« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
If Hillary can say she's won the pop. vote, why can't Obama say he's won a majority of delegates?
Have we gotten to a point in this primary when Obama can't declare he's won a majority of delegates because Hillary will get angry? How gracious is too gracious?
Has Hillary extended the same courtesy and respect that Obama has extended to her?
Why do we all have to walk on eggshells about who's winning this race?
Terry Mcauliffe and Howard Wolfson are still on the MSM 24 hours a day saying the popular vote matters, saying that Obama can't win the general election, etc.
And there are zero Obama surrogates to answer that claim?
It's as if Hillary's surrogates went to boot camp.
I believe it's a mistake on the part of the Obama campaign not to deploy a strong MSM communications strategy.
They're walking on eggshells while the Clinton campaign is walking all over them.
Comments (59)
Yeah, so she's won the popular vote since March. That, and a buck and a quarter, will get her a McChicken sandwich at the local McDonald's.
It's delegates that count. Period. Obama should just make the statement. We're begging for some closure on this so we can turn to smashing McBush.
May 20, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right- delegates count.
And Obama doesn't have them yet. If the elected total goes up due to an inevitable compromise next month, then he doesn't even have 50% right now!!
And when it comes to delegates... err.. how many Wyomings equal a California...or an Ohio...or a Pennsylvania... or.....?
May 21, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is, well, Hillarious. :)
The compromise you wish for will happen on May 31. At that time, FL and MI will be seated at the convention - but they'll each lose half their delegates.
Michigan will be forced to accept some split. Florida could be done as voted - of course, Obama will likely end up with Edwards's delegates from that state, too.
Bottom line: Clinton MIGHT gain a NET of 10 delegates on May 31, FL/MI will be seated, and that's that.
May 21, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is, well, Hillarious. :)
The compromise you wish for will happen on May 31. At that time, FL and MI will be seated at the convention - but they'll each lose half their delegates.
Michigan will be forced to accept some split. Florida could be done as voted - of course, Obama will likely end up with Edwards's delegates from that state, too.
Bottom line: Clinton MIGHT gain a NET of 10 delegates on May 31, FL/MI will be seated, and that's that.
May 21, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has over half of the pledged delegates wether MI and FL are seated or not. Try again.
May 21, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never done this before, but I am recommending my own post today, because it features another blogger, not me. Please check out my Brad Listi post, because it speaks to what you're saying here.
Or, just go here:
http://blog.myspace.com/attentiondeficitdisorderb
May 20, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi, Lis--Thanks for the link! That's a great post, although on my computer there's a weird gray block over several paragraphs; I don't know if it's a problem with my system or what. But anyway, I was listening to Air America radio yesterday and heard a caller from Pittsburgh say she would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee because she couldn't let herself or her daughter down after the way "they" have "dragged Hillary through the mud like that", and I was so baffled! I know when you have a strong opinion about something like I do about Obama, you hear what you want to hear and dismiss what doesn't support your preconceived notions, but I agree with your guest blogger, I honestly do not thing I have heard anyone on the Obama team with the exception of Samantha Power do any name-calling or mud-dragging or any ad hominem attacks, nothing like the scale that the Clinton campaign indulged in. I'm really confused by the accusations. And for months now the free pass by the press has been revoked.
I volunteered at Obama headquarters here and housed an out-of-town staffer in my home and I NEVER heard any bad-mouthing of Hillary, even off the record; they were all always on message and relentlessly upbeat.
I'm forced to conclude that these Clinton folks are just sore losers and I hope they come around by November!
May 20, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was listening to Air America radio yesterday and heard a caller from Pittsburgh say she would vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee because she couldn't let herself or her daughter down after the way "they" have "dragged Hillary through the mud like that", and I was so baffled
It's not the candidate, it's the media, and many Obama supporters.
Hillary has been spoken of in langauage that's worse than what Dems use to describe George Bush. That's insane-- but it's a reality.
Just listen to the way they talk about her tonight. Like a crazy person who can't get votes.
May 21, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
What - are you referencing Alex Castellanos saying that HRC deserves to be called a bitch?
Castellanos IS A REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST. He supports McCain. If that's your reference for the media tonight, you need to point your anger elsewhere.
For other media pundits, what I heard was variations on John King's take: "The math is not impossible, but it's very daunting for Sen. Clinton."
The fact is that MI/FL won't save her. The RBC is probably going to decide to penalize the two states' delegations (most likely by still stripping half their delegates) and working out some seating compromise for the remaining half.
May 21, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
But technically she hasn't won the popular vote. She's counting Michigan and Florida as winner take all.
Lets be clear here
Hillary does not lead in popular vote.
Nor does she lead in delegates.
May 21, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, to provide even more clarity:
The "popular vote" is an absurd, meaningless, ridiculous metric to use in a primary/caucus system. It doesn't matter. It won't matter. No one gives a rip.
The delegate count, on the other hand, is real and mathematical. Clinton does not lead this metric. She hasn't led in this metric for months. She will finish behind in this metric. And that is why Obama will win the nomination.
May 21, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
She never did lead in pledged delegates.
May 21, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Clinton's arguments are increasingly absurd and test the limits of suspended disbelief. What exactly does Barack Obama have to do to win this nomination? This mockery of our electoral process has played itself out far too long. Enough is enough.
I keep hearing pundits praise Clinton's new tone. She is to be commended for exercising self control. After all, she is not smearing Obama anymore, so what is the harm? Well, that's not what I perceive. Clinton’s attacks may not be overt but the underlying message is still the same. He is weak and I am strong. He will lose because he is black; I will win because I am white. Her relentless campaign in KY coupled with the whisper smear waged against Obama is her way of casting doubt on his viability without saying a word. Her speeches indicate a need to keep fighting for a nomination that, by everyone's standards, she clearly lost weeks ago. Her message may not be overt but it's hardly subtle.
She can't beat Obama by the rules or with her own appeal to voters, so she casts doubts on his electability, and she can only do it in a state that is poor, isolated, undereducated, gullible, and Republican. Clinton’s contrived movement of supporters in both WV and KY are comprised of voters who openly admit that race is an issue. Race is certainly the one issue Clinton seized and amplified. Team Clinton fanned racial fears and perpetuated misinformation. I am sure she knows these same people will likely turn around and vote for McCain over a woman in the general election.
Frankly, I don't understand why the Party leadership doesn't end this brutal and damaging primary. It is not good for the Party, and it is certainly not good for Obama’s presidential bid. It is obvious that Clinton is determined to undermine Obama's campaign. My guess is that she is going to the convention no matter what the outcome in June. Her loyalty is to corporate interests and cronies like Murdoch and Penn, not the American people.
May 21, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Clinton's arguments are increasingly absurd and test the limits of suspended disbelief. What exactly does Barack Obama have to do to win this nomination?
He needs to get a majority of ALL the votes! And if it were Hillary who were blocking two states worth of Obama votes, all hell would be breaking loose.
But because it's Hillary, somehow SHE'S the one who is the jerk!
And history check, guys-- it was OBAMA who TOOK HIS NAME OUT of Michigan. Nobody else.
May 21, 2008 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm unsure how you would define "participate", which is what Hillary pledged to not do.
Obama is not "blocking" anything. As of this moment, the Rules are that MI and FL don't count. Hillary had ample time before the primaries to have those rules changed. And the rules that allow caucuses, or any other such nonsense she wants to spew.
MI came up with a reasonable split: Hillary turned it down. How do you with any honesty think if MI is counted, Obama should get ZERO? In the exit polls, Obama received 79% of the uncommitted vote. Edwards got most of the rest.
And let's be clear: Hillary's path to the popular vote lead includes discounting 4 caucus states. This makes sense to you: Let's count the two states that broke the rules with no advantage to Obama, and discount four states that played by the rules.
God, I wonder what the Repubs have on the non-vetted Hillary and Bill over the last 7 years. Because they still desperately want Hillary to be their nominee.
Be careful what you wish for.
May 21, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, every single democratic candidate still in the race at the time of the Michigan primary (including Edwards, Biden, Richardson and Obama), took their name off of the Michigan ballot except for Clinton and Chris Dodd.
Hillary Clinton, when asked why she was (rather suspiciously) leaving her name on the ballot when most other candidates were abiding by the rules set by the DNC, said (I'm paraphrasing, but it's almost exact): "The results are not going to count for anything, so it's just a technicality that my name is on the ballot."
The fact that she is now claiming a popular vote lead by including votes from Michigan (without allowing Obama any leeway to claim some if not all of the uncommitted vote, which incidentally didn't come in too far behind Clinton), is completely disingenuous. I am a woman who would love to see a woman in the white house. That said, I don't want a woman in the white house who has repeatedly shown herself alarmingly willing to bend the rules/change the meaning of victory/disassociate her campaign from those who chose to support another candidate (see: blacks, college graduates, people under 30).
To sum up: Obama was not the only one who took his name off of the Michigan ballot. Every single other candidate did so as well, except for Clinton and Dodd. At the time, Clinton explained that this was a formality.
It is odd to me that she now has the gall to explain her position regarding Florida and Michigan by arguing that the nomination process would be a farce if the nominee was picked by only 48 states. Firstly, I believe it was Terry McAuliffe who said in January that this race is essentially "a 27-state contest" (she thought the race would be over by February 5). Secondly, her calculation that she is ahead in the popular vote has been made by, literally, excluding from the tally four states that voted via caucuses and thereby didn't precisely record a popular vote. Essentially, she has decided that it's acceptable to disavow states that haven't supported her, or that don't support her political calculations.
Do we want a president who is so willing to bend facts to fit her own self-serving perspective on the world? Doesn't this sound dangerously familiar? Obama has consistently showed respect to all 50 states, which is why he's ahead right now. Rather than simply planning for the big states (New York, California, etc), he set up massive organizations in all the little states in between - and they rewarded him with victories.
May 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Further history check:
The pledge signed by the Democratic candidates said they would not campaign OR PARTICIPATE (my emphasis) in any primary held outside the Feb. 5 primary window that was not approved by the DNC.
That's why almost every Dem candidate took their names off the MI ballot. Clinton stayed on the ballot - after giving indications that she would join Obama, Edwards, Dodd and Gravel and come off.
As for FL, the candidates all stayed on. Why? State law says that you can't go on a GE ballot in FL unless you're on a primary ballot first.
May 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said for sure!
May 21, 2008 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll be lazy and repost something I posted in another blog:
The "popular vote metric" is a completely ignorant and fallacious metric. The problem is that a number of states hold caucuses. Obama has won every single caucus save one (Nevada). Voter turnout in caucuses is extremely low compared to that of primaries. The following will explain better than I could.
Read
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/04/the-popular-vote-fallacy.aspx
Allow me to use my own state of MN as an example. Minnesota is a caucus state with results of 66-32% in favor of Obama which yielded an excess of caucus voters of 73,115 for Obama. This figure is included in the media created margin of approximately 700,000 for Obama. But, because turnout in Caucus states is considerably lower than in primary states (Clinton is right about that), the margin of victory is also held down. Neighboring Wisconsin has a similar sized electorate. If the same number of voters turned out for a Mn primary as in Wisconsin and if Obama had the same 66-32% majority, his voter margin would have been over 340,00 rather than merely 73,115. Or, if Obama carried a hypothetical Mn primary by the same pct as neighboring Wisconsin (58-41%), then Obama's popular vote margin would have been 190,000 instead of merely 73,115. Even if Obama's margin of victory would only have been 10%, his popular vote margin would have been 110,000 --- still considerably more than he is credited with when only including caucus margin of victory.
Treating the vote totals in caucus states in the same category as primary vote totals significantly disadvantages the caucus states. Even though Mn's electorate size is comparable to Wisconsin, there were 5 times as many voters in the Wis primary as in the Mn caucus. This makes the Wisconsin primary 5 times more important than Mn even though the electorates are essentially equal. Another reason why it is a myth to suggest there is such a thing as a popular vote total. If the rules are unfair, change them but do so before the primary season not after. For this season, stick with the rules.
I think it speaks for itself. The fact that Hillary Clinton continues to use such a fallacious metric for the primary is just pathetic.
May 21, 2008 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Treating the vote totals in caucus states in the same category as primary vote totals significantly disadvantages the caucus states.
That is COMPLETE nonsense. Caucus votes are the votes that were voted. Nobody blocked anyone else from voting in those states. So you can't magically extrapolate something else out of them to give your guy a further advantage...
And if anything-- with Washington as a guide where there was a caucus AND a later primary-- Obama votes FELL in the primary by comparison!
Hmm.. didn't here much about that little tidbit on the news, did you...?
May 21, 2008 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does make total sense, if you have half a brain to understand it. You either a) just don't understand the difference between a caucus and a primary and/or b) you didn't read the entire blog link.
In caucus states, voter turnout is much smaller than in primary states, because of the way the system is set up. Hillary Clinton claims she has won the popular vote, but the issue is that primary states have a much higher voter turnout as a) they are private, direct balloting, and b) caucuses are town-meeting style, in specific locations, thus forcing the number of attendees to be smaller than that of the voters in a primary. Not to mention that 4 caucus states (by their state rules) are not required to release or to actually tally every single vote, as one would in a caucus state(this would be WA, NV, IA and ME, three of which went to Obama).
Hillary Clinton's claim is that she has won the popular vote. But I ask: how can you compare the system by which a candidate is chosen in a primary state to that of how a candidate is chosen in a caucus state? The point was WELL explained in my post, in that if Minnesota were a primary state, more people would have voted. That's not too difficult to understand.
Never before, since the inception of the current primary system (as far as I know) has a candidate in a Presidential Primary used the "popular vote" as a metric for who should win the primary. It's pathetic.
May 21, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do believe this might be one of the best summary paragraphs I've ever read. Bravo.
May 21, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why thank you kindly.
May 21, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
I live in WA, and I can tell you that NOBODY gave a shit about the primary. EVERYONE knew that the WA state Dem party used the CAUCUS ONLY to allocate its delegates. The primary numbers are MEANINGLESS, because people knew it would COUNT FOR NOTHING (just like FL and MI). If you think that knowing that your vote won't count doesn't influence voting behavior, you are simply an idiot.
However, if you want to raise a credible argument about the merit of caucuses, then TX would be a decent example. Using WA to prove your point is MORONIC.
May 21, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Supposed to be in italics... More of the quote... Anyway...
Treating the vote totals in caucus states in the same category as primary vote totals significantly disadvantages the caucus states. Even though Mn's electorate size is comparable to Wisconsin, there were 5 times as many voters in the Wis primary as in the Mn caucus. This makes the Wisconsin primary 5 times more important than Mn even though the electorates are essentially equal. Another reason why it is a myth to suggest there is such a thing as a popular vote total. If the rules are unfair, change them but do so before the primary season not after. For this season, stick with the rules.
May 21, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
If caucus states had held primaries instead, it would have benefited Hillary. Obama would not have gotten as many delegates. Witness Washington state as an example.
He got a disproportionate amount of delegates vis a vis the caucus system. So what's your point? That it would have helped OBAMA? Hardly.
May 21, 2008 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton went into this race with all of the advantages. Not only did she have name recognition, money, and the establishment behind her, she also had a deeply personal experience with the Democratic presidential primary process. The Clintons were in a position to work the system better than anyone else. The caucus is part of the Democratic nomination for a reason; Bill Clinton probably would not have won his bid without it. There is a democratic argument for caucuses.
You don't know if Clinton would have out performed Obama if the rules were different. Undoubtedly, the Obama campaign would have used a different strategy for different rules. In this nomination, like previous nominations including Bill Clinton's, the game is won with delegates.
Obama's team followed the party rules and won. It should be noted that Clinton agreed to follow the rules set forth by the DNC, and her top surrogates sat on the committee that voted to strip Fl and MI of its delegates. It is unethical and subversive to the democratic process for Clinton to change the rules because she didn't win. It also reeks of rigged elections like the ones carried out by totalitarian regimes.
May 21, 2008 7:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Undoubtedly, the Obama campaign would have used a different strategy for different rules."
Of course. Obama's people looked at the rules, decided what they needed to do to win, went out and played hard to win, and did win.
HRC's arrogant schmucks assumed victory, and when they realized that Obama's forces had actually placed the issue in doubt, started lying and whining and trying to change the rules.
Not only is she toast, but her demonstrated psychopathy since Super Ruesday has deprived her of even the remotest chance to be a future player at the presidential level, at least with the Democrats.
May 21, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's presumptuous for Obama to claim a majority right now. It's hype, that's the problem.
Because there will definitely be some kind of compromise with Michigan and Florida, that will push the delegate total up by some number. Thus, there ain't no "majority" right now.
When the total elected-delegate count goes up, so must the half-way mark. Savvy? This "math" seems to have evaded Obama supporters as well as most of the MSM.
May 21, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are saying he cannot tout having more than half of the delegate total because there MAY be a rule change in the future. Sorry! That makes no sense. Because, by the converse argument, Hillary has not even gotten half of the LOWER TOTAL; so what makes anyone think she could get more than half of the fictional higher total?
May 21, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your state of denial boggles the mind.
May 21, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meant for eorockwell
May 21, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe he said "pledged delegates," or am I mistaken? And, of course, that doesn't include MI and FL. The upcoming R&B committee hearing will presumably accept the MI Dem. party's plan to split 69-59, and FL could then be allocated as per the election. However you look at it, Obama is on the brink of becoming the presumptive nominee.
The one thing that puzzles me is how some Clinton supporters can say they support the ideas she advocates but won't support Obama as nominee. I can understand hard feelings but that seems hypocritical.
May 21, 2008 6:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
He "can't" say that he is winning because Hillary's whiny supporters are thumping loudly! Funny thing is that he is winning be EVERY CONCEIVABLE MEASURE except the full inclusion of MI and FL as voted, which will never happen. http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-clinches-non-mifl-pledged.html
May 21, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has been explained so many times already, but once more seems to be necessary.
One, the DNC blocked Florida and Michigan's votes, not Obama. Obama did not agree to allow Clinton's financial backers to pony up the money for revote, and the DNC may not have allowed it anyway.
Two, all the candidates agreed to abide by the DNC's decision to void the two primary contests. Hillary signed it just like everyone else. Now she wants it differently. I just want a president who will respect and follow rules, even if the rules constrict her/him.
Three, I'm not saying that she should have taken her name off the Michigan ballot, but please get your facts correct. Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Richardson all had their names removed. Only Kucinich and Gravel remained on the ticket.
Four, don't you see that Hillary ran practically unopposed in Michigan and only took 55%. Besides wanting to break the agreed upon rules, she turns a questionable victory into a mandate and a 55-0 blowout.
Five, even though it's against the rules, seat Florida as is. The results may not have been legitimate or entirely accurate, but at least the playing field was fairly level.
May 21, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
a quick question about the clinton math: isn't she also discounting all the caucus states in her calcalations?
May 21, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest ruse is ignoring Michigan's many Obama voters. Just that figure alone, if factored in to Hillary's math, would skew the results to Obama's favor, even if every other benefit went her way (which itself is ridiculous, the odds they now cling to are astronomical).
Hillary has a much cchance of winning the lottery as she does of gaining those benefits, the numbers are irrefutable, only by ignoring the truth can they continue to promote their advantages.
but apparently, what we must worry about more than four more years of Bush, more bloody wars, and more dead Marines, is whether Hillary's supporters are offended by the truth. So we tippy-toe around them, in hopes they won't take some sort of childish revenge.
Gosh, what a grown-up way to deal with THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN AMERICAN HISTORY!
Taylor Marsh and Larry Johnson, I have always been your fan. You have been an inspiration to progressives and clear-thinkers since you started your careers.
What happened? I am astounded you would lead any revolt sthat wold take voters away from the Democratic Party.
I still have hopes your partisan posturing might change when the inevitable result finally occurs but if you choose to lead some misguided political mutiny, you will lose me, and many others.
We need to heal this rift, not enable it. Your loyalties should be to the public, not the political machine you have mistakenly identified as the "The People."
If you do choose to go over to the dark side, then keep this in mind; FOR EVERY VOTER YOU CONVINCE TO JOIN YOUR BETRAYAL, WE WILL REPLACE THEM WITH TWO NEW, EXCITED, NON-BITTER DEMOCRATS whose party loyalty can not be so easily swayed.
We will get them anyway, whether you are with us or against us, so wouldn't you prefer to be part of that, rather than it's antithesis?
But if you must, go ahead and vote for McCain. Then you can wear a big red M for the next 8 years, with Obama as president, as the world progresses past you.
May 21, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"test the limits of suspended disbelief."
And rake in more contributions for a hopeless cause, paying forward for advertising that can only benefit media interests.
And failing to pay backwards for services rendered.
The $20 Million she raised last month should be used to pay off her debts, not continue the charade. But instead, they cough up hard-earned money to pay for more wheel-spinning.
Obama's got his bills paid and $30 million in the bank, from almost 2 million donors who can still give him a hundred million more, goo grief, if they all had the resources Hilary's millionaires have, Obama's supporters coul pony up almost a billion dollars, if they could afford it.
And Hillary's billionaires are at the top end of their LEGAL contribution limits.
While they might vote for her, Obama's people aren;t about to give her money.
Obama's campaign has been taking in more than they spend, paid off all their vendors and service providers, and continues to have access to many millions more, while Hillary grows more deeply in debt every day.
So, who do YOU want in charge of your tax money?
And who do you suppose will have the fundraising advantage over Mccain?
May 21, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton is deceiving her supporters and using the stump to create a deeper wedge. Her continued campaign is a disservice to American voters who actually need change in government. Hillary's PR machine has managed to fabricate a narrative that paints her as a victim and Obama as the bad guy who didn't legitimately win the nomination. It is sad that many of her supporters seem to actually believe a narrative that isn't based on a shred of truth. With team players like the Clintons, it's no wonder the Democratic Party lost elections. It is time to push her out. I can't take much more of Hillary Clinton.
May 21, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
talk, reason, have dialogue, discuss the issues
May 21, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can Obama supporters rejoice in any of Obama's accomplishments without being accused of dissing Hillary in some way?
May 21, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's run for the presidency may have broken a glass ceiling that will benefit our collective daughters. But it will not benefit them if it is achieved, not only by breaking the ceiling, but also by breaking the rules.
Therefore, many of us have sent an email to the DNC advocating that the committee -- making the decision about MI,FL delegates on May 31st -- must play by its own rules, which means that they must rule in favor of an aherence to the rules in play for this election. (The rules might be changed for the next election in 2012, and probably should be. But that does not mean that the rules for this election should be changed at the end of the process in this one.)
How can we admonish our offspring -- male or female -- to play by the rules, if we justify the actions of so-called adults who play by them only when they win by doing so?
May 21, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone imagine that if it was actually Obama ahead in the Florida or Michigan, Hillary would actually give a damn about the voters there? No. And would Obama be whining about changing the rules? NO. This is a fundamental character issue. One candidate has it. The other doesn't. Why should the rules be broken for the candidate who has showed the worst side of politics in this nomination process? They shouldn't be. And I know they won't be.
May 21, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everybody stop. Stop. Listen. Clinton deserves the nomination. Period. She deserves it just for being who she is. The wonderful person that she is. Think about it. There's no need to bring in numbers and math. You know in your heart she deserves it. So why not give it to her?
May 21, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This, I believe, is her strongest argument. It also happens to be her only argument.
May 21, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If Hillary can say she's won the pop. vote, why can't Obama say he's won a majority of delegates?"
Because he's an upstart black man and she's an Establishment white woman.
May 21, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to exit polls in KY and OR, is it not the case that Clinton's popular vote was inflated substantially by folks who plan to vote for McCain in the general election? I read somewhere that a question was added to the exit polls to quantify the effect of the Republican's Operation Chaos, crossing over to keep Clinton in the race. Can't find it discussed in the post-election analysis, e.g. ABC's The Note (Halperin).
May 21, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
some of things we hear from the Clinton camp is not the whole truth.
As an example Obama still leads by close to 160 in pledge delegates & is ahead by more or less half million popular votes.
The Clinton camp seems to ignore this hard reality.
The net difference of popular votes & pledged delegates, after the remaining three are held, between the two, is not likely to significantly change the current difference of votes & pledged delegates between the two.
None of the candidates who dropped out of the race had a chance to campaign in FL or MI.
Many voters may have voted for republicans not finding their candidate on the ballot in Fl & MI.
All candidates singed on the agreement and agreed to the decision of DNC.
What if Obama was in her position & had insisted to change the rules, like she is doing, in the middle of the game.
She would have been making fun of him.
Mrs. Clinton is leading in popular votes. This is not true if we check the official figures.
May 21, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody notice that as of this morning, Obama's trendline on pollster.com has just gone above the 50% margin for the first time?
May 21, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sweet! http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
May 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary can say she's won the pop. vote, why can't Obama say he's won a majority of delegates?
Shouldn't the question be the other way around?
May 21, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some interesting math for those who still think Hillary has a chance:
Obama needs 62 delegates to have a majority of all authorized delegates. There are three remaining primaries with 86 delegates. Given that Hillary is favored in P.R. and Obmam in Mont and S.D, a fair to Hillary assumption is that she may win 46 to Obama's 40, leaving him 22 delegates from clinching the nomination. At that point there will be about 200 supers left undeclared. Hence Hillary must win 90+% of the remainig supers to win the nomination. What are the chances of that?
May 21, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Other coincidences that will deliver the nomination to Clinton:
* Obama, while trying to bond with outdoorsmen in Montana, takes a white-water rafting trip booked by Lanny Davis Excursions.
* A meteor in the shape of Jeremiah Wright's head hits Obama.
* Nancy Pelosi endorses Hillary Clinton and influences other undeclared Congressional SDs to do the same. In unrelated news, Pelosi moves into the Clintons' former Chappaqua estate in February 2009.
* In a scene out of the movie "Ricochet", Obama is drugged while at a fundraiser, and spirited away to an abandoned building by a tall guy with white hair and an accent.
* Chelsea Clinton's hedge fund makes a $500M investment in Diebold. In unrelated news, Hillary Clinton wins 99% of the vote in MT, SD and PR primaries.
So, yeah, it would take something like that. :-)
*
May 21, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton wins 99% of the vote in MT, SD and PR primaries.
What's funny is that, even if this DID happen, she would still need 77% of the remaining 212 Super Delegates to clinch the nomination. Obama at that point would only need 30%. It just makes me chuckle.
May 21, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...why can't Obama say he's won a majority of delegates?"
Because that would be misogyny, you woman-hating misogynist!!!
May 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmmmm..... Gary..... Obama hasn't always been exactly gracious and respectful. Not to Hillary "Annie Oakley" Clinton, anyway. Whenever he was... shall we say "less than gracious and respectful" toward her you probably just felt she deserved it, and didn't give it another thought.
And ummmmm..... Obama HAS said that he has won the majority of delegates at least... I don't know.... maybe a hundred times. In fact he's also said he's ahead in the popular vote as well.
Maybe he's "walking on eggshells" because he's winning and he's heard somewhere that when you're winning you don't rub your opponent's face in it, especially if you might need her supporter's support later on. Just a wild guess.
And maybe (and you're going to just HATE this one) he just might have to put her on the ticket. I mean, she does have about half the Party behind her. She has been doing rather well lately. I mean, when you consider that almost nobody seriously thinks she's going to win the nomination, it's pretty impressive that she keeps racking up the victories. I know it's inconvenient, but it is a fact that just yesterday considerably more people voted for Hillary than for Obama.
Waiting for the Obama coronation must be difficult for you, I know. Maybe you can find the strength within you to wait a few more weeks. Dig deep.
May 21, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're exaggerating when you say Obama's mentioned his majority of delegates "about 100 times" and was the Annie Oakley comment necessarily a dig? I don't know, Annie Oakley was a great cowgirl and she was always one of my heroines when I was a girl; she was also a woman who made it in a man's world. I thought Obama was being somewhat humorous when he made that remark, as well, a far cry from Hillary's "He's a Christian, as far as I know", or, "He wouldn't have been MY pastor", among many others of that ilk.
And, umm, if you don't count the totalitarian elections in Michigan and Florida Obama is actually ahead in the popular vote; we don't live in communist China yet as far as I know. As far as putting Hillary on the ticket, I really don't see what value she adds with her high negative rating. Yes, her supporters are a rabid bunch, but the states she is winning lately tend to go Republican anyway and having the most hated woman in America on the ticket with a black man isn't going to make it any more appetizing to the bigots in Appalachia.
May 21, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, Obama just started saying he had won a majority of delegates last night. There was a lot of talk coming from the Clinton campaign that he shouldn't do this, that it was somehow unfair to Hillary.
Yet Hillary can announce, (falsely) that she has won the popular vote. (there's no such thing as a pop.vote in determining the democratic nominee.)
I believe Obama has been far more gracious and respectful of Hillary than the other way around.
May 21, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is damned if fights back Clinton's relentless attacks and damned if he doesn't. If Obama doesn't fight back, he is weak. If he does fight back, he is a sexist. I tell ya - Hillary is good at spin. It's too bad she isn't good enough to convince the Democratic base, and I don't mean WV and KY Republicans.
Clinton stole every idea from Obama and tried to mirror it. She has tried to create her own movement, with the help of a PR firm. The problem is that, despite the mass media hype, most people know that Hillary's movement is not authentic. She can't win this movement narrative because it is not genuine. She will never capture the energy of Obama's campaign no matter how hard she tries. In the end, Clinton resorted to right wing smear and invented news to try and bring Obama down. It is negative energy that drives her campaign, just take a look at the grotesque pro-Hillary sites filled with racism and right wing smear. Her negative energy is no match for the genuine positive and hopeful energy in the Obama campaign. She can't win and she will not destroy him, no matter how hard she tries.
He needs to push her out because she is not leaving. Then, those imaginary grass root supporters will really have something to complain about. If Clinton backers want to defect, go right ahead. I am sick of the blackmail; it is immature and reminds me of right wing radio pundits.
May 21, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment