home

There is No Nominee: On To The Five Remaining Primaries

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:00 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The media is not going to determine the future of the Democratic party. Voters are.

There are five states left to go. Hillary Clinton will do very well in Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Obama has a lead in Oregon. MT and SD are tiny.

The Democrats cannot expect to win Florida or Michigan in November if the 2.5 million who voted there don't have a say in choosing our nominee. They should be seated full-strength. And regardless of how the DNC decides to apportion their delegates, their popular vote count stands as is. The Democrats will not win in November without Florida and/or Michigan.

The Democrats need PA and Ohio. Hillary can win those states and other big swing and toss-up states. Barack Obama's ability to win them is unknown. He's untested. Hillary may have shown him how to be a stronger candidate, but she can't guide him to the finish line, no matter how hard she campaigns for him if he's the nominee. [More...]

Superdelegates can make up their mind any time before the convention. They can switch, as many have done, from one candidate to another.

We need a Democrat back in the White House. Hillary Clinton has shown in all of the big states except Obama's home state of Illinois, that she is the stronger candidate in these states. And if she's the candidate, Democrats will likely win Illinois as well.

We are getting down to the wire. Superdelegates were given the responsibility of voting for the nominee who has the best chance of winning the presidency. It's not just a matter of pledged delegates in the individual races.

The candidate who can win back the presidency in November is Hillary Clinton. The Superdelegates need to slow down, and the voters of the remaining 5 states need to come out in force. And the DNC needs to come to its senses and end this charade of a 48 state vote. This nation was founded on the principle of one person, one vote. Every vote needs to be honored. That's the American way.

Comments now closed.

< Childers Wins MS-01 Race | Media Misses the Electoral Map Issues >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    There is No Nominee: On To The Five Remaining Primaries | 202 comments (202 topical)
    Thank You! (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:21:18 PM EST
    Thank you for this postive post! You are 100% correct! There is no WINNER until one candidate crosses the FINISH LINE! That finish line is in AUGUST! Until then, there is no winner! The number to target is 2209. Superdelegates can endorse whoever they wish now, but ultimately is their vote in August which COUNTS! They can change at ANY TIME until that vote! Hillary is in this til the end and we must support her all the way!

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    "That finish line is in AUGUST! Until then, (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by tornsneaker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:44 PM EST
    there is no winner."  Absolutely! The MSM still acts as if they don't understand the process - are they just dumb, or co-opted?  We need to get them to stop falsifying the nominating process.

    Parent
    We need to do it quickly. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by itsadryheat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:50:17 PM EST
    Donna Brazille said on CNN tonight that the number is 2025 until the rules committee meets May 31.  She then said that Obama will reach 2025  on May 20th and will therefore win the nomination.  When questioned she insisted those were the rules.  She said Michigan and Florida would have nothing to do with it because they have no voice till May 31!

    Nobody corrected her.  There are two ways to be the nominee: cause all other candidates to concede or win the vote count at the convention.  There is no other path to the nomination.  Just guessing that you might win some number that will not be the real number at the convention and to guess it four months early and then have a rally and crown yourself is ...what?  Isn;t there a name for that?

    Cannot believe there was nobody on the tv set who could see that they had just been totally bamboozled by Brazille and Obama.  We have very little time to teach Anderson and Wolf and John and Tweety and Campbell and Suzanne that you win an election to be the nominee AFTER the election, unless no one else is running.  If you "take the title" earlier, you stole it.

    Parent

    CNN??!! (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:31 PM EST
    Don't expect any truth to come out of the screen of CNN! And especially don't expect any truth to come out of the mouth of Donna B - massive Obama supporter who continues to fraudulently parade herself on CNN as a "neutral pundit". Disgraceful.

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    Parent

    look what CNN considers slim - lol (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:21 PM EST
    (CNN) -- Exit polling shows Hillary Clinton winning a slim majority of independent voters in West Virginia's Democratic primary. Eighteen percent of the voters in today's Democratic contest identified themselves as independents; they went for Clinton over Obama, 53 percent to 40 percent.

    Parent
    Welcome to the (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Rhouse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:40 PM EST
    UNDEMOCRATIC Party, with your host Howard D. and Donna B.  Sit back, turn off critical mental functions and have a drink, cause cognitive thinking is bad and won't get you a pony.

    Parent
    They LIE. (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:01 PM EST
    No, the media is not dumb. They just lie and misrepresent reality so as to to further inflate the candidacy of Barack Obama. It's shameful & irresponsible. And they should never be forgiven for colluding with Barack Obama in this political HOAX! Wake up America! Who is control - YOU or the MEDIA?!? Make a choice! There is now a very long list of reporters who should be completely discredite as "journalists" and "reporters" for their shockingly biased and dishonest "journalism" and "reporting" throughout this election. Clearly many of them skipped the ETHICS classes at journalism school because so many of them have stooped to a level which is beyond trashy, and into the zone of being UNFORGIVEABLE in their LIES about this election!

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    Parent

    Uh, few j-schools require an ethics course (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:42:21 PM EST
    or even offer one.  Sad but true.  I used to teach in the field and fought for such a course, to no avail.

    A course in ethics is one of the criteria of a true profession.  Journalism thus remains only a trade.

    And as for the broadcast track, I will not depress you with what are the required courses in too many journalism schools -- if they even take journalism.  Many come from other degree programs . . . if they have degrees.  I fear that more spend more time in makeup classes.

    Parent

    A Stellar Win with Big Gains in Popular Vote Count (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:49:10 PM EST
    I'm just glad the pundits in cable "news" have such a small audience. They sure can make a great victory, and an obvious shift of the winds into a downer.


    Parent
    Puerto Rico's Promise (none / 0) (#92)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:10 PM EST
    If Hillary is now running at almost 70% in Puerto Rico - about 2.2 million voters or so - can't she pick up a net gain of about 700,000 votes there?

    Parent
    I doubt the net gain would go that high... (none / 0) (#121)
    by rafaelh on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:14 PM EST
    People love to vote back in PR, but the average participation does go down a bit when it's not the general elections. And the national parties don't have that much meaning for a lot of people back there. Heck, I considered myself to be a Republican until I moved to the states and saw what their policies stood for. (I was very religious, anti-abortion back in PR, which had something to do with it.)

    I've been talking to a lot of friends and family and they don't seem as excited as people here. My sister wasn't even planning on going to vote. I tried to talk her into it but let's see what happens.  

    Back to the situation in PR, I think she'll win big but I doubt she might reach 70%. We had a woman governor and there were a lot of the usual misogynistic attitudes against her. (That said, that governor really sucked, so not all attacks against her were anti-women.) But those attitudes might affect Hillary.

    A couple of weeks is a lot in those circumstances, a lot will depend on the coverage here and the view of her chances to actually take the nomination.

    Parent

    Oh Jeralyn, (5.00 / 16) (#2)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:22:17 PM EST
    Brava! Clear, cogent, and unarguable.

    You must be one heck of an attorney. :-)

    Hillary And Jeralyn Both Deserve Kudos.... (5.00 / 10) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:30 PM EST
    Hillary gave a helluva speech and we can't let her down....no matter how small our contribution either by way of money or time spent volunteering.
    Really, I can't think of anyone who could ever deserve our support more....She is at 38% over obama right now!!

    YES SHE WILL!!!

    Parent

    Send this to the NY Times Editorial page (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:22:23 PM EST


    Please go vote for Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Cate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:49:56 PM EST
    at CNN.com!

    Parent
    Amen! (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:24:14 PM EST
    I am literally sitting here slack-jawed at how stupid the MSM and people from Obamaland are in terms of being incapable of seeing the "elephant" in the room.

    Obama cannot win.  And yet they continue to march, like lemmings to the sea, toward defeat.

    I would really love to hear from someone who can (try and) explain this to me.

    They Know (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:01 PM EST
    But, they are so far into this fraud they can't - or their egos will not allow them to - back out now.

    Parent
    Welcome to the democratic party (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:27 PM EST
    Snatching defeat from jaws of victory since 1980...

    Parent
    C'mon, Give Them Credit (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:28:29 PM EST
    They've been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since at least 1972.

    Parent
    36 years (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:29:37 PM EST
    and counting! Woo hoo!

    Oh. Wait.

    I might even give them 1968 although RFK was not exactly our fault.

    Parent

    It's a proud democratic tradition (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:30:28 PM EST
    losing, that is. Why ruin our beautiful track record?

    Parent
    They still don't know (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    why Democrats vote.

    Parent
    Democrats love underdogs (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:10 PM EST
    but better yet, to be one!  Having power, wealth, and success brings on the vertigo...

    Parent
    "I Can't Hear You"..la..la..la (5.00 / 8) (#98)
    by Athena on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:06 PM EST
    Best discussion tonight was Greta and Susan Estrich.  It was focused on the obvious fact that Obama has a lead built on red caucuses while Hillary has hard-won the big blue states.

    There is a willful indifference to the electoral potential of Hillary vs. Obama.  The tank is big and deep, and the chatter class is drowning in it.

    Parent

    damn, I am sorry I missed that (none / 0) (#111)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:55 PM EST


    Parent
    I Wish I Still Believed the Party Cared about Nov. (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:00 PM EST


    Huzzah (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:26:06 PM EST
    Let's hear it for THE PEOPLE deciding instead of the media. There's a movement I can get behind. Personally, I'm rootingfor Clinton so I can watch Tweety's head explode and KO cry.

    treated fairly? (5.00 / 8) (#114)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:06:27 PM EST
    The guy has been given every break there is.  

    Obama has shown the party that he won't fight to win in November.  

    As far as the superdelegates are concerned, far more important that tonight's margins is Obama's refusal to introduce himself to West Virginia voters.  Clinton is out there competing for every vote -- even in North Carolina, where everyone expected her to lose by wide margins, she was in that state, telling voter who she was, what she stood for, and that she cared about their votes.

    Obama has a massive problem with the kind of voters you find in West Virginia -- he should have been in that state campaigning 24/7, because one thing voters don't like is being ignored.  

    He should have done a listening tour -- gotten groups of Clinton supporters to learn how to reach them -- not to tell them about himself, but to listen to them away from the media.

    So the party owes him nothing.  He has chosen his own path, and its a path to defeat in November.

    Parent

    Absolutely correct. (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:13:55 PM EST
    They just don't get it - they have no idea about the hard work required to "win" and have simply been coasting on his initially "inspiring" speeches.

    The bloom is, indeed, off the rose!

    Parent

    thank you for bringing that up (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:14:25 PM EST
    I love how the Obama gang was excusing him for not campaigning in WV (in person, he did outspend Hillary 2-1, but they didn't mention that) because "he wasn't going to win anyway." I've said before: what the heck does that say about how he would be as President? If a difficult situation arose with little chance of success, would he just walk away from it? Ignore it? "Hope" for the best? And then say "yeah, we failed but that is ok because we didn't really try." WTF? I think it is disgraceful the way he handled WV and there is no excuse for it. I can't see how anyone in the remaining primaries would still vote for him after this un-presidential display.

    Parent
    Huge landslide victory (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:43 PM EST
    I think the results tonight were worse for Obama than many expected.  Despite the total pile-on by the media against Hillary for an entire week, his numbers didn't improve.  They actually became worse.

    The margins tonight are unprecedented.

    65%+ to 28%? Unelectable.

    Terrible Result for Obama! (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:51 PM EST
    The media-constructed "presumptive nominee" could not do better than 30%?!? Just goes to show what a complete SHAM the media coverage of this election is. A total DISGRACE! Obama outspent Clinton in West Virginia - as he does he everywhere - plus he had the MSM actively campaigning for him prior to the voting today (as he does for every primary). And he still LOST by more than 30 points! That's not just a loss - that is a complete flogging! But what this massive loss for Obama has done has highlighted once again the FRAUD which is the Obama/Media/DNC coalition! A total FRAUD!

    http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net

    Parent

    I'm following the results on (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Iphie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:50:38 PM EST
    the NYTimes website and her margin keeps on getting bigger. What will the media have to say if it's 40 or even more points? That's beyond a "thumping" as John King called it.

    Parent
    They will call it a "beauty contest".... (none / 0) (#185)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:46:54 PM EST
    ...the same term they used for her massive win in FL.

    I've already heard it used a couple times tonight.

    Parent

    The unity (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:07:05 PM EST
    pony is looking kind of like an old nag now.

    Parent
    Clarification. (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by sweetthings on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:22:12 PM EST
    The margins tonight are unprecedented.

    No, they're not. They're big, but not unprecendented. Obama won Hawaii 76% to 24%. He won Alaska 75% to 25%. He won Washington 68%
    to 31%, Georgia 67% to 31%, and Colorado 67% to 32%. In spite of all that, I doubt anyone would call Clinton unelectable.

    This is a big night for Clinton, but it doesn't mean Obama is doomed.

    Parent

    Clinton wasn't the "presumptive" (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:19 PM EST
    nominee in HI, in case you forgot. That is what makes Obama's shellacking in WV so bad for him. Plus, the American people know Obama a lot better now than they did then. Guess to know him is not necessarily to love him.

    Parent
    Apples to Apples Please (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:40 PM EST
    Those were caucuses. Give me break.

    Parent
    Georgia, I'll Give You (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:29:21 PM EST
    The rest were caucuses.   As Texas, Washington, and now Nebraska show, the margins in caucuses don't represent the true margins among democratic voters.

    Parent
    Which of those were Caucuses, (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by seeker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:18 PM EST
    where the entire number of voters was a few thousand?

    Parent
    CNN Poll (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:27:51 PM EST
    Who would do better against McCain?

    Vote:

    http://www.cnn.com

    Just did - thanks! (none / 0) (#69)
    by Cate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:50:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Too late, Obamatrons are (none / 0) (#160)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:28:53 PM EST

    shilling the vote.

    Parent
    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:48 PM EST
    ... but I think Hillary needs some external validation to claim the nomination that will convince a large majority of Democrats, including a majority of African Americans, that she is a legitimate nominee. Something to the effect of ...

    (1) She leads in the popular vote by a reasonable measure. This can include Florida and Michigan, but Obama has to get something out of Michigan. It won't appear fair otherwise.

    or maybe

    (2) Obama is clearly going to lose in November; i.e. polls show him trailing significantly by the time of the convention. While a lot of people believe that he'll be crushed by the GOP machine, that's not a strong enough argument without some data to back it up.

    Just my opinion, of course.

    winning the popular vote is part of Clinton plan (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    They keep saying they will be ahead in popular votes by the time everything is all settled.

    Parent
    Another thing to notice is (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Rhouse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:13 PM EST
    at this moment, Hillary is ahead in Nebraska.  Not by much, yet she's ahead with 30% of the vote in.  I wonder how they will spin it if she wins both?

    Please explain...their caucus was Feb 14. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:20 PM EST
    Is this the state convention?

    Parent
    Like Washington, NE has a primary (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:43:57 PM EST
    the democratic party just chooses to ignore it in favor of an undemocratic caucus.

    With 38% of the vote in, Obama and Clinton are tied at 48%.  You can see the results come in - here.

    Parent

    Well won't that just look good? He won the (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:46:22 PM EST
    caucus 68-32!

    Parent
    Those results worry me (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:58 PM EST
    It shows how red state caucuses do not represent the majority of people. She lost big in the caucus but is trailing by only 4 points in an actual vote.

    Maybe supers will realize this

    Parent

    It just adds to the proof that (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:35:26 PM EST

    caucuses are not representative of the people.

    WA Caucus results:

    Obama 67.51%........21,629 Delegates
    Clinton 31.2%..........9992 Delegates

    WA Primary Results:

    Obama: 51.22%..........354,112 votes
    Clinton: 45.67%..........315,744 votes

    (Uncommitted and other, I didn't include.)

    And now Nebraska.

    Parent

    First time for WA (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:07 PM EST
    This was the first time WA had both. WA is in the process of going to a mail-in/absentee voting process as the only way to vote in the state.

    The Republicans took the primary vote for their delegate selection, the Democrats took the caucus. Hillary lost both, but the vote by a much smaller margin. I'm hoping we've seen our last caucus.

    I just heard Donna Brazile say the May 31st meeting of the rules committee will be televised.


    Parent

    I hate to say this (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:35 PM EST
    and let me defend myself by saying I've been phone banking for hours on end for the last three weeks, but...Nebraska?

    Parent
    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Emma on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:21 PM EST
    What is up w/Nebraska?  I don't get what's going on.

    Parent
    The process for (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Benjamin3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:52:34 PM EST
    selecting the actual delegates to the convention is a 3-step process in some states - and delegates can move or change.  For example, Obama was able to nab more delegates out of Iowa, I think about 8 or 9.  If Hillary is grabbing more delegates out of Nebraska as the process goes on - it shows people are changing their minds.  Buyer's remorse anyone?

    Parent
    AOL? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by thentro on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:43:43 PM EST
    Obama won that NE caucus in February. The Repubs are having one tonight.

    but there is this from AOL:
    http://news.aol.com/elections/primary/state/ne

    Wha?

    Parent

    Democrats Are Having One, Too (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by BDB on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:30 PM EST
    It's just like so many votes in the democratic primary process doesn't count.  Much better to allocate delegates according to a process that soldiers, police, and nurses can't participate in.

    Parent
    Results here ... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by dwmorris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:00 PM EST
    http://news.aol.com/elections/primary/state/ne

    Huge swing to Clinton, even if she loses by a narrow margin.

    I hope the Clinton surrogates push this story hard tomorrow!

    I wonder how the Obama camp will spin this result away?

    Parent

    The real nut in these results... (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:54:12 PM EST
    ...is what they might auger for SD and MT (both primaries).

    Parent
    So then (none / 0) (#183)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:44:55 PM EST

    the primary vote MUST count in the popular vote count, right?  The people did vote, is Obama gonna disenfranchise them, too?

    Parent
    Shellacking (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by DCDemocrat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:34:01 PM EST
    The universe anoints Barack Obama our nominee, and the members of the party who have a chance to vote say, "Wait a minute."  This did not happen to John Kerry.  We all were on-board fairly early on.  The Party ignores us Hillary supporters at its peril.

    Excellent point (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by lambertstrether on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:58 PM EST
    Kerry would have been better and the party stronger (or even a stronger nominee) with an extended campaign.

    Parent
    wishful thinking (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by pluege on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:34:35 PM EST
    The media is not going to determine the future of the Democratic party. Voters are.

    the media always picks the democratic nominee. They ran out the progressive - Edwards, and they have the strongest candidate against mccain - HRC, in an insurmountable position while fomenting division among democrats. So explain again how they're not picking the nominee.

    Obama hasn't won. (4.20 / 5) (#32)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Wow Jeralyn (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:13 PM EST
    "Hillary may have shown him how to be a stronger candidate, but she can't guide him to the finish line, no matter how hard she campaigns for him if he's the nominee."

    Absolutely.  She can't make her voters vote for him.  And clearly many of us will not according to the polls.  And they ain't bluffing.  I live in PA and he would get his butt kicked in NEPA.

    Clinton country would turn to McCain country.

    They love their churches, guns and flags here and they really respect honesty.  He lied to them about the oil ad and they knew it and they will not forget it.

    largest turnout in florida's history (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:20 PM EST
    for a primary.

    that's what wolfson said on cnn.  

    folks, this is your strongest florida argument yet.  people voted.   not allowing those votes to count is unamerican, no matter how you feel about the issue.  how can anybody really look at this and say ignoring millions of voters is a good thing?  

    seriously (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:45 PM EST
     if you woke up from a coma today and didn't know squat about the race but somebody told you that florida had a record turnout for their election but they weren't going to count it because of some rules they just sort of made up along the way, you'd think they were lying wouldn't you?

    ps. you've been in the coma since before the 2000 election.

    Parent

    CHANGING THE RULES (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:49:36 PM EST
    here is it folks.  listen carefully.

    the big argument is that florida simply broke the rules so now hillary wants to change the rules.

    i ask you this, where in the original rules did it say millions of florida voters wouldn't have a say?

    the easy counter to the rule changing argument is that the DNC changed the rules first!  seriously, go with it.

    Parent

    Exactly. Brazile, et al., DID change rules (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:27 PM EST
    after those primaries were scheduled, when the DNC penalty was like that in the GOP: lose half of the delegates.

    Not until last fall -- October, as I recall -- did Brazile and her lackeys on the Rules and Bylaws Committee change the rule, amending it to all of the delegates.

    As many of us saw here, that meeting is on video, in the C-Span archives.  It shows exactly what was done and who did it -- an Obama super-delegate made the amending motion, Brazile spoke most forcefully (and quite unpleasantly and disrespectfully to the Florida state chair) for it.  Then the same thing was followed as a precedent for Michigan.

    I really cannot stand the Obamans who claim that the current situation is following the rules.  They are either really low-information voters, if they do not know that the rules were changed.  Or they're outright liars.

    Parent

    CHANGING THE RULES II (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:16:25 PM EST
    http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/michigan_democrat s_blast_dnc.php

    Quote:
    Two top Michigan Democrats, anticipating that the Democratic National Committee will strip them of all their convention delegates now that the state has scheduled its primary for Jan. 15, sent a letter to DNC chairman Howard Dean protesting the party's "selective enforcement" of its calendar rules.

    Sen. Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a member of the Democratic National Committee, write that New Hampshire's ostensible decision to move its primary before Jan. 19 -- the day the DNC currently schedules the primary -- violates the same rules that Michigan has run afoul of.

    "Someone has to take on New Hampshire's transparent effort to violate the DNC rules and to maintain its privileged position. Hopefully the DNC will, and you will, promptly urge our candidates to stop campaigning in New Hampshire because of the New Hampshire's expressed intent to violate the DNC rules," the two write.

    Quote:
    On August 19, 2006, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) set the dates for the selection of delegates to the 2008 Democratic nominating convention as follows:

    • at Iowa caucuses held no earlier than January 14, 2008;
    • at Nevada caucuses held no earlier than January 19;
    • at a New Hampshire primary held no earlier than January 22; and
    • at a South Carolina primary held no earlier than January 29.

    The Iowa caucuses were held on January 3
    The Nevada contest was held when it was supposed to on January 19
    The New Hampshire primary was held January 8
    The South Carolina primary was held on January 26

    Parent
    I wouldn't be surprised (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by akaEloise on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:36:34 PM EST
    if in another day or two, the media adjusts the storyline so that it becomes "Obama was prematurely anointed by party insiders, but our exclusive investigation shows that he is not in fact the inevitable nominee".

    The media have lost all semblance of (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Anne on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:37:43 PM EST
    objectivity, from what I have been reading tonight; without cable, I do not get to experience the execrable coverage, and for that I am grateful.

    It cheers me that the voters seem to be ignoring the talking heads who keep wanting this to be over - and that gives me hope that by the time all the primaries have ended, it will be hard for the superdelegates to come to the conclusion that Barack Obama is the party's best chance to win the WH in November.

    I don't think Obama is going to be able to put together a strong enough coalition of voters to be able to win in November.  He has so divided and polarized the party - is the intellectual, so-called "creative" class the only group he has not managed to offend?  It just boggles the mind.

    Despite all evidence suggesting that Obama needs to find the unity he's been selling, he just doesn't stop with the dismissive attitude.  Honestly, I just do not think I can deal with a president who will spend the next 4 years looking down his nose at us, I really don't.  After 8 years of watching my rights chipped away at, my privacy breached, my issues and my concerns taking a back seat to corporate CEO's, more people without insurance, I cannot stand the thought of a Republican president who take the hand-off from Bush, or a Democratic president who doesn't understand what being a Democrat means.

    Hope is found in people who truly know what it means to work together.  Change comes when hard-working people dig in for the long-haul and never take their eyes off the prize.  Health care.  The war.  The economy.  Energy.  Constitutional protections and civil liberties.  

    Unity is not wedge-shaped.

    Congrats to Hillary - onward and upward!

    Thank you, Jeralyn... (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by NYCDem11 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:38:15 PM EST
    for your optimism, sanity, and tenacity. I've been lurking on this blog for months and its been an emotional lifesaver. It's so rewarding to see that the people of West Virginia also agree that Senator Clinton is the best candidate to win in November and (more importantly IMHO) the absolute best to lead the nation.

    Pundits say you can't change a game at the end. It's not over. If she is blossoming and he is starting to fade, why is it so unfathomable that the super delegates actually vote their conscience?

    Either way, Senator Clinton proving that she's a mighty force...with grace and dignity.

    Tonight Obama's figures were as bad (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:38:56 PM EST
    as I expected. If Edwards hadn't been on the ballot, Hillary would have broken 70%.

    Not so good for the so-called "presumptive nominee."

    the media pundits must feel impotent (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:19 PM EST
    All the networks were blasting Hillary for an entire week telling Democrats it was all over and then 73% of West Virginia turned around and gave a collective "no thanks" to Obama as the nominee.

    I thought he would have made up SOME ground.  I really didn't think he wouldn't be at 27% of the votes.  But I made no predictions this time.  Just letting the voters speak is best.

    Parent

    How many times would we have heard (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:52 PM EST
    on every channel, if the situation were reversed, more than 70% voted against Clinton tonight!  More than a thousand is my guess...I did not hear anyone say it about Obama.

    Parent
    Dare I say (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:06:24 PM EST
    I firmly believe those media pundits are, in fact, impotent.

    (sorry if that is over the line, but it felt good saying it).

    Parent

    Worse than I could have (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:56 PM EST
    thought.  If 6% of the vote was AA, to get as low as 27% of the total vote, he tanked to what? 22.5% of the non-aa vote?  22.5 that just can't be right.  

    Well, the good news is it looks like Clinton will clear 200,000 votes.  :)

    Parent

    Obama is barely beating McCain in (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:40 PM EST
    the vote tally. That's even though he spent a fortune on TV and McCain was essentially uncontested.

    Parent
    With 84% of the vote in, (none / 0) (#190)
    by seeker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:51:11 PM EST
    he is now down to 26%.

    Parent
    I guess Lanny Davis meant it when he said he (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:40:32 PM EST
    wouldn't go on CNN again to take their unfair abuse.

    Good for him. It was disgusting (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by feet on earth on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Donna must have been warned, though (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:03 PM EST
    she even gave Hillary a compliment and said she could still win the support of the SD's to get herself the nomination.  Anderson had to specifically ask her a question to get her engaged in the conversation.

    I think CNN should have put her in a locked room and played all her nasty clips in a steady loop until even she could see how horrible her opinions come across.

    Bill is out in Montana doing some great stump speeches :)


    Parent

    I'm guessing her dress-down (none / 0) (#201)
    by Dawn Davenport on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:05:07 PM EST
    would have come from the good Dr. Dean, rather than CNN. As much as he's been in the Obama tank himself, he had the good sense to state that supers can vote on the basis of conscience, and that MI and FL will eventually count, even at diminished weights.

    Parent
    Wow... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Radiowalla on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:03:04 PM EST
    when did he say that?

    I missed it.

    Parent

    Last week after the IN and NC primaries. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:05:31 PM EST
    Anderson Cooper was a real as* to him and he said so the next day. Do a search because he gave a great interview about it.

    Parent
    I want to make a prediction: (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:01 PM EST
    Obama will not win a single county in West Virginia. Not. One.

    You've been quite good with the predictions (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:41 PM EST
    today.

    Congratulations! :-)

    Parent

    andgarden, and BTD was wrong when he (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:11 PM EST
    said no one would cover the WV race. Not overly flattering to Hillary, of course, but it is getting coverage everywhere.

    (Just pointing this out BTD because you are rarely ever wrong, except in your choice of candidates :) ).

    Parent

    I'm the one who said that (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:56 PM EST
    And they aren't spending much time on W. Va -- they  are focused on how Hillary can't win no matter what and what comes next. At least two of them covered her speech.

    Parent
    Ah, I beat you to that earlier -- and 40%! (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:08:34 PM EST
    actually looks possible.  And go look at the county-by-county figures at cnn.com; it's stunning, in some he only got 20%.

    As for a 40% margin -- with 69% of the vote in, Clinton just went up to 66% of the vote, and Obama just dropped to 27%.

    I am sending good thoughts to my WV relatives.  Some vote Republican, usually, but switched to be Dems -- some time ago.  They started dissing Bush a while ago, with so many of their students and neighbors -- more than any state -- serving in Iraq and dying there.  

    Parent

    it's getting worse (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:12:05 PM EST
    and everyone should see that map for themselves.  It is Scranton, Pennsylvania numbers... but everywhere.

    Parent
    Whoo-ee! It's now up to a 41% margin (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:37:26 PM EST
    with 80% of the votes in (at cnn.com).  It could go even more, as the bigger towns already reported.

    Parent
    tremendous win tonight! (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Arcadianwind on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    This was my prediction from back in March:

    in WV, I'll say by 30% +/- 2%. She will take PA by at least 13%, barring unforeseen developments. WV will be the beginning of the end for Obama. Gore lost WV by only 6% in 2000. Clinton took it by 15% in 1996. For those willing to look at electoral map realities, the path to victory in Nov. is OH, WV, PA, FL, MI, TN, MO, and KY. There is only one candidate who can do it!

    I also stated that obama would get 0 counties in WV, but I couldn't find that one.

    Cheers to Hillary!


    Parent

    Arcadianwind, you do win -- March?! (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:32:31 PM EST
    That is terrific.

    Btw, your sig name -- love it.  Are you descended from Arcadians, too?

    Parent

    I hope so. (none / 0) (#176)
    by Arcadianwind on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:39:06 PM EST
    They seemed like good people.

    Parent
    tremendous win tonight! (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Arcadianwind on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:15 PM EST
    This was my prediction from back in March:

    in WV, I'll say by 30% +/- 2%. She will take PA by at least 13%, barring unforeseen developments. WV will be the beginning of the end for Obama. Gore lost WV by only 6% in 2000. Clinton took it by 15% in 1996. For those willing to look at electoral map realities, the path to victory in Nov. is OH, WV, PA, FL, MI, TN, MO, and KY. There is only one candidate who can do it!

    I also stated that obama would get 0 counties in WV, but I couldn't find that one.

    Cheers to Hillary!


    Parent

    will we get a 40 point win (none / 0) (#81)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:06 PM EST
    or just short of that?

    Parent
    Just short (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:09 PM EST
    We're hovering at 38% now. I said 35-40pts, and I was right. :D

    Parent
    good job! (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:56:53 PM EST


    Parent
    You rock! (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:02 PM EST


    Parent
    cnn.com (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:57:30 PM EST
    nifty map of the counties there.  It looks like it is certainly possible with several more counties still to come in.  The most "urban" county around Charleston is already in there so the rest is even better for Hillary.

    Parent
    Hmmm ... (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:28 PM EST
    Barack Obama's ability to win them is unknown. He's untested.

    Untested?

    I think he's been weighed and tested, and found wanting.

    If Hillary ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by lyzurgyk on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:52:36 PM EST
    ... could win Oregon or Montana it would be huge!

    please (none / 0) (#174)
    by sas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:37:20 PM EST
    sign up @ hillaryclinton.com to make calls.

    They work!

    Parent

    Good Point (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by kaleidescope on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:53:08 PM EST
    It's time right now for everyone to contribute the maximum to Senator Clinton's primary campaign and then double down by contributing an equal amount to her campaign for the general election. Go for it.

    Give it all to the primary now -- (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:02:42 PM EST
    as Clinton actually is better funded than Obama for the general election.  She has $24 million for it, and he has $8 million. (Due to differences in strategy 'way back.)

    She will need more then, but to get there -- give funds for the remaining primary runs now!

    Parent

    Hey Cream City (none / 0) (#107)
    by kaleidescope on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:43 PM EST
    Do you live in the Cream City?

    Parent
    I do, I proudly do. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:09:14 PM EST
    And you?  A Badger, too?

    Parent
    Grew Up in West Allis and the East Side (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by kaleidescope on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:50:54 PM EST
    My parents still live in an 1873 Manitowoc County farmhouse made out of Cream City Brick.  My mom was the librarian at Bay View High School for 25 years.

    I live in Humboldt County, California these days, but I love my visits back to Beer Town.

    Parent

    Obama congratulates Hillary... (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by lambertstrether on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:03 PM EST
    ... by leaving her a message on her cell.

    He just reeks of class, doesn't he?

    Oh my freaking goodness. (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:04:58 PM EST
    First he tries to co-opt her moment by giving a stump speech in MO on the night of her victory...then he calls her on her cell to "congratulate" her?

    Like so many snobs, Obama completely and totally lacks class.

    How is he going to handle himself with foreign leaders? If he doesn't like Gordon Brown, is he going to fake flip him off? If he disagrees with Pooty-Poot, is he going to brush him off like dirt on his shoulder?

    Not. Ready. For. Primetime.

    Parent

    He just happened to call while she was (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:07:36 PM EST
    getting ready to give a speech tonight. I think that was a planned non-connection.

    Parent
    That's how guys dump women today (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:11:10 PM EST
    according to my progeny of the cell-phone generation.  I was so appalled.  Both of them, daughter and son, got a lecture from me about that -- to always face the music and go f2f, as they say.

    Some even do it by text-messaging today, they say.  Aaarrggh.

    Parent

    Weird. How does that work? (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:02 PM EST
    sry we shld c oth ppl kthxbai.

    Parent
    That is hysterical (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:30:33 PM EST
    but what really worries me is that I was able to translate it. :-)

    Parent
    I just Donated $ 165.44 (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Mrwirez on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:49 PM EST
    100 -  I am (100)% behind her
    65   -  65 is the points she has so far tonight.
    44    cents......we all know what we are shooting for here.

    Go Hillary

    I am entering the $2000 dollar mark..she better pull up some Super D's quick.

    I'm not blaming Buchanan (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:08:03 PM EST
    I'm ticked off that people like Maddow somehow seem to think that what happened in Broward was amusing. It wasn't.

    I think it's safe to assume Maddow doesn't (none / 0) (#138)
    by jerry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:47 PM EST
    like what happened in 2000 in Florida, doesn't like the butterfly ballot, doesn't like Bush V. Gore, doesn't like one aspect of it.

    But it was funny then, and it's funny now to consider Buchanan as the choice of all those elderly Jews, which in fact is what the Bush advocates wanted people to believe.

    Parent

    I think it's safe to assume (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:52:33 PM EST
    that Maddow would use Florida as the butt of a joke if it benefitted Obama. Some of our party are quite content to throw folks under the bus if it's politically expedient. I ain't one of them.

    Parent
    Obama is now down to 25% - WV results (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:21 PM EST
    (cue Twilight Zone theme music)

    CNN is showing 66-27 (none / 0) (#150)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:23:59 PM EST
    Edwards must be getting a great showing.

    7% for Edwards?


    Parent

    Thanks, Jeralyn! (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by BostonIndependent on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:13:57 PM EST
    I sure hope the SD's are listening even though this entire past week, all evidence has been pointing toward the opposite.

    I sure hope the MSM investigates why some of the SD's are turning to Obama now, when he is demonstrably showing his weakness(es). We all know about his PAC donating money to their campaigns (which I hear is legal), but I've also heard rumors that his campaign is threatening to use his $$ to run other candidates against some of the SD's who are running for office in upcoming elections. Is there any truth to that?

    Puerto Rico... (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:15:45 PM EST
    is the real wild card.

    I'm pretty sure that this is the first time they've held a primary election.  And there were nearly 2,000,000 voters for the Governorship of puerto rico in November 2004 -- about 180,000 more voters than in the GE in Oregon in 2004.

    I know that Chelsea is campaigning in puerto rico right now, and I'm hoping that Clinton can build a huge popular vote margin there.... I hear she's expected to do well there, but how well?

    Rove is on O'Reilly, (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:17:15 PM EST
    Hillary lauded Sen, Byrd in her speech tonight (rightfully, imo). On the topic of whether WV voters are racist, Rove just said WV has a lot of KKK activity in it's history and that Byrd was in the Klan when he was young.

    We'll probably hear more about that in the next few days. I predict from Drudge and/or Politico.

    It's well known... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:24:27 PM EST
    ... that Byrd was in the Klan a long time ago.

    Other than that, I don't know any details. (How old he was, etc.)

    Parent

    It was in the 1940's, so he was probably (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:45:34 PM EST
    about 60 then.

    Parent
    Byrd wasn't just (none / 0) (#198)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:03:00 PM EST

    a rank and file Klan member.  He was a Kleagle and did active recruiting.

    Parent
    I think you have a serious problem (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:19:57 PM EST
    what is wrong with you?  How can you say something so ugly about the people in West Virginia.  Do you hate  yourself?  If you need some help I can give you the names of some good therapists.

    that poster has been banned (none / 0) (#186)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:47:01 PM EST
    and had all comments erased. We don't call people racists here.

    Parent
    HRC to pull ahead in popular vote (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:24:59 PM EST
    by one of the measures at realpolitics.com, the one that includes Florida and Michigan.  Its totals are behind those at CNN -- where almost 40% of WV votes still to be counted will put her ahead.

    Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)

    16,645,939    47.7%   
    16,627,607    47.7%               

    Obama +18,332    +0.05%

    Watch for that to soon show Clinton ahead again  -- when all the votes cast in all the primary elections (not caucuses, which can't be included on the same basis) are tallied.

    Count the votes!

    Do those numbers (none / 0) (#202)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:05:57 PM EST

    include the Nebraska primary that was held today?  If anyone's going to say count the votes, then those votes should be counted, too!  

    Parent
    Here is something funny, look at this map: (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:25:23 PM EST
    On CNN.com they have the results from West Virginia for both the Democrats and the Republicans.

    On his end, McCain is winning all the counties with around 70%+ of the vote.  He is the clear nominee for the Republicans so that is to be expected.

    On the other side, Clinton is winning all the counties with around 60-70% of the vote.  She is the clear "loser" and person the Democratic leaders want to quit the race.  Our frontrunner is holding steady at 27%.

    Up is down, folks.

    oops, here is the link to the map: (none / 0) (#156)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:26:45 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/5anapv

    Parent
    Jeralyn, please check poster's history here (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:27:11 PM EST
    today.  I recall earlier problematic posts, but this now is officially over the edge.

    There (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by sas on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:35:35 PM EST
    ia one sure way to victory in November - the Clinton Way.

    parent comment by amused must have been deleted (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by DFLer on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:42:14 PM EST
    Amused abused and was excused.

    Rove knows that the DNC is in the bag... (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:50:37 PM EST
    for Obama.  Pointing out that Clinton is the better candidate increases resentment of Clinton supporters -- while saying that Obama is a weak candidate.

    follow the rules (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by anupete on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:04:59 PM EST
    The rules are clear.

    Under them, Obama has failed to secure the nomination via the electoral process during the primaries.

    The superdelegates are given the role in this precise case to select the nominee.  

    They have no other defined role.   But the media is talking as if it's an inappropriate role for them to play!

    Howard Dean and an elitist group of DNC leaders decided to impose disenfranchisement -- mind-boggling -- on Michigan and Florida ... for what?  Holding their elections before the dates selected by elites.

    Hold on, the rules for decades ... not just a few months ... state that superdelegates do not vote until the convention.

    Now the DNC elites, Obama supporters and their friends in the media want superdelegates to hold that voting ... early !!!  

    ROFL, you can't make up this kind of hypocrisy.

    IMHO, this demonstrates mainly that African Americans are a more powerful constituency in the Democratic Party than women.  

    The math (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by nellre on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:09:14 PM EST
    The term "the math" is like finger nails on a chalk board.
    There is no "the math". There are dozens of methods to look at the numbers, and each method gets different results. If "the math" existed everyone who did it would get the same answer.

    And since when do record numbers of voters come out and vote in a primary for a losing candidate? They don't. They don't believe it's all over for Hillary. I don't believe it's all over for Hillary. Most here don't believe it's all over for Hillary.

    Ain't we got fun?! (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by A little night musing on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:09:40 PM EST
    This is the most exciting primary season I can recall since, ohhhhh... forever!

    And a great deal of the reason is HRC and her persistence!

    I love that we have to go through primaries in every single state. That's the democratic process in action, folks. I bet people in Oregon and PR are all hopped-up, finally getting a little primary love. I just know WV was.

    I love that we're examining and breaking down the primary process of our own party. Dang, they've been taking my vote for granted for way too long!

    This is politics at its best - like a fire refining the gold from the dross - and I'm loving it more and more.

    Suggest we all get down and get dirty - give what you can, whether it's money or calls or just your own good wishes, if that's what you've got.

    Count All The Votes! (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by DeanOR on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:11:48 PM EST
    I've been trying to be more open to Obama as our possible candidate, but I'll be really pissed if he comes here to Oregon to "declare victory" as the Democratic nominee a week from now, which is what was leaked by his campaign. Democrats believe in counting all the votes, and that means they are not all counted until the last vote at the nominating convention even if some people don't like it.

    i hate to say this (4.50 / 2) (#24)
    by Kensdad on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:02 PM EST
    but i wrote earlier today, a good friend of mine spoke with an insider on the rules and bylaws committe (not donna b.) and there will be no resolution that helps hillary in any meaningful way.  these people are going to defend obama and their own lousy decision to punish those big swing states.  they would rather lose the election in november than to admit their mistakes or jilt obama (his money, his new supporters, and the AA community)...  the SD's are looking for a safe exit for themselves!  there is too much risk for them to support hillary at this point.  they will slink off into the middle of the night by throwing in their lots with obama (safety in numbers) and hope for the best.

    Why would you hate to say (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:42 PM EST
    what many of us think?  I have said they could care less about November.  I have said all that matters is the money.  I also believe that many look at the media bias and couple that with the DNC shenanigans and are turned off.  

    They don't care if they lose, it doesn't affect their lives.  In fact, if it's a Republican is in the White House they have someone to blame.

    Parent

    I agree. It's all about his fundraising ability (none / 0) (#38)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:37:24 PM EST
    now. We'll lose but we'll have a hell of a lot of money to spend on the loss.

    Parent
    unfortunately (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Kensdad on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:52:00 PM EST
    that's how sad it is...  this primary season has really shown me a side of the democratic party that i never understood before.  the republicans always just want to win.  democrats, not so much...

    Parent
    We want to lose (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:47:01 PM EST
    It's funny Barack Obama is a great standard bearer. After all, we have heard process matters over anything(including results apparently).I am SO ready for a third lternativeto the two losing choices I seem to be stuck with.

    Parent
    Jeralyn... How do you reconcile (2.33 / 3) (#112)
    by EddieInCA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:06:05 PM EST
    Hillary's statements then and now regarding Michigan and Florida?

    Oct. 11, 2007 - NPR Radio Interview: Michigan and Florida will not count

    Today: Michigan and Florida MUST count.

    I'm curious how you, and BTD for that matter, don't see the inherent hypocricy of such positions and how you rationalize them

    Thanks for the forum to ask the question.

    A reasonable question. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:21:29 PM EST
    Two answers:

    1. I'll concede there may be an aspect of political expediency here.

    2. It's possible the earlier statement was a statement of the rules, and the second a statement of what should be the rules.

    Even in the first case, however, there are times when political expediency lines up with principle. I'd argue this is one of those times.

    Then again, I was against banning MI and FL from the beginning.

    Parent

    read our archives (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:36:16 PM EST
    we've explained a million times. Use the search box and/or click the elections 2008 category and the FL 08 and Michigan 08 tabs.

    Parent
    Hill-arious (1.00 / 3) (#16)
    by mikesan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:31:28 PM EST

    Listen,

    No matter how electable you think HRC is, there will be a split party in November if it is perceived that Obama wasn't treated fairly by the party.  Try winning MO, MI, and PA with no African-American voters.  The Dems won't, and HRC gets to attend the inauguration--as the wife of a former president.  

    Try winning the same without Dem Clinton (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:32:54 PM EST
    voters. We are heading for a huge loss.

    Parent
    It's insulting to African Americans (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Exeter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:37:40 PM EST
    to suggest that a majority would stay home if Clinton is the nominee. That's ridiculous.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by kayla on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:02 PM EST
    AAs are purely driven by emotion and outrage and white working class voters are racist.  There's always something wrong with the voter and not the candidate.

    It is insulting.

    Parent

    Is it insulting to hard working white voters (3.00 / 1) (#45)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:42:39 PM EST
    to say they wont vote for Obama?

    Parent
    It's factual. (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:40 PM EST
    More than 60% of her voters won't vote for him.
    AA's are not nearly so hostile to HRC.

    Factual.

    Deal with it.

    Parent

    It's also a fact (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by Benjamin3 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:00:26 PM EST
    that a big portion of Hillary's voters in states like OH, PA, and WV, are "swing" voters.  Not all of them are angry like we are in the blogosphere.  Those swing voters won't hesitate to go for McCain if Obama is the nominee, plain and simple.

    Parent
    Hard working white workers are OUT (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:19:23 PM EST
    Just ask Donna and the blogger boyz. The "new" coalition doesn't need em'
     Heck, wasn't it Daschle who said they vote GOP anyway. Obama needs to tell his surrogates to SHUT UP. Today, we got to hear about how lucky Clinton is that the big hearted superdelegates are allowing her to continue to make her case? Someone needs to explain to the nice man that it isn't smart to phras it like that when you have the majority of VOTERS saying she should be allowed to continue on.  

    Parent
    You're right (4.00 / 1) (#162)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:29:28 PM EST
    she needs a full opportunity to make her case for VP

    Parent
    She's making her case for President (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:24 PM EST
    and until one of them reaches the magic number. She has every right to continue to make her case for President. Perswonally, I hope she takes it just so I can watch the media have seizures.

    Parent
    You can keep VP (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:59:16 PM EST
    here speech in WV tonight confirmed what I thought -- despite the pundits claiming all night before the results were in that the reason she hasn't "dropped out" was that she was "making her case for VP" she told them she meant it when she said that she was in it to win it, and she wont back down.
    It's been said many times on this site, but it is worth repeating: Obama's lead is slim -- nowhere near the 1,000+ delegate lead that Carter had over Teddy Kennedy that went all the way to the convention -- why would she courtesy like a "good little girl" and exit now?  

    Parent
    No wonder McGovern switched to Obama. (none / 0) (#208)
    by AX10 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:12:47 PM EST
    Obama could do worse than he in the popular vote.
    Obama cannot win with the AA/College Students/Creative Class-Latte "Liberals" only.
    You cannot break 40% with that collilition.

    Parent
    Umm... (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by kayla on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:44:14 PM EST
    No matter how electable you think HRC is, there will be a split party in November if it is perceived that Obama wasn't treated fairly by the party.

    The party is already split.  It is already perceived that HRC has been treated unfairly by the party.  Obama has a lot of courting to do.  Where have you been the last month or so?  This isn't common knowledge yet?


    Parent

    Your last sentence (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:45:50 PM EST
    says all I need to know about you. moron.

    Parent
    Perceived that BO wasn't treated... (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:47:14 PM EST
    fairly?  Whose perception?

    We're talking about voters here, not 10 HRC supporters hiding in a dark room someplace making the decision.  

    Remember...this is a democracy!

    How can "the will of the people" be perceived as not being treated fairly.

    I really would like to know your thought on this?

    Quite frankly, I see it more likely that BO will win ONLY by stealing it from HRC.

    Parent

    I see caucus votes as stolen (5.00 / 12) (#67)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:50:15 PM EST
    from all the citizens in those states who couldn't caucus because of work schedules, family responsibilities, disabilities, and more.

    Parent
    Missouri (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:25:21 PM EST
    Hillary lost by one point to Obama. Try winning PA without the older voters and women voters. He can't.

    Parent
    Yes guests at McCain inauguration. (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by felizarte on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:37:20 PM EST
    The Dems won't, and HRC gets to attend the inauguration--as the wife of a former president.  


    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#196)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:56:50 PM EST

    @ your comment about Pennsylvania.

    Parent
    Healing the Party (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by mikesan on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:46:11 PM EST

    Does anyone think it is possible?  After all this venom?  I doubt it.  And yes, I would rather lose with Obama then win with Clinton.  I remember when we lost the House, the Senate, state houses and governor's mansions, all with the Clintons at the helm.  That is what I see with a HRC Presidency.  

    Who won the Presidency? Twice? (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:46:48 PM EST
    Pathetic.

    Parent
    Your wish will be granted in Nov. Enjoy. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Teresa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:48:07 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes I'd rather lose (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:49:57 PM EST
    Because winning with Clinton is so terrible. I mean a two term president's wife, apparently the only clued democrat we apparently have around...terrible.

    Parent
    Go right ahead and lose (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:51:57 PM EST
    No, healing is not possible. Especially with attitudes like yours.

    Learn your history - usually when there is a president of one party, the opposing party gets the majority in the Congress. It's called checks & balances.

    Parent

    That is the problem with not knowing history (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:55:40 PM EST
    It was NOT Bill Clinton's fault that the Dems didn't hold onto the majority in Congress -- there were lots of charges of corruption of the Dems in Congress at the time & that is why the Dems lost. Also, a lot had to do with the fact that the Dem majority are the ones who torpedoed UHC. Plain and simple, they weren't doing their job & they were shady and deserved to be tossed out (by the Republicans who promised "change" and to "clean up Washington" -- sounds familiar, right?) Rather then accept responsibility for their own deeds, they started the meme that it was Bill's fault (despite the fact that he remained hugely popular) -- it might fool people who weren't there, but it doesn't fool me.

    Parent
    Let's not forget (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by madamab on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:01:21 PM EST
    that 1994, the year this poster is talking about, was the year of the Gingrich Revolution.

    The Republicans had been preparing for that moment for many years. It didn't matter who the President was.

    Parent

    If Obama wins the presidency (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:13:52 PM EST
    Please come back in 2010 and tell us how much you despise him when the Repubs take over Congress.  

    It always happens.  Media was shocked when it didn't happen to Bush, but the reason was likely 9/11.

    Carter served one term followed by Reagan/Bush for 12 years.  Me, that's what I think is going to happen with Obama, if not worse.  He isn't a strong leader.

    Parent

    Its why I'm sitting out November... (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:19:18 PM EST
    if Obama is the nominee... it really doesn't matter if you drive the car into the ditch in the or right side of the road, the car will still be in the ditch -- and if Obama is behind the wheel, a Republican will take control when the car gets back on the road....

    Here's a thought... Obama wins, fails as President, and Hillary pulls a Teddy Kennedy and runs against the incumbent in 2012! ;-)

    Parent

    dang, that koolaid must be good. (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by hellothere on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:11:45 PM EST


    Parent
    does anybody have the delegate math (none / 0) (#11)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:28:00 PM EST
    with florida and michigan both included in the most favorable way possible for  hillary?

    rcp has nothing on it that i can see
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

    Here's this morning's summary. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by wurman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:54:48 PM EST
    The Green Papers (link)"Alternative" Delegate Votes
    (no sanctions)
    Need to Nominate 2,209.0
    B Obama             1,943.5
    H Clinton             1,889.0
    (available)              497.5
    Uncommitted            55.0
    J Edwards                32.0
    No Preference            0.0
    Total                  4,417.0

    Green Papers takes a very conservative view of the delegate counts.  It's arithmetic; no creative mathematics.

    Parent

    Thanks for the link: (none / 0) (#179)
    by seeker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:46 PM EST
    it's very useful.

    Parent
    Yes. Green Papers is good. (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by wurman on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:11:54 PM EST
    Recently, several of the blogs & mid-level lame stream media have changed to this source because it very much hews the straight & narrow on the actual counts.

    You will find that clicking on the state abbreviations leads you to some very good tallies of the procedures & the numbers for each state delegation.

    This source will also cause some frustration when you compare it to the fabricated nonsense of the big-time lame stream media & the meglomaniacal blogs that make up their own delegate counts.

    Parent

    Pat Buchanan, Obama, and Florida.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by jerry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:29:45 PM EST
    On MSNBC/Air America last night, Buchanan was discussing Obama's problem with Florida voters, namely in Broward County and similar counties.  And Rachel Maddow chimed in, and everyone else agreed with a laugh, that Buchanan was an expert on Broward County and congratulated him on his large vote there in 2000.

    Maybe you had to be there, but it was pretty funny.

    Ha ha (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:33:20 PM EST
    Yes, how funny is it that we've had 8 fun filled years of incompetence as a result of Florida. It's hysterical. Excuse me, if I find Maddow and crew less than humorous. I'm pretty sure there are some vets out there that'd agree with me that the fact that Florida didn't get counted correctly as the funniest thing evah- Not.

    Parent
    As I recall... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by A little night musing on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:45 PM EST
    in 2000 Buchanan himself said that he did not believe that large numbers of voters voted for him in Broward County.

    Here's a story sort of verifying my memory. (It has a spokesperson, not Buchanan himself, saying it.)

    Parent

    He still doesn't think they voted for him.... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by jerry on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:03:05 PM EST
    He's still not claiming they would have voted for him.  He still understands it was a completely bogus result.

    The guy may be a jerk, but he's not stupid.

    Parent

    I uprated you because (none / 0) (#177)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:41:08 PM EST
    I get what you were saying about Pat B. -- also, I can't hate that crazy little wingnut because he looks just like my paw-paw.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#180)
    by A little night musing on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:42:08 PM EST
    that's what I'm saying. (Very obliquely, it seems!)

    It's kind of a "laugh so I won't cry" situation. One of the ironies of 2000 was having Buchanan be the one whose words (or the words of his spokesperson) I was often quoting. (I was teaching statistics at the time, and the election yielded much more rich examples to discuss in class than I had ever expected, Broward County among them.)

    Parent

    Funny as a rubber crutch (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Radiowalla on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:44:54 PM EST
    Oh, just call me out of touch, but I have NO sense of humor about what happened in Florida in 2000.  None whatsoever.

    Parent
    Brazille/2025 -- A nominee will be declared ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by dwmorris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:35:05 PM EST
    when a candidate reaches 2025. Brazille said this more than once on CNN tonight.

    Am I missing something?

    Is there a DNC rule that allows a nominee to be officially "declared" before the convention?

    If not, there needs to be some serious push back on this talking point!

    2209 or it goes to the convention!!!

    Isn't anyone here bothered by... (1.00 / 2) (#119)
    by EddieInCA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:08:53 PM EST
    ... the fact tha Clinton herself, along with her campain, until a few weeks ago, were using the 2025 number and how have changed it?

    Isn't anyone here bothered by the fact that the Clinton campaign reneged on an agreement THEY AGREED TO before the Primaries?

    I will support either candidate, but I'm bothered by these two issues.

    Parent

    Factually incorrect (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:10:48 PM EST
    No one has reneged on any agreement. Produce this agreement (link or text) or stop spreading misinformation.

    What changed is that MI and FL should be counted.

    Parent

    Gladly... Here you go... (2.00 / 1) (#163)
    by EddieInCA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:30:23 PM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg

    Parent
    Thanks, but (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:33:34 PM EST
    Where is the renege portion? This agreement has to do with the DNC rules for the states. Both campaign signed on and didn't campaign as agreed (well, except for Obama campaign, but let's ignore that). So they stuck to their pledge not to campaign.

    So again factually incorrect.

    Parent

    The Clinton Campaign... (1.00 / 0) (#192)
    by EddieInCA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:53:02 PM EST
    ...agreed to abide by the DNC rules which stated. The letter clearly states that. I will not argue with you further, as I do not wish to be banned my first day here. Thank you for the response.

    Parent
    Just to clarify (none / 0) (#195)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:55:05 PM EST
    No one gets banned for arguing, or discussing point factually. Really. And right now what is being discussed is how to seat FL and MI under the existing DNC rules. Remember rules can be changed UNDER the exiting rules. So no one is talking about reneging on anything.

    Parent
    I'm more bothered (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:13:01 PM EST
    by an unqualified candidate and his insult America tour but perhaps that is just me.

    Parent
    "insult America tour" (none / 0) (#194)
    by A little night musing on Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:54:34 PM EST
    I usually try not to get too snarky here (working on my "reasonable" muscle), but dang, that's precious and too true!

    Parent
    Because he (none / 0) (#199)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:04:33 PM EST

    doesn't want to see his party run against her.  She'd win.  He has an interest in seeing Obama as the candidate so McCain can whoop his @ss in November.

    Dean (none / 0) (#210)
    by Donna Darko on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:27:04 AM EST
    and Air America Radio too.

    Kos/Chris Bowers/Moveon/Howard Dean are all the same person/Obamabot now.

    Groundswell of Women Protest Beginning to Build (none / 0) (#211)
    by Missblu on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:14:13 AM EST
    Watch for Activities out of Ohio.

    There is No Nominee: On To The Five Remaining Primaries | 202 comments (202 topical)