even as far as it goes.

    [ Parent ]

    The word "Ridiculous" is overused (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:09:17 PM EST
    Nobody told Obama to take his name off the ballot in Michigan.  Let's look at the logic:

    If Obama wanted to he could have taken his name off the ballot off Pennsylvania as well, fearing a projected loss there months ago. (the spreadsheet)

    So if Obama was not on the ballot in Pennsylvania last night, should we just not have counted those votes for Hillary?

    What's ridiculous here is calling the rest of us ridiculous for actually being right.

    I came across this (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:50:30 PM EST
    piece that I found interesting, maybe as a theory... I do not know the veracity of it though.

    Here is a quote from this article.

    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.

    It would be interesting to follow up with this reporter.  I think that those staffers should be identified and questioned by the DNC.  (HA!  Like that will happen...)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama and Clinton both (1.00 / 3) (#31)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:21:16 PM EST
    signed a pledge not to "participate" in the MI primary.  Following up that pledge in good faith should have included removing one's name from consideration.

    [ Parent ]
    the pledge was not to campaign. (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Please (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:22:36 PM EST
    not this ridiculous talking point again!

    [ Parent ]
    All the old stuff (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    will be brought up again... aggression after a Clinton win.

    We will see alot of OLD topics slung around the next few days.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, Clinton backers (none / 0) (#133)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:35:12 PM EST
    are talking about counting MI and Fl again, so of course this stuff is relevant.

    [ Parent ]
    Relevant, perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:49:32 PM EST
    but still completely untrue!  This has all been debunked endlessly and we get tired of going round the mulberry bush every single time it comes up.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, they could (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:52:14 PM EST
    search the old blogs for information on the SAME OLD topics.

    It like I'm on the merry-go-round and can't get off!! After a 100 rounds ... it gets old.

    [ Parent ]

    So... (1.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:01:03 PM EST
    why keep posting about it?

    [ Parent ]
    Considering that you (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    have posted 37 times today... I beleive I have some leeway. Thank You.

    [ Parent ]
    What does... (none / 0) (#219)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:16:53 AM EST
    my number of posts have to do with you not wanting to post about a topic?

    [ Parent ]
    So why was Obama's name on FL ballot? (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:27:41 PM EST
    The Obama camp always seems to gloss over that point when making this ridiculous argument.

    [ Parent ]
    IIRC, (1.00 / 2) (#58)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:34:39 PM EST
    it was too late to remove it, or they would have.  Same reason other candidates (Edwards, Biden) were on the FL ballot, but not MI.

    The text of the pledge has been linked here before.  It said both "campaign" and "participate."

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:42:15 PM EST
    They couldn't remove their names AFTER they were submitted to the state in Florida. But they never tried BEFORE that.

    They removed their names from the Michigan ballot in the beginning of October. The FDP didn't submit their names to the state until the end of October.

    Thats plenty of time.

    [ Parent ]

    From the Washington Post (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:45:10 PM EST
    "The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards are urging their supporters to cast ballots for "uncommitted," according to state Democratic party chairman Mark Brewer. The Obama campaign says there may be "grass-roots efforts," but that the Chicago-based campaign is not involved.

    In an effort to signal that Clinton cannot stroll away with the state's delegates, even in a largely uncontested race, Michigan Rep. John Conyers and his wife, Detroit city council member Monica Conyers, taped a radio advertisement Wednesday afternoon. In it, they called on Obama backers not to surrender their vote.

    They say on the radio spot that they intend to vote "uncommitted" and give Obama a chance to compete for those delegates in Denver.

    An "uncommitted" vote would take the place of a write-in, which is not permitted."

    [ Parent ]

    Link supporting your view? (1.00 / 0) (#130)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:32:55 PM EST
    Candidates can't withdraw from Florida's primary without taking themselves off the November ballot as well.
    St. Pete Times, October 10 2007

    ----

    State law allows candidates who wish to withdraw from the Florida primary to do so by filing an affidavit stating that he or she is not a candidate for President of the United States of America. In other words: to get off the ballot in Florida, a candidate has to swear that he or she isn't running for President.
    FL Dems

    [ Parent ]
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:57:45 PM EST
    PDF - Florida Federal Qualifying Handbook

    You will notice that the parties have until October 31st to submit the names. I know the Dems voted on October 28th to approve who was on the ballot. That means they submitted the list between the 28th and 31st (I know I read somewhere the exact day they submitted it but I can't say for sure and I won't guess since it doesn't really matter).

    After that, you will see from page 3, to remove a name you must sign an affidavit to not run for office by Nov 12th. But you only need to sign that to be removed AFTER your name is submitted. The FDP didn't vote until the 28th (here's a link kind of mentioning it) at the end of the convention.


    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#208)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:48:18 PM EST
    I'm sure you're giving your honest interpretation, and am left wondering how a political reporter at the St. Petersburg Times could have gotten it wrong on 10/10.  At that early date, she wrote matter-of-factly that it was too late to withdraw.

    Also in googling around in search of understanding, I found this thread:

    "I am fairly certain the Florida rules did not allow any of the candidates to remove their names from the ballot...." - standingup

    "You are correct.  This was reported on this very site."  - BTD

    "Yes you are right.  I deleted my comment suggesting otherwise since it was wrong."  - Jeralyn

    I really don't get any enjoyment of beating a dead horse, but unfortunately it looks like the controversial MI and FL votes may be decisive, making these questions important.  Wish I could find the relevant thread here.

    [ Parent ]

    The press gets things wrong. (none / 0) (#215)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:53:13 PM EST
    I was one of the first people (if not first as I looked up the info in the code instead of reading it somewhere) over on dKos saying they couldn't remove their names. You'll see my post is from 10/9/07 which I think was the day they removed their names. So obviously its an easy mistake to make. :D  Thats my excuse anyway.

    One would need to know the timing of the events in order to know that the names hadn't been submitted at that time. It wasn't until later that month that I read the ballot was being voted on by the FDP. I took December off from posting but was posting in January of this year that they could have asked for removal of their names prior to the FDP submitting the list.

    I've searched and never found anything that discounts that they could have asked for their names not to be on the list (Gore's people declined to be on the list). Keep in mind they only have to sign the affidavit if they are asking to be off the primary ballot after the state has their names. That is the rule everyone is talking about when they say they couldn't remove their name. But nothing I've seen demands they be on the primary ballot in the first place. And the parties have full control over which names to submit.

    If someone has some information that says otherwise, I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong. But I've yet to see it (the info not me being wrong of course).

    [ Parent ]

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:30:27 PM EST
    And that is the real reason

    [ Parent ]
    But the Obama camp did campaign (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:42:38 PM EST
    in MI -- they encouraged supporters to vote "uncommitted"

    [ Parent ]
    Campaign (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    in MI, they did.  Edwards and Obama set up phone banks to get out the vote for uncommitted.

    [ Parent ]
    Enough already (4.33 / 6) (#76)
    by xspowr on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:43:42 PM EST
    Obama himself characterized his decision to remove his name from the MI ballot as an "additional commitment" and not as a requirement of the Four State Pledge. This fact has also been linked here before, repeatedly. Nothing in the pledge required candidates to remove their names from the ballots in either FL or MI. You embarrass yourself and your candidate with this sophistry and misstatement of fact.

    [ Parent ]
    I think the people (none / 0) (#211)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:05:42 PM EST
    who should feel embarrassed are those who think the January 15 MI vote should count in any way, shape or form after even Hillary Clinton said it "wasn't going to count for anything."

    Link.

    When right wingers tell citizens their votes won't count, then count the results anyway, true democrats rightly call it vote suppression.  MI 1/15 is a poisoned well.

    [ Parent ]

    But (none / 0) (#212)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:22:56 PM EST
    she didn't tell the voters their votes wouldn't count.  It's unlikely that a single Michigan voter heard that comment.

    This is strictly a game of gotcha.  People don't lose their right to vote based upon what some candidate said on a radio show.

    [ Parent ]

    Cue Mr. McKinnon: (none / 0) (#226)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:19:55 PM EST
    "Every day they run a primary campaign, we run a general election campaign," explained Mark McKinnon, McCain's senior media adviser, as the campaign bus rolled through Kentucky. "And every day we run a general election campaign is a good day for us."


    [ Parent ]
    Then the DNC... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by NWHiker on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:32:24 PM EST
    pledge should have said exactly that: not to campaign and to remove their names. It did not.

    As an Edwards supporter (could Clinton and Obama just drop out and release their delegates to Edwards, please?), I was pissed when I found out he'd removed his name, even if the votes weren't too count, because I thought it would be good to win there, even if it didn't count. So I'm not going to be blame Clinton (my current preferred candidate) for leaving her name on there. It made no sense to remove it.

    [ Parent ]

    Spin (1.00 / 0) (#66)
    by mattt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    pledge should have said exactly that: not to campaign and to remove their names. It did not.
    I guess that depends on what you think "pledge I shall not campaign or participate" means.

    pledge text

    [ Parent ]

    Call the DNC and ask if she broke the pledge. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:00:03 PM EST
    If so, also ask them what penalty was applied for breaking the pledge. Or look it up online. No one is trying to spin you.

    [ Parent ]
    IMHO (none / 0) (#30)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    a "fair" way to count the popular vote would be:

    1. Count all the votes from FL;
    2. Count HRC's votes from MI and split the "uncommitteds" depending on how many other candidates were on the ballot; and
    3. Get the real popular vote tallies from the caucus states and add them in.

    I don't know who would win in that case, but I highly doubt that Obama would be boasting of a large popular vote lead. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    There are actually exit polls from MI (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    I think the number was 35% Obama. So he got about 2/3 of the uncommitteds. The other third to Edwards, et al. Since the popular vote is just a rough metric to be factored in by SuperDs, if they so choose, then that is close enough, I would think.

    It would be a 57-43 split if you want to prorate it to just Clinton-Obama. Not horribly out of line with OH and PA seeing how they turned out after being carpet-bombed by Obama ads.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope (none / 0) (#126)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:29:45 PM EST
    I'm sorry but there really is no way to estimate what Obama would have gotten in MI.  The best, though still very imperfect way, would be to give all the uncommitted votes to Obama.  I think this might offset the absent "having-your-name-on-the-ballot" bump.
    But I stand by my original position that MI is just uncountable as far as the pop vote.  

    [ Parent ]
    That's the perfect argument (none / 0) (#155)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:09:30 PM EST
    For having a revote - WAIT!  Obama stalled that too. So now what?

    [ Parent ]
    Aw, because the Dems who voted GOP (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:43:55 PM EST
    after being encouraged by a top blog would not be allowed to vote Dem? Ha. It would have been a got'ca moment. That was one of the first kinks in the armor. I could not believe that Markos did that because we were suppose to be so above that sort of Republican tacit. In the end, the standards were lowered and people thought it was fun.

    [ Parent ]
    If you listen (none / 0) (#186)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:02:15 PM EST
    carefully to Hillary, you will hear her check move.

    She will not get out of the race until MI and FL are resolved.

    Check.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Resolving the MI Popular Vote (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Petey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:09:31 PM EST
    I'm happy to give Obama two thirds of the uncommitted vote in Michigan.  I'd even go up to a probably overly generous three quarters of the uncommitted MI vote if that's what's necessary for fairness' sake.

    I'd go with 3/4 (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:45:43 PM EST
    Polling supports this. Beyond that, there were certainly discouraged Obama voters (including some who voted for Hillary), but there were also discouraged Hillary voters (who would have boosted HRC's pop margin had they not stayed home). ANd Obama was the only candidate on-air in MI with an active (surrogate) "Vote Uncommitted for Obama" organization.

    [ Parent ]
    Elections have consequences! (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    I'm impressed.  I hope the SuperDs are too.

    Not absurd (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:10:39 PM EST
    Caucus votes cannot be mixed with primary votes because the are not the same animal.  As to MI, I agree that is difficult to give HRC those votes, but it's not her fault that BO decided for political reasons to take his name off the ballot.  I see no reason to penalize HRC for his mistake.

    Given the Mix (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by The Maven on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:41:11 PM EST
    across all the primaries of open, partially-open and closed primaries, which can make the question of sorting out who the actual Democrats voted for, I think it's within reason to include figures from caucus states where the individual vote counts were released to the public.  Many of the caucus states did this, which means a vote could theoretically be matched to a specific individual (and some of those states even had secret ballots at their caucuses, entirely unlike Iowa).

    In the cases of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington, the only official numbers made available were for delegates selected for the next round of caucusing (at the county or district level), thus relegating the cumulative margin of 110K for Obama from those four to the realm of speculative guesswork.  It would be nice if the traditional media could acknowledge this, instead of counting it as representing actual "votes".

    [ Parent ]

    Also, RCP uses the ESTIMATED (none / 0) (#169)
    by seeker on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:29:48 PM EST
    WA caucus votes.  Clinton won the primary a bit later, but that had no delegates attached.  So Clinton is the preferance of VOTERS.  But Obama gets credit for the flawed caucus.  

    [ Parent ]
    Peeing in the Punchbowl (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:16:17 PM EST
    Obama saw that he wasn't going to get most of the punch, so he decided to add his own ingredient, and poisoned the vote.

    OBAMA - GOTV or PTV?

    [ Parent ]

    Nor is it her fault that Obama nixed a re-vote (none / 0) (#85)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:47:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh by the way, congratulations to Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:13:14 PM EST
    Those $10 million dollars are a huge figure that was well deserved.  I will continue donating until she wins the nomination!

    Cha-ching! (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:54:58 PM EST
    I deposited some money in the ATM today!

    It was so much fun, I just may add some more money to Hillary's fundraising tomorrow.

    [ Parent ]

    More Hyperbole (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by Petey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:13:44 PM EST
    Here's an interesting example today from Ambinder of Obama's odd tick of unnecessary hyperbole:

    Here's Barack Obama, speaking to CNN's Roland Martin: "We have won the white, blue collar vote in a whole bunch of states" ... Atlantic Media's Ron Brownstein notes to me in an e-mail that, according to the exit polls, Obama has won the white non college voting bloc (e.g., white blue collar voters) in Wisconsin -- 52% -- and lost them everywhere else, even in Illinois
    No one has done more (5.00 / 10) (#43)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:29:16 PM EST
    for the blue-collar votes than Obama. :)

    [ Parent ]
    Gawd (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:36:33 PM EST
    If Hillary had told that fib it would be the Bosnia thing all over again.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    anytime folks are talking about the popular vote tally, and validating that as a method of deciding who wins, I am happy.  It also keeps the question of Florida and Michigan out there.  As BTD said back in 1803, when this all began, Obama not having MI and FL resolved is going to haunt him.

    I think they are just flying by the seat of their pants now.  Bring on the popular vote talk!  It shows to everyone who glances at the pie chart just how freakin' close this race is.

    Wow... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    1803?  Maybe this primary has been going on too long.

    [ Parent ]
    The Louisiana Purchase (none / 0) (#206)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:39:39 PM EST
    must have made for a very good year for Kathy and Armando both, spurring them to begin discussion of how to take back the White House from those Jeffersonian demography-is-manifest-destiny types  205 years later.  These things take time, after all -- as then, off went Lewis and Clark and Sacajawea on that pesky expedition that meant a little detour into opening the West, eventually even including Bleeding Kansas, so that a family might move there one day and raise the Sainted Mother of Obama . . . and the rest is, as they say, history.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think it's any more absurd (5.00 / 10) (#27)
    by MaxUS on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:19:57 PM EST
    than arguing that CA SDs should choose Obama because of how people caucused in Idaho. That's pretty much what insisting that the race for pledged delegates should be the supreme indicator of the public will.

    In fact, considering that he got zero votes in MI by his own doing, I'll go so far as to suggest that it's less absurd.

    It's arguable that he won support in IA as a result of his pandering stunt with MI. Many of his own supporters have made the case that his result in IA helped to make his case in SC which, in turn, put him in a winning position for the February races.

    I see him as having gone all in with his MI move. It paid off in the short term but might not be quite enough in the end. Oh, well. Hillary, paid the price in the early states and now is being expected to pay again? Hopefully, the Supers will be persuaded not to buy that.

    Whether they count for delegates or not, voters voted, period. If voters couldn't vote for Obama because he took his name off the ballot, that's not anybody's fault but his own.

    The popular vote is not subject to DNC rules, it is what it is, and Obama made a mistake.

    Exactly. It was a strategy for Super Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:42:06 PM EST
    to be all tied up by then, because of his exploitation of caucuses.  But he couldn't close it then or since.  So actions have consequences, and he just will have to live with this one while he tries again to close up the race.  Or not.  Tough, but as my dad used to say, that's life in a great democracy.

    [ Parent ]
    Bottom line: (5.00 / 5) (#28)
    by Jim J on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    Someone's gonna have to swallow their pride for Dems to win this fall.

    I'm hearing the good ol' "you-know-who is going to riot if Obama doesn't get the nomination" talk from the fanboyz. The playing of the violence/fear-of-a-black-planet card is a sure indicator of their own fear at Obama's core weakeness, which they desperately try to paper over with these hysterical calls for HRC to drop out prematurely.

    I also know for a fact that many Clinton supporters, rightly in my opinion, are so disgusted by her treatment by the Obama/MSM/blogosphere nexus that they will either not vote for him or actively support McCain as the lesser of the two evils.

    I have said from the beginning that this was all coming down to a HRC/Obama joint ticket. I still think it's the only formula for a Dem win, though it certainly seems unlikely now.

    And no, this is not off-topic, because I'm addressing the endgame, which is the subject of the post.

    And no, Kos isn't right. He is never right. About anything. Period.

    Impressive numbers by Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:20:45 PM EST
    Impressive fundraising. I hope there is money left for whoever wins vs. McCain!

    She has $24 million for GE (none / 0) (#149)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:59:31 PM EST
    contributed earlier which she cannot touch for the primaries.  And if the contributions that poured in after Pennsylvania is any indication, she will do even better when she becomes the nominee.  

    [ Parent ]
    I have no doubt. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:00:37 PM EST
    I think either one of them will be flooded with money when the nominee is chosen. I was sort of being tongue in cheek :)

    [ Parent ]
    My Math (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:22:06 PM EST
    Clinton 15473426
    Obama 15264155

    Includes: Florida, Texas Primary (not caucus), Washington Primary (not caucus), Michigan (uncommitted not given to anyone), caucuses except Iowa, Nevada, Maine.

    While I agree the 3 states who haven't released their votes should be included, I think uncommitted in Michigan is debatable. Of course a revote might have solved that. :D

    But just to give that figure, if I give Obama all the Michigan uncommitted votes the totals become:

    Clinton 15473426
    Obama 15502323

    This is the very problem (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:33:13 PM EST
    with the entire popular vote argument.  There are too many ways to figure out that vote.  Who is to say which is the "proper" way?  

    Of course the supers are the one that will decide which argument to use.  They'll decide based on who they like, who will be best for them and their state, etc.  They are as divided as the rest of the party.  

    [ Parent ]

    Not hard (none / 0) (#84)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:46:51 PM EST
    The proper way is to count as many as possible.

    I went to each state/party site and took their figures. If there was a primary I used that figure (more people). For a caucus I used votes if given. I didn't estimate otherwise.

    No guesses or estimates. Just the votes as they have been cast. There is a real problem if we can't figure out how to count votes. Seems simple to me. People vote. We count the votes.

    [ Parent ]

    But the standard for winning the nomination (none / 0) (#104)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    is reaching the appropriate number of delegates.  That is the way it was decided for Bill Clinton, for Al Gore, for John Kerry, it will be the standard this time.  

    Neither candidate will have enough state earned pledged delegates to reach that total so it will be decided by the SDs.  Some SDs may use the popular vote total to decide, some may not (OK Gov went for Obama today).  She needs a greater percentage of these SDs than him since he is ahead.

    As such, I don't see the argument that Michigan should be counted for Hillary and nothing given for Obama as persuasive to anyone but diehard Clinton supporters.  

    Perhaps I'm wrong and, if so, we should be seeing a number of SDs endorse her soon.

    [ Parent ]

    BO has managed to block FL & MI delegates (none / 0) (#110)
    by katiebird on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:15:52 PM EST
    But he can't keep the SuperDelegates from considering ANY factors they want when making their decisions.

    Hillary's making sure the super delegates know the impact of blocking those states.  And how much of that vote belonged to her.

    This is TOTALLY Obama's fault.  He took his name off the ballot AND he blocked revotes.

    Maybe now that it might actually affect HIM, something will be done about it.

    Again, Super Delegates don't have to base their vote on anything.  

    [ Parent ]

    We agree that the SDs (none / 0) (#114)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:21:29 PM EST
    don't have to base there vote on anything. Of course the Supers can use whatever yardstick they want for deciding their vote.  

    That is is TOTALLY Obama's fault is an argument that will not be persuasive to the SDs, IMO.  

    [ Parent ]

    should be... their vote on anything. (none / 0) (#120)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:25:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Its the fault... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:25:05 PM EST
    of everyone who tried to rush the primary.

    [ Parent ]
    YES! What was the purpose (none / 0) (#122)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:28:01 PM EST
    for Michigan to move up the primary knowing it would lose the chance to seat delegates?  Why did it do that?  The Gov is a Hillary supporter -- was it engineered to help her?  

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, Michigan is faulted for doing it (none / 0) (#135)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:36:15 PM EST
    because it got caught. Iowa and New Hampshire slid right by daddy Dean, though. Preferential treatment?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure what you mean (none / 0) (#139)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:41:39 PM EST
    I believe that those that go early in the primary lineup get less delegates then they would if they went later.  So Iowa and NH want to be the first primary -- if they were to agree to go later, they would be given some extra delegates as a reward.  Michigan wanted to go early, they were warned not to do so.  They were told their delegates wouldn't be seated and they went ahead and did so.

    Do I think the process is studpid?  Yep. But it is what we are in now and the game needs to be played out.

    If you're implying preferential treatment for Obama that would be no.  Was he even running when the schedule was devised?  

    [ Parent ]

    I was implying preferential treatment (none / 0) (#182)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:56:10 PM EST
    for Iowa and New Hampshire: they were allowed to move their primary dates up, but Florida and Michigan were penalized. I don't understand why two were allowed, but another two were denied--unless the justification is that Iowa and New Hampshire are historically special (and must be for all time). But that seems weak.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep they are special (none / 0) (#198)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:58:17 PM EST
    because they are first but I have no idea why.  But they don't want to lose those spots.  The party does have a say in how the Dem primaries are run.  They allowed Iowa and NH to move up (why I don't know) and MI and FL knew the penalty and didn't care.  IMO they thought the nominee was going to be Hillary and they didn't think it would be much of a contest so they wanted to get their primaries in before she had it sewn up.  Little did they know...

    [ Parent ]
    Fine... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:41:58 PM EST
    take those votes away too.  Whatever it takes to stop people from blaming Obama for the MI and FL trying to rush their primary.  He had nothing to do with that decision, and it was that decision that has caused this mess.  

    Id love it if they hadnt have screwed up and those votes could have gone to HRC.  Then maybe this thing could have been over sooner and we could all start leveling our guns to where they belong, McSenile.

    [ Parent ]

    I wasn't blaming Obama for the mess in my comment (none / 0) (#184)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:58:24 PM EST
    And, personally, I don't level all the blame against him, either. Nearly all of it resides squarely on the shoulders of the DNC, but Obama has been obstinate in trying to remedy the situation. For that, I do hold him accountable.

    [ Parent ]
    The purpose was (none / 0) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM EST
    that for 7 (almost 8)years Carl Levin and other prominent Michigan Democrats have been asking the DNC to redo the primary calendar so that Iowa and New Hampshire aren't always first. They weren't necessarily advocating that Michigan go first, but more along the lines of regional rotating primaries.  7 years ago, the DNC said they would look into it after the election. They never did and never got back to Levin. (Wouldn't it be nice for your state of Indiana to get a little retail politics for once?)

    Then 3 years ago, the same group went back to the DNC and asked again - they were promptly blown off.

    So this whole exercise was out of frustration that the DNC caters to the small number of voters in 2 small states every election year. (Yes, I know that either Iowa or NH has in their state constitution that they will always be first in the nation. But what if Rhode Island, as the smallest state, also put that in their constitution? Should that law be ignored?)

    Hopefully, the DNC will see the error(s) of this after this election and fix them, but since Dean and Brazile are in charge, I'm not holding my breath.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:22:51 PM EST
    that those two states having a monopoly on first primaries is bad and I'll be very happy if that ever changes.  However, regardless of the reasons as to why they rushed ahead, the fact is they still rushed ahead.  

    Obama had nothing to do with that decision, so if youre going to hate anyone for screwing up votes, blame those who did it, good intentions or not.

    [ Parent ]

    But Obama (none / 0) (#167)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:28:56 PM EST
    had the decision on a revote.  A plan was developed by the Governor and state legislature, who wanted both candidates' approval before they passed the legislation. HRC approved. Obama said he would agree to whatever the DNC decided. The DNC approved the plan, then Obama punted on the plan, so it never got voted on.

    This. debacle. falls. squarely. on. him. There could have been an equitable solution, and he refused to do it. Now he is running the clock out until they won't matter.

    [ Parent ]

    What revote plan... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:32:10 PM EST
    are you talking about?  Wasnt there some legal issues from Floridas own state laws preventing a revote?

    [ Parent ]
    "No deal reached on Michigan re-vote... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:37:25 PM EST
    (CNN)--Sen. Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House suffered a blow Thursday when Michigan's state Senate adjourned without passing a bill to schedule a new Democratic primary.  The Senate's inaction makes it nearly impossible that a re-vote will occur."

    That was from March 21, so there may be more recent info Im not aware of backing your claim.

    [ Parent ]

    Ok... (none / 0) (#177)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:43:21 PM EST
    the proposed revote would only allow those who didnt vote in the republican primary to vote, which would knock out many democrats from being allowed to vote.  So if HRC (someone I support for president, just like Obama) and her supporters are going to claim Obama doesnt want every vote to count, they have to look at how fair that specific proposed revote would be.

    [ Parent ]
    You're mistaken (none / 0) (#180)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:50:35 PM EST
    The people who voted in the Republican primary DID have their votes counted - for Mitt Romney, or Mike Hucakbee, or Ron Paul, or John McCain, or Rudy Guiliani, or Fred Thompson.  So your argument (as well as the Obama's camp) on this is specious.  You can't vote in both parties' primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    You cant count... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:57:29 PM EST
    previous votes in a REvote.  So it doesnt matter who they voted for before.  If theyre democrat, they have the right to have their votes counted.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#185)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    DNC rules (since Obama is so big on them) state a voter cannot vote in both the Republican and Democratic primary in the same election.

    And the Republicans aren't re-voting. Their votes have been certified - no double voting.

    [ Parent ]

    So now... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:02:54 PM EST
    youre arguing for DNC rules being enforced?  You cant have it both ways.

    [ Parent ]
    I was pointing out (none / 0) (#188)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:05:26 PM EST
    that Obama wanted it both ways.  

    [ Parent ]
    And... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:08:52 PM EST
    so do you it seems.  Look, Im personally blown away by HRCs tenasicy and would love to have her as president.  But if Obama gets it, well, its better than having 4-8 more years of McBush.  Thats my main point.

    [ Parent ]
    * tenacity... hate posting in a hurry n/t (none / 0) (#191)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:10:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Thanks and I do (none / 0) (#199)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:02:54 PM EST
    agree that the entire process needs fixing.  I'll be in MI (my homestate) visiting my family this weekend and I was going to ask about why it happened.  In all my discussions about politics with friends/family while in Michigan the subject of HOW it happened never came up.  

    And if the mess of this primary doesn't inspire the leaders to fix the process, nothing will.

    [ Parent ]

    The answer is (none / 0) (#163)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:22:03 PM EST
    this is really part of Sen. Levin's longstanding crusade to break the Iowa/NH stranglehold and get Michigan a better place in the process.  And while I'm biased, it does seem to me that Michigan is a great early state as it features quite a few of the most significant Democratic voting blocs.  Certainly more diverse than Iowa or NH, and a big union state.

    Anyway, here is the letter in which the MI Dems make their case to the DNC.  I think they really do have a point in that this is really about the fact that New Hampshire gets to run roughshod over the process, year in and year out, and no one says boo to them.  One of the biggest secrets of this whole election is that NH flagrantly violated the rules and got no punishment whatsoever.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with Sen. Levin on breaking (none / 0) (#201)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:06:34 PM EST
    the stranglehold of Iowa/NH.  Can you believe I interned at his office one summer year's ago?! I think we'd get better Dem candidates if MI was the first primary then the Iowa caucus.  We just disagree on who the better Dem is this time!  

    [ Parent ]
    It's not that longstanding for Iowa and NH (none / 0) (#209)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:50:08 PM EST
    as I well remember when Wisconsin and West Virginia went first and garnered the media buzz and bucks.

    Moses did not bring down from the mountain an 11th Commandment that thou Dems shalt meet in church basements in the worst of winter in the goshawful cold and snows of Iowa and New Hampshire to caucus, vote, or pass a hot dish, whichever.

    The DNC blew it by not living up to its promise to look again at the primary schedule, as it has done before.  But interestingly, the DNC gets to penalize states that waited and waited for action. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    It isnt about being persuasive (none / 0) (#115)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:22:59 PM EST
    It's about being fair to voters. I don't think people should be given votes they didn't actually earn.

    To take away those Clinton votes from Michigan is to deny every one of those voters their right to vote. They took the time to register, stand in line and cast their ballot. And because Obama decides to remove his name they shouldn't matter?

    No one made Obama sign that pledge. And no one, including the pledge creators, told him to remove his name. He screwed over his supporters in Michigan with that move. Should he now have a say in how many voters would have voted for him if he had allowed them to? Do we give him the votes of people who didn't want to vote for him? You can't just decide on a fair formula for giving away peoples votes.

    I included the figures giving (and it was a gift) Obama all the uncommitted even though I don't agree with it for those who prefer to do that.

    And btw, I am not a Clinton supporter much less diehard. I'm a Floridian who will not be voting for Obama or Clinton since the Dems don't seem to think voters matter more than rules. They decided to play with voters as if they didn't matter. Some are still doing it. But to me votes are sacred. And should be treated as such.  

    I don't think we'll see much activity from the SDs. Why should they act now, it doesn't seem politically wise at this point? Of course I could be wrong so we'll have to wait and see.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sure... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:29:36 PM EST
    all the American soldiers who'll die in Iraq and possibly Iran under a McMuffen administration will appreciate your misplaced principles.  

    [ Parent ]
    Nice (none / 0) (#153)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:08:55 PM EST
    Maybe if you stopped blaming the voters and actually worked towards earning votes this wouldn't be a problem. And btw, I'm still waiting for the Dems elected in 2006 who promised to do something to actually do something. But I'm sure your convincing and fact based argument is winning over plenty of voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Uhh... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:13:50 PM EST
    who are you talking to?  

    [ Parent ]
    Look At The Last Result (none / 0) (#128)
    by flashman on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:32:00 PM EST
    As such, I don't see the argument that Michigan should be counted for Hillary and nothing given for Obama as persuasive to anyone but diehard Clinton supporters.  

    His last totals gave ALL of the uncommetted votes to Obama.  Look at the results: 30 Million votes cast and less that 30 thousand seperating the two.  This means that with Hillary's big MO, she can easily catch Obama in the popular vote totals easily, EVEN giving him  MI's uncommitted!

    [ Parent ]

    Yet (none / 0) (#107)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:14:25 PM EST
    in this very thread composed of like-minded Hillary supporters there are several different "totals" comprised several different ways.  Which one is valid?  

    [ Parent ]
    Mine :D (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:27:22 PM EST
    Mine, of course. :D

    Its why I added it myself. To actually see the figures and the sources for the figures instead of taking someone else's word for it. I have the links for all my numbers if you are interested.

    Oh and even mine will change, if vote totals from states change. Or if I could get the votes from the 3 missing states. Or the next primary.

    But its not as if SDs are lurking here using our figures. Each SD will find their own reason and/or figures for whoever they endorse. The figures are for us to examine so that we remain fact based in our discussions. Or at least as fact based as we can.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the laugh! (none / 0) (#127)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:30:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That's up to the SDs to decide (none / 0) (#112)
    by Practically Lactating on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:19:31 PM EST
    not us, though we can all make a case for why we think one metric is better.

    [ Parent ]
    Or they may choose (none / 0) (#117)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:23:35 PM EST
    to ignore the entire popular vote argument and focus on which candidate they like, or who would help the Dem party in their state, or who would help them, who knows what they will choose.  

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry to reply twice (none / 0) (#123)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    I think its also important to note. As confusing as popular vote totals are, have you spent any time looking at how the pledged delegate totals are reached?

    [ Parent ]
    The system sucks! (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:34:41 PM EST
    The one good thing about this primary is that this pathetic system is exposed.  It should be changed.  But I don't want to change the rules during the game.

    [ Parent ]
    The system supersucks (none / 0) (#197)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:57:20 PM EST
    And yeah, I agree, too, that automatic delegates can support whoever they want for whatever reason they want.

    I understand about not wanting to change the rules now, but the rules say the rules can be changed at any time to prevent an election disaster. For example, the disaster the Dem nominee may face in the fall (and by extension, downticket Dems) by not counting primary votes in two big and often swing states.

    The DNC can change the rules anytime specifically because a primary is a selection, not an election, and the selection is about getting Dems elected.

    So, should we change the rules then? Should we lift the 100% delegate loss imposed by Donna Brazile et al now because the rules say those states should only lose 50% of their delegates?

    My questions all fit into the supersucking of this system. Trying to be all things to all people makes for bad rules.

    But what matters more: treating Dem primary voters in MI and FL fairl