« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
I Will Dispute It
After last Tuesday's (5/6) primaries in SC and IN, Tim Russert declared, "We now know who the Democratic nominee will be. And no one will dispute it."
I conceded defeat in my mind, even though Hillary hadn't yet. I was operating under the presumption that she no longer had any chance to make up the gap in popular vote. I figured that if Russert was to make such a declaration, they must have crunched the numbers. Even though SC actually played out as expected, last minute expectations had been shifted by tightening poll numbers making the outcome more dramatic.
I now wonder what the hell he was talking about and what I must have been on to trust him. The media long ago understood that Hillary was not going to catch up in pledged delegates. They knew her argument rested on the popular vote. They seemed to believe, as I and her other supporters did, that if she captured the lead in popular vote she would have a legitimate claim to the nomination to take to the superdelegates. Polls have indicated that the American public think superdelegates should go with the winner of the popular vote. I'd be happy to take a look at any polls that show otherwise. Please share them if you have them.
After a week of waivering support, I took a look at the article that gave me hope in the first place. This US News one. It laid out Hillary's path to winning the popular vote. It turns out, according to their predictions, she still very much can. In fact, it only projected her to win 107k votes in W VA and she actually won 147k. That's a big spread.
Here are that articles predictions for the remaining states:
KY Clinton +134,707 OR Clinton -59,419 Puerto Rico Clinton +300,000 Montana Clinton +28,488 SD Clinton +18,805According to Real Clear Politics, Clinton is only behind in popular vote by 409,060 if you include estimates for the four caucuses that did not keep a vote tally and FL's votes. If you add up the predictions from US News, it comes to 422,581 votes for Hillary. That would leave her ahead by 13,521 votes. What I don't get is why the premature conclusion that the race is over. If most pundits before seemed to think that winning the popular vote would give Clinton a real argument to the superdelegates, what changed? Anyway, this is my reasoning to think that the race isn't quite over. As many of you know, I will support Obama if he becomes the nominee, but I'm not ready to accept that he is the nominee yet. It's not over til it's over.
Comments (58)
I meant NC last Tuesday, not SC. Sorry for the error.
May 14, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what's odd about this error. I saw it over and over again over at Hillaryis44 during and immediately after the the Indiana/NC primary. I have no idea where this error originated or why it gained traction over there, but it does shed some light on why it has now made it's way over here.
Oh, and popular vote totals mean zilch in the nomination process. Contrary to some of her supporter's belief, it's not like Hillary can just proclaim that the vote from a state where Obama was not on the ballot counts now, and that Hillary has the most votes overall and magically declare her the winner. I'm sorry, but that's not the way this process works. Also, if you think Hillary is going to net 300,000 votes in PR, then you indeed have a very rosy outlook on Sen. Clinton's chances as this thing progresses. To put that in the nicest possible terms.
May 15, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is a waste of time... but there is no popular vote in Dem primaries. In several states, there is no record of the number of voters. Lumping together primary and caucus states is adding apples and oranges.
Hillary can't win the Dem primary election by the Dem primary election rules. Trying to invent her own rules just makes her look like the pathetic sore loser that she is. Unfortunately for her, no one takes her seriously anymore. But hey, if she is so keen on destroying her future in politics, I don't think she should be stopped.
May 14, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do Obama supporters always write that she can't win by the Dem primary election rules? It makes no sense. It may be a waste of my time, but I'll tell you why.
Obama or Clinton could have won by capturing the amount of pledged delegates needed to take the nomination. Since neither of them have, it's up to the superdelegates to rally behind a candidate. They can choose either candidate; it is perfectly within the rules. Obama has said superdelegates should follow "the will of the people". What does that mean?
Obama will argue that his lead in the pledged delegates will show the will of the people. Clinton, if she captures the popular vote, will argue that this shows the true will of the people. Both are valid arguments. It's up to the superdelegates to choose sides.
Once again, she can win within the stated rules of the Dem primary. It may not be probable but it's certainly possible.
May 14, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would you bet the farm on it?
May 14, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she's clearly stated it's only possible and not probable.
Cut her some slack, she's being positive here. Let her hold onto her hope. No harm done in that.
May 14, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The harm is in enabling Hillary and delaying the GE campaign.
May 14, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
The word "enable" says it all. Hillary is now getting to the point of delusional and it's like the alcoholic family member whom everyone says only gets "a little drunk" and there is no problem.
At this point, she is the Ron Paul of the Democratic Party. She refuses to concede despite the fact that she increasingly grows irrelevant.
May 14, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you don't understand that Obama doesn't have enough delegates.
Therefore, Obama doesn't have the nomination.
Obama himself acknowledged this in Missouri yesterday.
Clinton doesn't have to concede.
What's your problem?
May 14, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's talk about this in a week, shall we?
And, the magic number is 2025. Not whatever the Hillary Camp can concoct.
The longer you hang onto your fantasy, gasket, the more explosive the blowing up.
May 14, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It didn't even take a week! Edwards endorsement is part of the gathering momentum that the race, indeed, is essentially over.
May 15, 2008 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're the one who's delusional today, clearthinker. Snap out of it.
May 14, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The popular of Florida and Michigan can not count
"within the rules". So if that is part of your argument for popular vote totals, it doesn't work.
Heck, Michigan's primary was also declared unconstitutional by the courts not just against the rules.
I know Puerto Rico will be counted, but they can't vote in the general election. Somehow claiming the votes of individuals who can not be counted in November diminishes her argument. Not that it's against the rules mind you. So you have that one.
This primary season is ending with the two closest potential nominees in recent history. But that doesn't mean it is close.
1.The lead in pledged delegates is insurmountable (approx 10%). If anyone lost an election by ten percent it would be a done deal. Since pledged delegates represent some voters who are not also individually added to the popular vote, that is the official metric used by the DNC.
2.The lead in contests won is insurmountable.
3.Without including Florida and Michigan, the popular vote is insurmountable. Any equitable solution to have them included will have to be approved by both campaigns, thus making them almost assuredly a wash.
4.The lead in super delegates has now been taken out of Clinton's column, but that is open to change. It is true that super delegates can change their mind at any time.
You wanted an argument "within the rules".
But I would like to add something intangible, also on super delegates minds is the good of the party. Overturning the pledged delegates (which Clinton herself called the ONLY metric just a few months ago)could fracture the party for a generation.
To quote an old but crude saying, unless Obama is caught with a dead girl or a live boy, the nomination is his.
May 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that its not theoretically possible for her to get the nomination. Its that there's no way for her to do that that does not look like outright theft by the party bigwigs to Obama's supporters, an outcome that would doom her, and us, in November.
There is no path to the nomination that does not doom her in November, ergo ipso facto she should quit. Been that way since before Ohio. Its only gotten worse for her since then. Yet, whenever I state this bleedingly frakking obvious point, the Hillary's obsessives do that thing where they stick their fingers in their ears and go "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA NOT LISTENING CAN'T HEAR YOU!"
May 15, 2008 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The irony is that, in the end, party bigwigs (not the people) will have determined the Democratic nominee when the DNC Rules Committee meets about seating FL and MI on May 31. Lou Dobbs pointed this out last night: It was brokered right in front of our eyes.
May 15, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary won the popular vote and Obama supporters thought it was theft when the superdelegates went with the will of the people, I would feel no sympathy. If they are truly that petulant, they can take their ball and go home.
May 15, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the part you guys refuse to acknowledge. Hillary cannot clearly, unequivocally, and by any fair measurement "win the popular vote." All she can do is come to the convention with a more or less plausible argument that she won the popular vote. Since you're willint to engage with me, game this out with me.
Hillary's best case scenario at Denver would/will be "although I lost the delegate race, I did win the popular vote if you count Florida, where no on campaigned, Puerto Rico, where no on who can vote in the general lives and Michigan but give Obama no credit for the people who voted 'uncommitted,' and don't count caucus states that don't release official vote totals."
At that convention, Obama's argument would be "actually I won the popular vote. I won it if you don't count Florida and Michigan, which both Hillary and I agreed would be the case back when she thought she was winning. I also won the popular vote if you do count Florida and Michigan if you give me the 'uncommitteds' and include the estimated vote in the caucus states. And, P.S. and by the way, I won the delegate race, which is what we're supposed to be doing in the primaries."
Obama's argument that he won the popular vote may vary a bit from this, but it is simply not possible for him to win the delegate race without being able to construct an argument that he won the popular vote that is at least as plausible as Hillary's. Can you not at least agree with me on that at this point?
If so, then you have candidate H, who lost the delegate race but has a plausible popular vote argument and candidate B who won the popular vote race and has an equally plausible popular vote argument.
How in God's name can you imagine that candidate H can get the nomination under those circumstances without candidate B's supporters perceiving it as a steal? We Democrats had very strong feelings about stolen elections in 2000 and 2004. Do you imagine for a minute those same passions won't ignite a civil war within the party?
Contrawise, I at least harbor some hopes that if Obama wins under that scenario, the legitimacy imparted by his pledged delegate lead will result in most of her supporters coming out in November and voting for him, even if it chokes them to do so. And, frankly, if they don't, I blame that on Hillary for continuing this, and for going on the full bore Mark Penn/Paul Beglia/Karl Rove attack, long after it was clear she couldn't win.
This is why we get so angry and frustrated with Hillary's supporters. To us, it looks like they are blindly enabling her a campaign whose best case scenario (for her) results in a catastrophic civil war within the party. And yet, when we try to talk to you guys about this, you get mad at us and accuse us of being sexist for trying to silence her and shut her down.
May 15, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve:
Ater both PA and WV, Hillary pulled ahead in popular vote counts. That's what you guys refuse to admit. Sorry you don't like it, but that doesn't make it untrue.
I like how you argue Hillary's best case scenario as if Obama were arguing it! lol! Believe me, she won't be asking you to make her case for her. I could do a better job arguing Obama's case.
Hillary's best case scenario is to get on the Dem ticket as VP. Start getting used to the possibility. She could have enough leverage to force it.
Where McCain's hefty senior and Latino and Jewish populations will crush Obama in the GE. FL is a good argument in her favor, just by demographics alone.
Which will serve to bolster Dem support within the large Puerto Rican populations in New York and Florida, where she is already popular. PR is a good argument in her favor.
Obama can't win FL against McCain, and he's an unknown quantity in MI. Can Detroit carry the state for Obama? We don't know. Too bad he took his name off the ballot and then blocked a revote.
Come on, NCSteve. You're not really worried about this. This is a party issue to resolve. It's out of our hands. It's out of the candidates' hands.
The Republicans will count FL and MI in the Win column if Dems don't try to salvage those states.
If Obama doesn't reach 2025 by the end of the primaries, they will be separated by roughly 150 delegates. Try to argue that's not close. Go ahead. Give me a modern historical example of resolving a closer race.
I can agree that they both have arguments to make.
I could ask you the same thing if Hillary comes out ahead in the popular vote and remains competitive with delegates. In 1980, Ted Kennedy went to the convention trailing by about 750 delegates. He fought for the nomination against a sitting president, why shouldn't Hillary? Again, even if Obama reaches 2025, Hillary has a compelling VP argument. I think Clinton supporters would be plenty happy about a joint ticket.
Civil war works both ways, NCSteve. Ever hear of Hell hath no fury like 16 million Clinton supporters scorned? It's best to sit tight and be patient just a little longer.
And Clinton supporters can easily blame Obama supporters for fostering bad blood. Again, it works both ways.
Why? Because we want the democratic process to play out rather than cutting it short?
Why get mad if nothing catastrophic has happened? In fact, Obama survived the kitchen sink, didn't he? Obama is the presumptive nominee, right? Stop expecting us to be in head-over-heels about Obama. It's never going to happen!
If you would choose your words more carefully before you type them, maybe you wouldn't be accused of sexism. Your word choices beg the question: Would you want to "silence" or "shut down" John Edwards if he were in Hillary's shoes? Who are you to silence or shut down anyone, for crap's sake! I mean, seriously. We don't live in Russia.
We get mad that you're trying to shut down a democratic election process and a viable, competitive Democrat. What is so hard to understand about wanting to maintain some semblance of democracy?
May 15, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
codegen86,
What rules is she inventing? Can you provide a source for this claim so I can rebut it properly? Thanks.
FYI, this concept—of Hillary's future in politics—was discussed on CNN last night, and even Carl Bernstein doesn't think she's destroying her future in politics. Obama doesn't think it, why should you? Only the Republican commentators think it. Are you a Republican?
May 14, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ever heard of delegates?
May 14, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answering a question with a question?
May 14, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes a question is the best answer :)
May 15, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it?
May 15, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only sometimes, as you aptly demonstrated.
May 15, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
The answer is never.
May 15, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to count MI and FL for starters.
Trying to say that the vote isn't about delegates about about popular votes.
Trying to claim that some states are more important than others.
For someone who supports a politician who had a 50+1 strategy, gasket, you are trying awful hard to reinvent how elections are determined. She lost. Even by one vote. Done, end of story.
As far as disenfranchising her vocal minority? Well, that's their choice. You will note I have already forbidden Otto F to vote for Obama.
May 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker,
Seriously? Trying to count MI and FL has always been on the table. The party itself provided the option for states to go before the Rules Committee and argue a compromise to the punishment. This has been the party's rule since before the primaries began. Hillary didn't invent the rule.
The DNC Rules Committee meets on May 31. We'll know more in early June. Hold your pants on.
So where's Hillary's "invention" part?
Not sure what you mean here because of too many "abouts." That can happen when you try to type while your knee is jerking.
Hillary publicly acknowledges that the delegates count. As recently as last night's speech, even. Go ahead, give a listen.
Not sure what "claim" of Hillary's you're referring to, since, naturally, you haven't supplied one.
If you mean that winning "swing states" is more important for Democrats than winning Wyoming, it's a claim that can be supported with historical precedent. Since we can't foretell the future, we have to rely on past elections as our approximate guide.
If you want all the states to matter (not just the ones that Obama won), you should be amenable to permitting the remaining states to vote. (Otherwise you contradict yourself.) Obama seems onboard with the primaries continuing.
Show me where I said anything of the sort.
a) I've never in my life commented on the 50+1 strategy. That's because I don't give a shit about campaign jargon. You must be confusing me with someone else.
b) I'm not trying "awful hard to reinvent how elections are determined." I don't have the time, for one thing. Nor do I have the expertise. Again, you must be confusing me with someone else.
You don't seem to be thinking too clearly today, clearthinker.
You have no idea what I actually think, in fact. I support Hillary. I'll support her until she drops out or concedes. So what? What's it to you? I think the primaries should run their course. That's what they are for, remember?
As a history-making effort alone, I think Hillary needs to break new ground as close to the goal as she can get. There is a historic relevance to her achievement in this endeavor: it paves a way for future female candidates.
Obama doesn't have enough delegates. It's not done until he has enough. Sorry. I thought you knew how it worked.
What are you talking about?
May 14, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm talking about you.
The Hillary people who are still in the "denial" stage of grief over death.
Hillary is already at the "bargaining" stage. You need to catch up to your candidate.
Hillary will go down as a novelty candidate: former first lady, first former first lady elected to the Senate, first credible woman run at the top of the ticket.
That will be all.
She has chosen to run her campaign around non-issues and pandering. She started off talking about universal health care (with nary a nod at anything else) and now her issues are promise-anything-to-anyone.
In fact, Hillary Clinton will go down as the largest swan dive in modern US history: there are two reasons she lost the Presidential Nominee spot. The first is that Obama was exceptionally smart in his campaign. The second is that Hillary's campaign was exceptionally bad.
This election was hers to lose. And she did.
Obama, in fact, will go down as a game changing candidate -- for harnessing the power of the Internet in an analogous way to the way that JFK harnessed television.
May 14, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't quite know what to say, clearthinker. You seem to know me better than I know myself. I'm more complex than you can possibly fathom from such limited interactions with me. You have only those limited interactions to go on, yet you draw far-ranging conclusions from them. I'm sure it serves you well somehow, but it has always served me ill.
You seem to have predictive powers regarding how Hillary's campaign will go down in history. I defer to your superior knowledge in this area, as I have no such powers. I have my own theories, and they don't align with yours at all.
What I can see is that the press has started to soften toward Hillary and begin to pay her the respect she deserves. They are doing it because they know it's over and they know Hillary didn't destroy Obama after all. That's their job. They've been furious with her that she might take that pleasure away from them.
But now that they realize she didn't take it away, they are finally acknowledging what Clinton supporters have known all along about her. At least in the tributes I've been reading. I think she'll come out of this just fine, just like she has all of her life.
It's nice to see the forgiving shift in the press. You haven't caught up with everyone else, clearthinker, and you probably won't. Nothing I can do about that.
I'm not in denial, and I have made plenty of comments to that effect. I'm also not a minority. I'm one of 16 million voters who voted for Hillary in the primaries. I don't have any problem with how Hillary campaigned, I don't have any problem with her humanness, her failures, her stumbles. I never expected her to be perfect. I'm proud of her, and I will stick with her until she stops campaigning. Nothing you can do about that.
May 14, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So US News expects her to win MT and SD? This seems more than a bit of a stretch. She has not won any mountain/prairie states to date. Not one. Not Utah, not Colorado, not Kansas, not Nebraska (where she had Sen Kerry's backing), not North Dakota, not Wyoming, not Idaho and not Minnesota. Nor is she leading in the polls in South Dakota. She trails Obama by 12 points in the one poll take so far there. While she is ahead by 8 pts in the one poll taken in Montana, that poll was taken last December (that is to say, before even Obama's Iowa win, let alone his series of Mountain State wins). Given that those two states add up to over 47K of her pick-up totals, your final tally of her ending up 13K ahead is really optimistic (read absurdly implausible).
May 14, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I am on the subject of the exceedingly optimistic, I would note that the 300 thousand vote margin predicted for Puerto Rico would mean that she wins there by 2 to 1. The one poll taken there (already a few months stale) has her only 13 pts ahead, not 33. Moreover, while Acevado-Vila has been indicted, he is still the governor and still controls an important political machine on the island, so while it is reasonable to expect her to win, it is not really at all realistic to expect her to win by such a lopsided margin.
In other words, this projection means that she can win the popular vote only in the same sense that I can swim to France. It is theoretically possible, but not at all realistic.
May 14, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not trying to suggest that this will happen. However, things can change in politics overnight. If she's still so close, I don't understand the calls for her to drop out or the declaration of the race being over. I expect her to stay in until this all plays out. In the meantime I will look towards the future with my mind set somewhere between optimism and fantasy.
May 14, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I do not like to be unpleasant, but surely this is a bit disingenuous, no? One does not hear calls for Ron Paul to drop out, and yet he is even further behind John McCain than Sen Clinton is behind Sen Obama. That is because the calls to drop out are not really a function of the disparity of victories; the calls to drop out are a function of concern over the possibility of a schism. The intelligibility of these calls for her to drop out has nothing to do with the insuperability (or lack thereof) of Obama's margin of victory.
May 14, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The schism is there. She has her coalition of voters; he has his. The demographics have been set for some time now.
May 14, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed!
May 14, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is everyone discounting the so-called popular vote totals? BECAUSE THE NOMINATION IS BASED ON DELEGATES!! Duh...are you from WV?
May 14, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently you don't have a very good understanding of the different types of delegates in the Dem primary. Please see my above response to codegen86.
No, I'm not from WV. Are you?
May 14, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't buy into all the talk that Hillary is finished. If she were, they wouldn't be talking about it.
May 14, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Genius comment. ;-)
May 14, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that you can get an argument on this site about absolutely anything. Should we feel bad for Monica Lewinsky? Should we change the rules that govern reader blogs? You're in a group of people who are self-selected because they *like* arguing. Their willingness to argue about X or Y proves exactly nothing.
May 14, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure Otto meant all the "talk" in the news media that Hillary is finished, not all the talk here in the TPM comment threads, Alex39.
That's why I found it funny: If Hillary is still news, she is still in the race. If she were truly out, the media would stop talking about her and talk about something else. But in fact, they've been talking about her dropping out since February. So Otto thinks we shouldn't take such talk seriously. It's like crying wolf.
I'm sure I've explained all the funny out of it.
May 14, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be clear....any discussion involving Florida or Michigan is erroneous and DOA. Stick a fork in that argument once and for all.
May 14, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
As U.S. News demonstrates, there are scenarios you can concoct that give Clinton the popular vote lead. There is disagreement about whether or not those concocted scenarios are realistic (I'm not sure they are), but they can be arithmetically concocted nonetheless.
And it's true that superdelegates carry just as much weight when it comes to the hard math as pledged delegates. And it's reasonable to think (based on anecdotal evidence taken from the comments of at least some undeclared superdelegates) that one of the variables that could factor into superdelegates' decisions of whom to endorse is popular vote. (Or at least some version of counting the popular vote. It's credibility as a factor arguably is compromised by the subjective aspect of the various ways of estimating it in this primary process.)
So I agree that the fact that the ultimate measure of victory in this primary is delegates doesn't yet invalidate the argument that the question of "popular vote" is still relevant to the question of who will ultimately have more total delegates.
But, recognizing that, I think many suggestions or implications that Clinton should drop out could be considered at least reaonable because the odds for Clinton have become sufficiently remote that folks have a sense that most reasonable candidates wouldn't persist in the face of them. That's a reasonable position based on an assessment of the lion's share of historical precedent, even if Clinton's defeat isn't an absolute certainty quite yet.
So I think any calls for her to drop out at least deserve to be recognized as reasonable, while admitting they're not irresistable. I think a call to get out, at this point, is in fact more reasonable than Clinton's justification for staying in. But I'll admit that view is based in part on some of the subjective assessments still at play here.
May 14, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sensible words, bdh. The possibility of Hillary winning by any measure is remote. But Obama hasn't won enough delegates yet, though, so I'd say calls for her resignation are a bit premature. She's come this far, she might as well play it out until the end and see what she can get. As to the notion that Hillary is somehow delusional, it's just absurd. We've seen this woman for more than 15 years now. She is many things, but delusional is not one of them. She is finishing the campaign for her supporters and for herself and stranger things have happened.
As for the posters who claim she's not playing by the rules, this is sophistry. The rules are that the candidate who reaches the magic number wins. That number can include superdelegates and pledged delegates. Obama hasn't won enough pledged delegates and needs the supers to put him over the top, just like Hillary. He has a better claim to their allegiance, given that he has outperformed her by a smidgeon, but they can vote however they want. That can include taking into account the vote totals in Florida, regardless of whether the delegation is seated or not. Michigan stands on a different footing in my mind, since Obama wasn't even on the ballot. And I do think it would be wrong for HRC to raise some kind of legal challenge to seating the delegations according to the primary vote, though it's a huge black eye on the party that the situation got to this point and may come back to haunt us in November.
May 14, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you bdh and guerilla for two very reasoned responses. I appreciate your level-headedness and not just spewing the same talking points I've seen a million times over.
May 15, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
IT'S OVER!
May 14, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
finis!
May 14, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What changed?"
Good question and the answer is nothing. Obama needed to end it in Indiana and did not. He got a little bump in NC/IN but he couldn't knock her out as hoped by the Dem leadership. And coming up fast was that nagging and prickly question of FLA/MI.
It has always been begrudgingly whispered in so many slime-speak ways by Dean, the DNC, Obama and everyone else that those voters would have to count (and if the Dems want to win the WH, they had to count somehow). Obama had to wrap this up soon, even if only by claiming, with the pundits echoing loudly, in no uncertain terms, that it was over. The press has never driven a candidate out like this before, regardless of how long a shot, and it doesn’t bode well for future democratic elections.
The media has behaved pretty shamefully during the primary though it’s nothing new. But the almost total devaluation of an unprecedented rout by a candidate that the press, on their own, has declared out of contention is reprehensible. I realized that Clinton had really lost last week when the media chorus began pushing that line. It had nothing to do with numbers or viability or who was getting what votes. And I don't think the press would have ran with that line without a signal from the DNC and Dem leadership.
May 14, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean WV? How was this unprecedented? Just in this primary race Obama has won by this or greater margins in several states.
It had everything to do with the numbers. It became even more evident that Clinton couldn't catch Obama in the pledged delegate count, most obviously.
Seriously? The press runs candidates out every primary election cycle. Howard Dean would be a recent example. Some (Kucinich, for example) they never even let in in the first place.
If the press is so invested in Obama, how do you explain the relentless beating they gave him on the Wright and "bitter" flaps? It takes a really short memory to make a claim like this of overwhelming media bias towards Obama.
May 14, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
WV was an unprecedented rout because it was achieved by a candidate who, by all accounts, is already out of the running. I believe she had a 54% lead among working class voters there (yes, white). Those are “numbers” that indicate Obama has not sewed up Dem voters. The numbers were interpreted in a way that Clinton viability could be proclaimed “impossible.” I have no problem with Axelrod pushing the pledged delegates as the metric, that’s his job, but for the political press to abet them in dismissing a candidate from a race is a dangerous precedent. (Current CNN headline: "Clinton Win Leads to Obama Boost").
True, a majority of all authorized delegates determine the winner. But until that majority is obtained, the lead in delegates, pledged or otherwise, is just a snapshot that means about as much as a poll. Still, I’ve read countless reports in the press that Obama has already won, so it must be a fact, right? John Edwards was not drummed out of the race like Clinton has been. I was disappointed that he dropped out when he did but I understand he, like Clinton, was also running against a dismissive press, so it was a more difficult battle. He wasn’t tagged as having no chance to win and, even if he had been, no one in the press or Dem party would have insisted he get out because he was destroying the party by running.
Pledged delegates are not the determiner under the rules everyone is so concerned with when it suits their agenda. And the will of the people, which should be the scoreboard, is one issue for unpledged delegates to consider (or not) but isn’t the ultimate factor. The whole system needs reforming. It’s basically the will of the party that determines a nominee (unless they garner a majority before the convention). And I think the will of the party has decided it (Clinton’s out). I don't see it as some great conspiracy, just to deny Clinton a shot, but the casual rejection of a candidate by the press, even with approval all around, is troubling. I see many “neutral”party leaders, like Brazille, Pelosi, maybe even Dean, having made up their minds before the people could make up theirs, and their will be done.
May 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I'm not mistaken, and I'm usually not, Howard Dean actually already has that particular distinction.
Go ahead with your revised history, however, hard fact hasn't deterred you yet. I doubt it ever will.
Now that Edwards has blessed your candidate, and it's all but certain he'll be nominated, (good job), I doubt your corporate pandering will be tolerated as it has been thus far. I'm looking forward to that.
:)
May 15, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, bee, but Dean showed the potential but Obama harnessed the power as never before. It's the same game changing way that JFK/TV image issues changed after 1960.
If Dean had truly changed things, you would have seen all the candidates using the Internet like Obama.
A more apt analogy is Howard Dean is like Richard Nixon and the Checkers speech. It showed the possibilities of reaching a television audience, but JFK truly mastered the medium. Just as Obama has mastered the Internet.
How naive you are. If you think my explaining the real issues is pandering for corporations, I suggest you read some deeper histories and analysis.
Fact: 80% of current reserves are controlled by (foreign) nationalized companies.
Fact: 20% of current reserves are accessible by our "majors".
I hope your family is all near to you as airplane travel will be prohibitively expensive in about 12-18 months time. (Please don't confuse that with non-existent.)
I suspect that by winter you will be more concerned about energy prices than worrying about an Internet talk board. Rant all you like about "nationalizing the oil companies"... or having energy resources treated like a public utility. You will find soon enough that there are no resources to nationalize.
By the way, for a history lesson:
Nixon capped gas prices -- just like you want. It was Jimmy Carter that let them float.
For someone so in denial when anyone talks how Reagan energized a new political map (for better or for worse), I hope you figure out how to rationalize that Nixon and you feel the same way about gas prices.
You will reach sophistication when you take the broad view and stop demonizing viewpoints that are not on your extreme end of the scale.
May 15, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not the same at all.
Besides, you're forgetting about Rove. Rove is the master of stagecraft, which was a game-changer before Obama came along.
Sorry to upset your apple cart. I know you'll disagree.
May 15, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, gasket, you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now. I can't disagree with your argument since it follows no logical connection to the discussion at hand: mastering a new medium that changes the way campaigns are conducted.
May 15, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just disagree with you about this entire point, clearthinker.
I disagree that JFK mastered the new medium.
I also disagree that Obama mastered the new medium.
In each case, the new media mastered them.
May 15, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
NG I wouldn't rely on the USA article all that much--did you see the predictions they made for NC and IN? They gave HRC a net of 158,000 in IN when she only netted 14,411. They gave HRC a net loss in NC of -125,000 when her actual net loss was -227,000. As you noted they were off in HRC's favor in WV--but notice how selectively you drew information from that article to HRC's advantage. That's been the problem all along.
When the candidate is more important than the party, no one wins. An ego leader wants to be remembered for who they are and clings to their own self delusion. A true leader will be remembered for what they did and what they inspired. If we only took the campaign so far as a metric, I have and will continue to put my money on BO. It appears you will do the same for HRC but I hope you don't have the same delusion as her--and I mean that sincerely--I find it very disturbing for HRC that she is unable to see the reality she is in. It doesn't bode well for who she would be as a world leader.
May 15, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the candidate is more important than the party, no one wins.
Agreed! And I believe ending the nomination contest before all the voters have voted in an election this close is putting candidate above party/constituents.
May 15, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
NG -
One point about the Michael Barone column you list: it's from March 28th, before Indiana, North Carolina, and even Pennsylvania voted. Now that they all have, we can compare his scenario against what actual voters said in those states, in addition to West Virginia.
Barone estimated a 370,200 vote gain for Clinton in Pennsylvania, a 158,918 Clinton edge in Indiana, and a 125,120 Obama lead in North Carolina. The results (according to cnn.com) were Clinton gains of 214,244 in PA and 14,195 in IN, and an Obama gain of 223,859 in NC.
So while you're correct that Clinton outperfomed Barone's scenario by almost 50k votes in West Virginia, she underperformed by 155,956 in PA, 144,723 in IN, and 98,639 in NC, almost 400k votes in those three states.
When you add all that up, including West Virginia, she's running about 350k behind Barone's scenario. I trust you simply didn't realize the column was that old, and that you didn't just cherry-pick the one state since then where Clinton outperformed Barone's scenario.
Strictly speaking, of course, the popular vote totals are irrelevant. As Clinton said back in January, and as the Democratic Party rules say, this is a race for delegates.
Clinton appeals to a large, significant portion of the Democratic electorate. She's a formidable candidate, but she's being beaten by a candidate who better understood the rules, and who has appealed successfully to more voters.
Clinton has the right to stay in the race as long as she wants, and as long as she has the money to do so. She can make whatever appeals to superdelegates she likes, but I think her claims that Obama is unelectable (while she presumably is electable) have so far alienated more far supers than they have convinced. She's come very close to the nomination, but she hasn't been able to close the deal. I think any realistic assessment of her chances has to admit now that she can't win the nomination, barring some significant unexpected event that removes Obama from the race.
May 15, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment