Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Foes, Media Reject, Denounce Obama Victory in Unholy Primacaucus
Sources in the Texas Secretary of State's office, on condition of anonymity, confirmed to TPM this evening that Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill) had won the Texas Primacaucus, by narrowly losing the primary-chosen delegates, while winning the caucus phase by a greater margin.
A diverse array of sources, including former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Hillary Clinton's spokesman Howard Wolfson, Sen. Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist Mark Penn, and Sen. Clinton's confidante Terry McAuliffe, were quick to react.
First, Penn: "Caucuses, one has to understand, are an inherently undemocratic process that seek to measure irrelevant and unAmerican dimensions of political performance, such as depth of enthusiasm and skill in political organization. I mean, they're totally fucked up. And it just gets dumber when you combine a caucus with a primary. I mean, who'd do that, much less report on it as something you could _win_? It is clear that such a contest would have no legitimacy and thus should not be covered. We reject it."
Wolfson went further: "I would not only reject, but denounce the primacaucus. Its evil cousin, the caucus, has been employed in the past by states that are irrelevant to the electoral map, such as Washington, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, and Maine. These are silly places that cannot, individually or among the five of them, supply the 270 electoral votes needed for victory this fall. We reject and denounce them too. Moreover, North Carolina, Guam, Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico are the new Washington, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, and Maine. They vote next. So whether or not a primacaucus hypothetically occurred in or around Texas, or if we tried to win it if did exist, and I think it did not, there can be no dispute that the people of Guam will speak loudly, and not in some weird-ass primacaucus."
Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the publisher of the New York Times, who, it was revealed, caused his paper to endorse Sen. Hillary Clinton over objections within his editorial board, described his paper's coverage of the primacaucus thus: "Most caucuses are held in states with pathetically low circulations of the New York Times. They are unworthy of inclusion in our peculiar chart by which we assess the degree of Senator Clinton's lead in the delegate-mandating process. For much the same reason Fleet Street embargoed news of Prince Harry's Afghan deployment, we simply refuse to report on a 'primacaucus' victory."
Legal expert Susan Estrich weighed in: "There is a legal justification for not covering a primacaucus. It would simply confuse the public and jeopardize Sen. Clinton's position in the race. This is the same reasoning the U.S. Supreme Court employed in a recent case called Bush v. Gore. In that case, the threat to the legitimacy of candidate George W. Bush's claim to the presidency provided the imminent harm needed to prevent the counting of votes. Likewise here, if the media simply waited to declare a winner, and gave extensive coverage to the notion of Obama "winning" Texas through an illegitimate 'primacaucus,' it would threaten the legitimacy of not only Sen. Clinton's return to relevance, but also a hell of a horserace story."
Comments (14)
That gets today's Snark Achievement Award!
:)
March 5, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't win it legitimately, then try and change the rules.
March 5, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait... there are rules?!?!?!?!!
Crap, I gotta go... this is news to me.
Sincerely,
Howard Wolfson
(Penn is over there in the corner and he's as shocked as I am)
March 5, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
More Texas Democrats support Hillary. That's a fact. Anything else is spin.
March 5, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. how effective was rush at gopgotv for clinton? i doubt it was the 100k difference, but maybe.
2. she wasn't supported enthusiastically enough to pick up as many delegates.
March 5, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they supported Hillary, they should have gone to the caucus. Although she did win the primary in my precinct, Obama supporters turned out in higher numbers and won the caucus. The Obama folks were in their 60's and 70's, so I don't see an excuse why HRC folks couldn't make it. You folks may think it is so so weird, but this is the way we do it and folks know that. Quit whining.
March 6, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bril - my dear, Watson...
goalpost: from endzone - to parking lot - to stratosphere.
March 5, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Complain all you want Obamatrons, but ever since Hillary first launched her campaign she's been saying how unfair and undemocratic the caucus system is. She's said repeatedly that the cards were stacked against her if the system wasn't changed immediately, and that she would struggle to compete in small states across the nation because of lack of funds.
She's also been fighting the DNC for the FL and MI delegates to be seated since last September when they were first stripped of those delegates. She's been consistently saying all this from day one.
I've got the evidence (and more snarkiness): http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/how-the-clinton-campaign-is-li.php
March 6, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM Cafe is a riot this morning!
God, I needed to laugh. Thanks, guys.
But perhaps, it's true about the Secretary of State's Office? Maybe?
March 6, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes indeed, Allah has blessed our beloved Hussein with an overall delegate win in that infidel Primacaucus.
I'm telling you, sometimes these smears can turn into Colbert-type hilarity.
I wonder if Hillary meant that Obama wouldn't be able to handle a call from Michelle at 3:AM like she has to all the time with Bill.
On the other hand, she may be right.... Who cares about the Democrats in the red states. Lets go back and let Montana have Burns back and Missouri have Talent back. Then Virginia can have Macaca back (some of you know him by his nickname, George Allen). Goodbye McCaskill, Webb, & Tester. Lets make the Senate go back to Republicans with a majority of 52-48!
Oh, and screw you people in Tennessee, Texas, Ohio, Nevada, Oklahoma, & Arkansas which gave a her a win in the popular! She don't need you!
In that case, we can give the Senate majority leader Reid a ticket home, back to Nevada and also lets get back to 2006 when Dewine had Brown's seat in Ohio.
She don't need my vote in Indiana. She don't need any of us here that helped give the Democrats their majority in the House with getting rid of the trash Chocola, Hostetler, & Sodrel in 2006.
I guess she's expecting the Republicans to give her the win here in Indiana.
March 6, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary did not win Texas.
She won enough Republicans to taint the primary vote, but the caucus tells the true story:
Those Democrats who are most energized and committed to the Democratic process chose Obama.
March 6, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Winning a state is about winning the most delegates. The popular vote isn't relevent anymore than it is in electoral college. I'll take a delegate victory over a popular vote victory just as I'll first and foremost want an electoral college victory in the fall.
Our elections, both primary and general, need to be much more sane and simple. Until that time, we have to play by the rules as they are.
March 6, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
(this was meant as response to destor23)
But I totally agree with urbinato: a win is a win.
March 6, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all do respect SCMadden, your comments about Sen. Clinton winning Texas with 'tainted' Republican votes is very inaccurate:
66% of all voters who participated in the Texas Democratic Primary considered themselves Democrats before the voting began on Tuesday. (In other words, 44% were either Independents or Republicans)
Of these Democrats, 53% voted for Sen. Clinton versus 46% for Sen. Obama.
In contrast, 9% of the voters in Texas considered themselves to be Republicans before March 4th. 53% voted for Sen. Obama and only 46% voted for Sen. Clinton.
In regards to this comment:
That goes against the conventional wisdom of almost every single contest so far in this election. I looked at all the exit polls for every state that has participated in Democratic primaries or caucuses so far and found some interesting numbers. In everysingle state except Alabama, Sen. Clinton won a wider margin among Democrats than the final score. And in everystate except Georgia, Delaware, and Alabama, Sen. Obama garnered less votes Democrats than his final percentage.
For example, in Rhode Island, Clinton won 62%-32% among Democrats, although the final tally was a smaller margin (58%-40%). In Wisconsin, Obama bested Clinton 58%-41%, although among Democrats he beat her by 6 points, at 52%-46%. Utah? Democrats went Obama 49%-Clinton 47%. The final score, of course, was much different: Obama 57%-Clinton 39%.
And what about Missouri, that bellwether state that Obama 'won' (even though the delegates were spilt--this is entirely about the delegates, right?). Among Democrats, Sen. Clinton won 50%-47%. Among Republicans, Ms. SCMadden, Sen. Obama won 75%-21%. So, if those voters Texas were 'tainted,' then put Missouri as a win in Sen. Clinton's column. Except more Republicans voted for Sen. Obama in Texas. So, victory for Clinton in Missouri and victory again in Texas--but by 7 points.
Finally, after calculating all votes among Democrats in the primaries thus far, I found another interesting number. 8,951,938 people have voted for Sen. Clinton and 8,142, 167 have voted for Sen. Obama.
Sen. Obama hasmuch to be proud of pulling many Independents to his side, Ms. SCMadden. But please understand that Sen. Clinton's support is largelydependent on Democratic voters.
March 6, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment