So, Is Hillary finished? [Archive]

Cleverboy

May 7, 2008, 08:07 PM

To be honest, I was thinking it was screwed up for people to call for her to quit, considering more states were yet still to vote. --But, at this point, it's clear that NEITHER Obama nor Clinton will win without super delegates. So, more voting won't make much of a difference... except a psychological and media frenzy that will cause more Democratic bruising and in-fighting.

I don't think Obama will have many wins in the coming contests (Clinton will beat him 2 to 1 if it can be predicted), although they don't have many delegates up for grabs. This isn't a good note to end on though, so he's got to step it up. --Only, the polls show him down by large margins in many of these states.

http://www.pollster.com/

Indiana (http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) (5/6) latest: Zogby - C:43, O:45, U:7 (5/04-5/08) OBAMA by 2% (EXACT OPPOSITE of what HAPPENED)
North Carolina (http://www.pollster.com/08-NC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) (5/6) latest: Zogby. - C:37, O:51, U:8 (5/04-5/08) OBAMA by 14%
West Virginia (http://www.pollster.com/08-WV-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) (5/13) latest: Rasmussen - C:56, O:27, U:17 (5/04) CLINTON by 29%
Kentucky (http://www.pollster.com/08-KY-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) (5/20) latest: Rasmussen - C:56, O:31, U:13 (5/05) CLINTON by 25%
Oregon (http://www.pollster.com/08-OR-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) (5/20) latest: Rasmussen - C:39, O:51, U:10 (5/01) OBAMA by 12%
Puerto Rico (http://www.pollster.com/08-PR-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) (6/1) latest: R&R - C:50, O:37, U:13 (3/31-4/05) CLINTON by 13%
Montana (http://www.pollster.com/08-MT-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) (6/3) latest: Mason-Dixon - C:29, O:17, U:17 (12/17/07-12/19/07) CLINTON by 12%
South Dakota (http://www.pollster.com/08-SD-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) (6/3) latest: Zogby - C:34, O:46, U:10 (3/24-04/03) OBAMA by 12%

So, the dates and splits will be:

May 6th - (2 contests) OBAMA/CLINTON split, next contest 1 week
(MEDIA READ: "Is it over for Clinton?")
May 13th - (1 contest) CLINTON win, next contest 1 week
(MEDIA READ: "Clinton STRONG win gives campaign life,
Obama candidacy still exhibits concerns over not getting
blue-collar Democrats")
May 20th - (2 contests) OBAMA/CLINTON split, next contest 1 week, 2 days
(MEDIA READ: "Clinton still fighting, has another strong
win and vows to take contest to convention,
Obama candidacy still exhibits concerns over not getting blue-collar Democrats")
June 1st - (1 contest) CLINTON win, next contest 2 days
(MEDIA READ: "Clinton still strong with the Latino vote, Obama still
struggling to reach out to Clinton's base. Hard times ahead.")
June 3rd - (2 contests) OBAMA/CLINTON split, contests over
(MEDIA READ: "Why can't Obama close the deal? Still splitting voters with Clinton.")

Clinton will be the only one with nights where she is the ONLY winner, unless Obama has changed or will change his level of support according to the last recorded polls. If Obama can get out the vote and win Puerto Rico and Montana, it would make for a tremendous and decisive nomination push, at which point, the super delegates would all pile over. If not, I suspect it will make things much more murky when the super delegates finally choose.

~ CB

Abstract

May 7, 2008, 08:16 PM

I'm going to say it now: Clinton will win. She'll use her husband and her rolodexes, call in every favour imaginable, and get it done. It'll probably be completely unfair for Obama, but if this is decided by the super-delegates, Obama will lose somehow. I just think that she's fighting because she knows that if this goes all the way to the end, she'll get it.

ucfgrad93

May 7, 2008, 08:22 PM

kuebby

May 7, 2008, 08:28 PM

She's done. Every day it becomes mathematically harder for her to win. She'd have to win nearly 70% of the delegates that are left, and that assumes that no more superdelegates jump ship.

And for anyone who's interested, Maureen Dowd's column (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/opinion/07dowd.html?ref=opinion) about Hillary in the NY Times today was very good.

yg17

May 7, 2008, 08:39 PM

Indiana (http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) (5/6) latest: Zogby - C:43, O:45, U:7 (5/04-5/08) OBAMA by 2% (EXACT OPPOSITE of what HAPPENED)

Sorry, but you can't pick and choose one outlier poll just because it proves your point. All the other polls had her ahead by a pretty good margin, and she only ended up winning by less than 2%. Zogby has been horribly inaccurate this election cycle.

Cleverboy

May 7, 2008, 08:50 PM

Sorry, but you can't pick and choose one outlier poll just because it proves your point. All the other polls had her ahead by a pretty good margin, and she only ended up winning by less than 2%. Zogby has been horribly inaccurate this election cycle. Hm? My only point is about future contests. I only put the recent contest in there as a reference point. Zogby is hardly on "outlier" in any case. You'll notice I went with Zogby on North Carolina, considering they're much more reputable and the poll was much more indicative of what happened than the "Insider Advantage" poll which had Obama and Clinton at 47% to 43% respectively (4 points).

Most EVERYONE agreed that Indiana has been a tie for a while leading up to the primary. Don't forget... Obama's own campaign projected Indiana as a "win" by a few percentage points a while back (they've been stunning accurate down to the precint, with their projections). Personally, I feel that "Operation Chaos" (Limbaugh) more than explains why the 2 point spread didn't go the other way.

Obama has some work ahead of him though, like I said. He needs to sell the entire party on the strength of his candidacy. He's going to need to end STRONG, and the "why can't Obama close the deal" question needs to be quelled by the voters in the most recent contests, and not simply the super delegates. If it isn't... its going to be a long... chilly summer.

~ CB

Mackan

May 7, 2008, 09:12 PM

Obama has some work ahead of him though, like I said. He needs to sell the entire party on the strength of his candidacy. He's going to need to end STRONG, and the "why can't Obama close the deal" question needs to be quelled by the voters in the most recent contests, and not simply the super delegates. If it isn't... its going to be a long... chilly summer.

~ CB

Well, why can't Clinton close the deal? Why does Obama have anything to prove? He is leading in pledged delegates, won states, and popular vote. It is just natural that the race is going to be close with two interesting candidates like Obama and Clinton. The best is to for Clinton to drop out when the only choice she has left is to plead to superdelegates to pick her against all odds.

miloblithe

May 7, 2008, 09:15 PM

Cleverboy. I don't get it. Say Clinton wins 4 of the remaining 6 contests (which I don't think she will anyway; that Montana poll sounds unlikely), so what? She's still only won 17 states to Obama's 31, with 2 split decisions. In addition, Obama will have won DC, Guam, and Democrats abroad to Clinton's win in Puerto Rico. On Monday, she trailed Obama 143 delegates, according to CNN. Currently she's 159 behind according to the same sources. The supers, of course, can change their minds too, so in pledged delegates, she's 169 behind. She trails in votes cast by about 700,000 votes.

There is no possible way she can catch Obama on any numerical measure unless she is assigned ALL 128 Michigan delegates and Obama gets 0. Barring that, she can ONLY be elected if the superdelegates put her on top despite the outcomes of the primaries and caucuses. The remaining primaries do not change anything. Those are the only two possible ways she wins.

DZ/015

May 7, 2008, 09:22 PM

I'm sort of in the same boat as Abstract on this. I refuse to count out a Clinton until everything is over and a nominee is named.

There have been many rumblings among pundits that she will stay in just to damage Obama's chances, allowing McCain to more easily win. Why, to allow her to run again in four years. Ambition can be an ugly thing.

yg17

May 7, 2008, 09:23 PM

It's not that he can't close out the deal. It's just there are some states that Obama won't win, just like there are some states Clinton won't win. And if she were ahead, people would be wondering why she can't close it out in NC or OR or SD.

Not every state has to go for the person ahead for the deal to be closed. He's still ahead in every other metric imaginable, especially in delegates which is all that really matters.

ucfgrad93

May 7, 2008, 09:34 PM

All I have to say is where is stevento?:cool:

yg17

May 7, 2008, 09:37 PM

All I have to say is where is stevento?:cool:
Probably in the same state as Hillary....the state of denial :D

walangij

May 7, 2008, 10:47 PM

Probably in the same state as Hillary....the state of denial :D

:D lol

Clinton's campaign is in need of the money still. I can see Obama narrowing the gap in all the states Clinton has a lead in as he has done already. I can not see Clinton winning any of those states by double digits, it's not far fetched that Obama may take one or two from her. Few Supers have jumped the Clinton ship, we''ll see what happens. I think she'll continue to deny and fight even if enough of them decide to make Obama the nominee before June 3rd.

Cleverboy

May 8, 2008, 06:38 AM

There have been many rumblings among pundits that she will stay in just to damage Obama's chances, allowing McCain to more easily win. Why, to allow her to run again in four years. Ambition can be an ugly thing. Meh. It's not much to just take the campaign at its word.
"Her feeling is she's made a commitment to let the people in the remaining states have their chance to express their voice, and she'll move forward with that part of the campaign in a way that will both make the case for her but also be constructive for the Democratic Party," said Geoff Garin, a top strategist in the campaign. This implies that she may do what others have suggested, and SHARPLY move her criticisms to McCain, and avoid most talk about Obama. If she doesn't, it will probably be hard to justify. Likewise, Obama should stop brow-beating her too. Otherwise, it will be tit-for-tat.

She mostly needs to STOP her talk about "ELITE" anything, and "who's ready".

Cleverboy. I don't get it. [SNIP] The remaining primaries do not change anything. Those are the only two possible ways she wins. I think that's what I said at the beginning of my post. The ONLY question now... is how Obama will fair in the media between now and then. That will largely be reflective of the contests, regardless of how little affect they will have on the results. --It's possible the media might reflect how irrelevant the contests are... but I wouldn't count on it, would you?

Well, why can't Clinton close the deal? Why does Obama have anything to prove? He is leading in pledged delegates, won states, and popular vote. It is just natural that the race is going to be close with two interesting candidates like Obama and Clinton. The best is to for Clinton to drop out when the only choice she has left is to plead to superdelegates to pick her against all odds. She's behind. She CAN'T close the deal. Obama could have put her away with an extra win here or there, and couldn't do it. That's just how the media sees it. It's like Obama is being criticized for everyone's battle fatigue. Might not be fair, but there you have it.

~ CB

Cleverboy

May 8, 2008, 06:55 AM

I hope Florida and Michigan can be seated now. After the nominee is chosen, I don't think they'll make a difference, and its better to seat them. --Just not to discuss seating them until after the nomination has been decided.

~ CB

atszyman

May 8, 2008, 07:02 AM

Meh. It's not much to just take the campaign at its word.
This implies that she may do what others have suggested, and SHARPLY move her criticisms to McCain, and avoid most talk about Obama. If she doesn't, it will probably be hard to justify. Likewise, Obama should stop brow-beating her too. Otherwise, it will be tit-for-tat.

She mostly needs to STOP her talk about "ELITE" anything, and "who's ready".

I've advocated this for nearly a month now, maybe even more. The Democrats could have used the nomination process to avoid attacks and focus on the issues, showing how their plans are "better" than the GOP's and use their time in the headlines to try and influence the general election to be about the issues. As long as they had the headlines and weren't tearing each other apart, they could keep McCain in the background unless he did something either really spectacular or really stupid (the latter being more likely, how often do you hear of politicians doing really good things?).

I think that's what I said at the beginning of my post. The ONLY question now... is how Obama will fair in the media between now and then. That will largely be reflective of the contests, regardless of how little affect they will have on the results. --It's possible the media might reflect how irrelevant the contests are... but I wouldn't count on it, would you?

She's behind. She CAN'T close the deal. Obama could have put her away with an extra win here or there, and couldn't do it. That's just how the media sees it. It's like Obama is being criticized for everyone's battle fatigue. Might not be fair, but there you have it.

~ CB

Well part of how he fares in the media will depend on what gets dug up/rehashed by the opposition. If Clinton (and Obama) stop attacking each other, I think anything the GOP throws at Obama they can turn right back on McCain. Instead of trying to tear one another apart they can use this opportunity to help the Dems in November, of course they could have been doing this since March when the math was already next to impossible for Clinton, but better late than never. Of course I'll believe it when I see it.

miloblithe

May 8, 2008, 07:17 AM

...The ONLY question now... is how Obama will fair in the media between now and then. That will largely be reflective of the contests, regardless of how little affect they will have on the results. --It's possible the media might reflect how irrelevant the contests are... but I wouldn't count on it, would you?...

Fair enough. No. I wouldn't count on it.

I like what some people are suggesting here. Used the last month of the campaign as a Democrat love fest and strongly use all the media attention to criticize McCain. If Clinton can play strong and mend fences, she could still earn herself the Vice Presidency. It's either that or Senate Majority Leader as her highest hope at this point.

atszyman

May 8, 2008, 07:36 AM

Fair enough. No. I wouldn't count on it.

I like what some people are suggesting here. Used the last month of the campaign as a Democrat love fest and strongly use all the media attention to criticize McCain. If Clinton can play strong and mend fences, she could still earn herself the Vice Presidency. It's either that or Senate Majority Leader as her highest hope at this point.

There's no way she'll be VP, possibly a high cabinet position, Secretary of State or something like that maybe, but VP won't happen for either of them.

I don't think this country is quite ready for a minority/woman ticket, unfortunately, and they are both from "yankee liberal" states. I'd put money on a white male southerner, most likely a governor/former governor for the VP nod (that goes for both candidates). I'd like to think Bill Richardson has a chance but once again, sadly, I don't think the country is ready for a dual minority ticket.

I could maybe see Edwards get the nod again, but the 2004 loss might draw too many negative associations.

miloblithe

May 8, 2008, 07:44 AM

atszyman

May 8, 2008, 09:06 AM

For the love of god, please not Edwards.

Odds are probably on a safe, white, male southerner, but I think there's still the possibility of a surprise. Clinton and Gore were a new dynamic back in the day as two young southerners. Cheney was a more traditional choice, but I think the balanced ticket logic has evolved in the last few elections where the idea of branding can replace it.

I could see a ticket of two southerners before two northerners. For some reason there seems to be a huge bias among conservatives I know about north eastern Democrats, where in all the years I lived in WI, MI, and MN I don't think I ever picked up much bias against southern Democrats or Republicans. I think the 2000 election would have been a much easier win for Gore if they would have been more proactive in pointing out that Bush was not a Texan and had his roots in Connecticut. I think foor some bizarre reason the "northeastern Democrat" bias would hurt more in the southern states than the black/woman ticket.

I've heard rumors that Edwards actually wants the Attorney General's position anyway. But looking at the list of Southern Governors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Governors'_Association) I'm not seeing a ton of recognizable names among the Democrats, of course even in the entire list of Governors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Governors) I'm not seeing many, but that doesn't mean much, who had heard of Clinton outside of Arkansas before 1992?

thechidz

May 8, 2008, 09:11 AM

And how do you think African-Americans will react to that? It would result in a crushing defeat in November for Hillary and Democrats in general.

How did african americans react to being screwed in florida in 2000?

aLoC

May 8, 2008, 09:41 AM

I always thought Hillary would beat Obama due to her experience, but not so sure now.

Perhaps she should save her pennies and try again in 4 years. Obama may turn out to be not so great, or McCain may not run for a second term due to age.

walangij

May 8, 2008, 09:57 AM

I could see a ticket of two southerners before two northerners. For some reason there seems to be a huge bias among conservatives I know about north eastern Democrats, where in all the years I lived in WI, MI, and MN I don't think I ever picked up much bias against southern Democrats or Republicans. I think the 2000 election would have been a much easier win for Gore if they would have been more proactive in pointing out that Bush was not a Texan and had his roots in Connecticut. I think foor some bizarre reason the "northeastern Democrat" bias would hurt more in the southern states than the black/woman ticket.

I've heard rumors that Edwards actually wants the Attorney General's position anyway. But looking at the list of Southern Governors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Governors'_Association) I'm not seeing a ton of recognizable names among the Democrats, of course even in the entire list of Governors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Governors) I'm not seeing many, but that doesn't mean much, who had heard of Clinton outside of Arkansas before 1992?

Obama-Rendell ticket? Interesting article even though it's from the weekly standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/072cgxqb.asp

OscarTheGrouch

May 8, 2008, 10:06 AM

NAG

May 8, 2008, 10:13 AM

I still don't understand the experience line. I mean, she was the first lady not the vp or anyone that made real decisions.

sushi

May 8, 2008, 10:16 AM

I still don't understand the experience line. I mean, she was the first lady not the vp or anyone that made real decisions.
Makes one wonder doesn't it?

aLoC

May 8, 2008, 10:45 AM

I still don't understand the experience line. I mean, she was the first lady not the vp or anyone that made real decisions.

I meant presidential campaigning experience (from tagging along with Bill). I would have thought that would have helped her to put her foot in her mouth less than Obama, and also be generally more efficient. But I guess it wasn't enough.

atszyman

May 8, 2008, 10:58 AM

I meant presidential campaigning experience (from tagging along with Bill). I would have thought that would have helped her to put her foot in her mouth less than Obama, and also be generally more efficient. But I guess it wasn't enough.

That's almost the first time the experience argument has made some sense. But of course in tagging along with Bill, she didn't have to actually speak much, and she wasn't directly in the line of fire.

The fact that she couldn't manage to stomp Obama out, and his campaign/supporters haven't even begun to dig into the Clinton past for attacks, makes me really wonder how well she could have done in the general.

Of course Bill hasn't been the picture of poise during this campaign either...

LeahM

May 8, 2008, 11:00 AM

I think she was done when Bill had the affair.

atszyman

May 8, 2008, 11:04 AM

I think she was done when Bill had the affair.

I don't think that necessarily did her in. Possibly more their handling of it. She never seemed really outraged or saddened and there didn't seem to be much of a period where they worked through their marital issues, which made their marriage seem like one that was being upheld for mutual benefit rather than the traditional aspects of love and family. This hurts both of them in that it makes them appear to put their political aspirations above everything else.

kuebby

May 8, 2008, 12:01 PM

I've heard rumors that Edwards actually wants the Attorney General's position anyway. But looking at the list of Southern Governors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Governors'_Association) I'm not seeing a ton of recognizable names among the Democrats, of course even in the entire list of Governors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Governors) I'm not seeing many, but that doesn't mean much, who had heard of Clinton outside of Arkansas before 1992?

I think as far as Southern Democratic governors either Mike Easley or Tim Kaine would make a pretty good VP. Both are centrist Democratic governors of what are generally considered "red states." Both are very young (Kaine is only 40) but both are popular in their home states and a win in VA would be HUGE for Democrats. I also like Mike Easley because he's one of the governors who has really stood up to the federal government over the "National ID" controversy and has refused to implement it.

stevento

May 8, 2008, 12:07 PM

Is she done for all intents and purposes? Should she hang on till the bitter end, or bow out gracefully?
.

never. she will likely be the nominee. really, i'm not just cheerleading here. there are still routes and i believe she will take them.

PlaceofDis

May 8, 2008, 12:09 PM

never. she will likely be the nominee. really, i'm not just cheerleading here. there are still routes and i believe she will take them.

you are still cheerleading, since it seems very unlikely that she will be the nominee, unless the supers overturn obama's lead in every category.

Prof.

May 8, 2008, 12:15 PM

I'm afraid the Hillary voters will vote for McCain if she drops out.

*panics*
*runs around in circles*
:(:eek::(:eek::(:eek:

yg17

May 8, 2008, 12:16 PM

never. she will likely be the nominee. really, i'm not just cheerleading here. there are still routes and i believe she will take them.

Wow, you're even more delusional than she is.

skunk

May 8, 2008, 12:20 PM

there are still routes and i believe she will take them.There are still routs and I believe she will suffer them.

~Shard~

May 8, 2008, 12:20 PM

I think it's great that Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife did so well in the Democratic race, but now it appears time for her to bow out. :cool:

PlaceofDis

May 8, 2008, 12:23 PM

I'm afraid the Hillary voters will vote for McCain if she drops out.

*panics*
*runs around in circles*
:(:eek::(:eek::(:eek:

panic much?

seriously some of the people voting for hilary are doing it because of Rush, some are doing it because they think she's the best fit.

the thing to remember is that this should be wrapped up by the second week of june, and whoever does not get the nomination will have to help campaign for the nominee, to let their supporters know that even though they didn't get the nod, they should still support the candidate that did; at least in theory this is how it should work, since the party should be more important than the person.

Prof.

May 8, 2008, 12:25 PM

the thing to remember is that this should be wrapped up by the second week of june, and whoever does not get the nomination will have to help campaign for the nominee, to let their supporters know that even though they didn't get the nod, they should still support the candidate that did; at least in theory this is how it should work, since the party should be more important than the person.
I... didn't think of that.:o

Okay, I'm better.:)

yojitani

May 8, 2008, 12:32 PM

never. she will likely be the nominee. really, i'm not just cheerleading here. there are still routes and i believe she will take them.

Do you support her taking those routes though? Those routes are basically, as I understand it, to do a Florida 2000 on the democratic party - that is, use certain legal avenues that bypass the fact that she's come up short. If she were to win this way, I can't see any benefit for the dems. or for anyone aside from Hilary and her supporters (and even some of those may be disgusted).

leekohler

May 8, 2008, 12:35 PM

never. she will likely be the nominee. really, i'm not just cheerleading here. there are still routes and i believe she will take them.

So- if she can't win fairly, she'll cheat (or try to change the rules) is what you're saying. And that's the kind of person you want for President? You really need to stand back and seriously take a look at this person. She's really quite frightening and getting scarier the longer she goes.

I've been saying this about her all along, but I didn't want to be proven right to this degree. She's really starting to give me the creeps.

Fiveos22

May 8, 2008, 01:01 PM

Well, her new tactic is calling all white americans (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-support-from-white-americans/#comments) [CNN blogs] to help her out.

One of the responses to the piece said that the reaction of democrats to the Howard Dean and the DNC blocking the Michigan and Florida votes should be to "teach them [the DNC] a lesson" by voting for McCain. In a sense, Hillary has been all about teaching us lessons...painful, in-your-face, cutthroat lessons.

As a conservative, I can't understand why any thoughtful democrat could vote against their supposed political ideologies (those being the Democratic platform) just to "show them". This election should be a slam dunk for the Democrats, based on the last 8 years (not to mention current approval ratings), but democrats seem to foster power-hungry zealots who are at best divisive and at worst boarderline malicious.

ucfgrad93

May 8, 2008, 01:53 PM

This election should be a slam dunk for the Democrats, based on the last 8 years (not to mention current approval ratings)

Have to say I agree. The only way I see Democrats losing the White House is if the superdelegates overturn the primaries and give the nomination to Hillary. It would so alienate African-American voters that she would lose the general election by a landslide.

PlaceofDis

May 8, 2008, 01:58 PM

Have to say I agree. The only way I see Democrats losing the White House is if the superdelegates overturn the primaries and give the nomination to Hillary. It would so alienate African-American voters that she would lose the general election by a landslide.

well its not just African-American voters who will be upset, i can say that much. i know personally if hillary gets the nomination i'm between a rock and a hard place, and to be quite honest i'm not sure what i'll do.

but there can also be a lot of mending between june and november. 5 months can change this game dramatically.

miloblithe

May 8, 2008, 02:14 PM

Since this morning, according to CNN, Clinton has lost one superdelegate while Obama has gained two. Clinton's superdelagate lead has dwindled from around 100 to now 8.

Obama's lead now stands at 161 total (169 among pledged delegates).

aLoC

May 8, 2008, 06:52 PM

Would she go so far as to run as an independent if she doesn't get the nom? I mean, you get the feeling that being Prez has been her life goal.

NAG

May 8, 2008, 07:18 PM

That would be committing political suicide.

OscarTheGrouch

May 8, 2008, 08:27 PM

well its not just African-American voters who will be upset, i can say that much. i know personally if hillary gets the nomination i'm between a rock and a hard place, and to be quite honest i'm not sure what i'll do.

but there can also be a lot of mending between june and november. 5 months can change this game dramatically.
If that happens, my entire office is writing in our supervisor.

OscarTheGrouch

May 8, 2008, 08:29 PM

That would be committing political suicide.

in all honesty, so would dragging this out as long as possible and making a legsl fight out of fla and mi,(ala gore 2k) but i wouldnt put it past her.

solvs

May 9, 2008, 03:04 AM

And how do you think African-Americans will react to that?
Ain't just them.

never. she will likely be the nominee. really, i'm not just cheerleading here. there are still routes and i believe she will take them.
That's not a good thing.

Well, her new tactic is calling all white americans (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-support-from-white-americans/#comments) [CNN blogs] to help her out.
My God, that is just terrible.

This election should be a slam dunk for the Democrats, based on the last 8 years (not to mention current approval ratings)
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

That would be committing political suicide.
You didn't answer the question. ;)

It's over for her. It just is. She's going to keep going to try and make back some of the money her campaign spent that it doesn't have. Then she'll be out. She pulls something, she'll just alienate what little support she has left. Not saying she won't. Just agreeing with (almost) everyone else that it would be stupid. Though, yeah, I wouldn't put it past her either.

Thomas Veil

May 9, 2008, 06:12 AM

Speaking of "teaching the DNC a lesson"...

Everyone except the Hillary die-hards now considers Obama the presumptive nominee.

If the Rules Committee changes the outcome of this straightforward process, it will be seen for what it is: back room machinations to produce a specific result. And that'll alienate a lot of Democrats, black and non-black, Obama fans or not. It will be, in effect, handing over the election to McCain.

It would go down as the Democratic party's greatest-ever example of shooting itself in the foot.

I can tell you that if Hillary gets the nod, I myself am seriously thinking about staying home and not voting. That'll be the message I'll be sending the DNC.

miloblithe

May 9, 2008, 09:31 AM

Three more for Obama, including one switching from Clinton. Net gain of four.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement

Current lead? 164.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D

Clinton's superdelegate lead has dropped from roughly 100 to 4. It was 10 earlier in the week.

Thomas Veil

May 9, 2008, 04:59 PM

I'm also starting to see Obama turn his attention to McCain. If you've noticed the news articles of the last two days, Obama and McCain are sparring, with Clinton still standing off to the side trying to get some attention.

And I've already seen the media edging cautiously towards "Obama vs. McCain" stories, as opposed to "Obama vs. Clinton".

Macky-Mac

May 9, 2008, 07:29 PM

and now ABC is reporting that for the first time Obama has moved ahead in super delegate endorsements.....267 to 265

ABC (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-now-takes.html)

Thomas Veil

May 10, 2008, 12:02 PM

Meanwhile, back at Clinton campaign headquarters...

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/08/10/681-05082008Powell.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

solvs

May 11, 2008, 01:51 AM

As I posted in another thread about this, even if we count MI and FL, she's done. She just is. Seriously people, let's move on and get to the national.

solvs

May 13, 2008, 12:59 AM

Cleverboy

May 13, 2008, 01:26 AM

Clinton Team Acknowledges $20 Million Debt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/11/AR2008051101865_pf.html)
It's over.
Meanwhile: Top 10 Reasons Obama Defeated Clinton for the Democratic Nomination (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/top-10-reasons-obama-defe_b_101307.html)
It's pretty obvious stuff, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated. I like this one better. I thought the writing was pretty razor sharp in its critique while having solid levels of detail behind them. Moreover, none of these are particularly subjective.

The Five Mistakes Clinton Made
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html

1. She misjudged the mood
2. She didn't master the rules
3. She underestimated the caucus states
4. She relied on old money
5. She never counted on a long haul

Had she not made any ONE of these 5 mistakes, she would have won the nomination in my opinion.

~ CB

stevento

May 13, 2008, 01:41 AM

it5five

May 13, 2008, 01:44 AM

I know that almost everyone here knows the rules regarding MI and FL, but I thought I'd post this video for our resident die-hard Hillary supporter in the hopes that he might finally understand the truth.

Clinton Accepted and Signed Rules Regarding MI and FL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmUVr_Qt2Wg&eurl=http://digg.com/lbv.php?id=6521053&ord=1)

because when she wins the nod, it all becomes fodder for me to gloat with.

Oh my. I'm going to save this for future use.

EDIT: In other news, it looks like Hillary's "base" (uneducated whites) still think Obama is a Muslim and "his wife an atheist" in WV.

Some People Really Shouldn't Be Allowed to Vote (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a50425a-1f86-11dd-9216-000077b07658,s01=1.html?nclick_check=1)

skunk

May 13, 2008, 01:55 AM

The Five Mistakes Clinton Made
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html

1. She misjudged the mood
2. She didn't master the rules
3. She underestimated the caucus states
4. She relied on old money
5. She never counted on a long haul

Had she not made any ONE of these 5 mistakes, she would have won the nomination in my opinion.From this post it almost appears as if Obama had nothing to offer. This appears to be saying that Clinton lost it, rather than that Obama won it.

Cleverboy

May 13, 2008, 02:02 AM

ya know i actually like the fact that every pundit and everyone on this board is saying hillary just can't do it. because when she wins the nod, it all becomes fodder for me to gloat with.
she owes 20 mil, but 11 of that is to herself. so that never really needs to be paid back. I disagree. I've never said that Hillary can't do it. The only thing I've ever said is that Hillary would not win against McCain and that John McCain will be our next president, for an assortment of reasons (some of which is evidenced in this poll). I THINK... I'm probably on record as saying Hillary will get the nomination (as unlikely as that sounds right now).

~ CB

solvs

May 13, 2008, 02:26 AM

because when she wins the nod, it all becomes fodder for me to gloat with.
What happens when she loses? Can we gloat? Do you have to wear a dress while we get to spank you in public?

What, you've never lost a bet?

she owes 20 mil, but 11 of that is to herself. so that never really needs to be paid back.
Since I can do math, what about the other 9 mil?

From this post it almost appears as if Obama had nothing to offer. This appears to be saying that Clinton lost it, rather than that Obama won it.
It's a little of both. It was hers to take. At least as far as everyone thought. She dropped the ball, Obama ran with it. Not to say that he has nothing, even though it's hard to find even if you're looking, and it's not like the MSM is actually talking about it, and that's the new meme from the right because they don't want to have to actually try to debate him on the issues they're losing on so they say he has nothing knowing people won't go looking, he does. Though that does seem to be working, as we see here now. Lots of talk about empty speeches and stuff. She still lost it though.

Cleverboy

May 13, 2008, 02:52 AM

From this post it almost appears as if Obama had nothing to offer. This appears to be saying that Clinton lost it, rather than that Obama won it. It was always Clinton's to lose. Part of Obama's good fortune came not simply in being the right person, with the right message, at the right time... but also being able to be a better candidate and run a better organization than Hillary Clinton did.

The Obama campaign was a well-oiled machine, while the Clinton campaign has been stop-and-go with various breakdowns... and yet, she competed. If Clinton had truly had her act together, an Obama loss would not have spoken simply to how unworthy he was, so much as it would have had a multiplying factor on all of her inherent, and often unearned advantages.

No matter how GOOD or appealing Obama has been to many, a properly run Clinton campaign should have finished him very early on in the process. The qualities of his campaign allowed him to bridge the rest of the distance. Meanwhile, other candidates like Edwards, Biden, or Dodd, never stood a chance although the "anti-Clinton" vote was certainly waiting for anyone able to fully claim it. I think its also worth noting that part of Obama's strategy to compete, was in recognizing when new voter registration was key to countering voters who'd already made up their mind in favor of the "brand name" (one of her largest advantages).

~ CB

it5five

May 13, 2008, 02:56 AM

I think its also worth noting that part of Obama's strategy to compete, was in recognizing when new voter registration was key to countering voters who'd already made up their mind in favor of the "brand name" (one of her largest advantages).

~ CB

I'd go so far as to say it was her ONLY initial advantage. If it weren't for her name, she wouldn't have won her Senate seat as easily, and certainly wouldn't have made it as far as she has.

Cleverboy

May 13, 2008, 03:06 AM

I'd go so far as to say it was her ONLY initial advantage. If it weren't for her name, she wouldn't have won her Senate seat as easily, and certainly wouldn't have made it as far as she has. Another big one that isn't entirely a child of that one, is that Bill Clinton, a former, well-respected President, was campaigning for her... actively saying she'd make a better candidate than he was. Not ONLY did people know who she was, but her husband was already a superdelegate, party elder, and, at least initially, a major weapon in her arsenal (though a double-edged sword).

~ CB

aLoC

May 13, 2008, 03:36 AM

I read a piece the other day that suggested Clinton's mistake was in how she positioned herself relative to Obama.

He is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an upscale liberal type. The way to beat that type is to be the down home girl, same way Bush beat his more intellectual opponents. But she didn't try that, instead she went further over to the left.

solvs

May 13, 2008, 03:58 AM

But she didn't try that, instead she went further over to the left.
Not really. She was more hawkish, especially about Iraq and Iran, and things like gun rights. Seems more corporate leaning too. Also talks more about things like taxes, supporting the temp gas tax repeal. She's not left. She's barely moderate on most things. The country is moving away from the right, especially on things like the war and the economy, so it's no wonder she isn't as popular. That's how McCain is doing so well. He's still appearing as a maverick even though he isn't anymore (if he ever was) and even though Bush is more of a negative for McCain than Wright was for Obama.

I think her problem is that when she did try to be the down home type, going hunting and drinking beers, it hurt her even more than his "bitter" comments and the bad bowling.

obeygiant

May 13, 2008, 06:41 AM

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/2964/obamadefeatsclintondi3.jpg

yg17

May 13, 2008, 07:37 AM

Thomas Veil

May 13, 2008, 02:37 PM

stevento

May 13, 2008, 11:21 PM

yg17

May 13, 2008, 11:52 PM

i dont know you can say candidate A is the presumtive nominee when candidate B just won a state by 41 points (cnn, 92% reporting).

i really wish this had come before super tuesday, then she'd be the nod by now.
look, hillary did what she had to do in West Virginia tonight.
now in order for her to win, two things have to happen.
1. something has to happen on May 31 with the rules committee.
2. the obama campaign is going to have to buckle or faulter significantly.

if those two things happen, she's the nod. there is hope yet.

Maybe her 41% win would mean something if WV had a large amount of delegates, but they don't, so she doesn't put much of a dent in her lead.

1. You can give her FL and MI as is and she still won't be in the lead
2. Couldn't Hillary just as easily falter?

Look, I'm going to put this in huge, bold text because you can't seem to understand this:

HILLARY IS DONE. OBAMA WILL BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.

VoodooDaddy

May 14, 2008, 12:01 AM

i dont know you can say candidate A is the presumtive nominee when candidate B just won a state by 41 points (cnn, 92% reporting).

Its pretty simple. She has to carry 80% of the vote from here on out, plus garner 80% of the remaining SD and that aint gonna happen. You are trumpeting the WV win, but look at the numbers. In the last week alone Obama has picked up 26 SD.

Even with Hillary winning WV by a large margin, she only picked up 16 delegates. Simple math is 26 - 16 = Obama still gained a net 10, plus the handful he will get in WV.

So just because she won WV big doesnt change the facts.

solvs

May 14, 2008, 01:24 AM

there is hope yet.

No, there really isn't.

Clinton 'determined' after win in W. Va., but does it matter? (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/36952.html)

Short answer, not so much.

Cleverboy

May 14, 2008, 06:20 AM

No, there really isn't.
The only thing more dangerous than a woman scorned, is a man with nothing left to lose... Have to ask... in your forum signature... veiled references to Clinton and McCain, or a random quote? A woman at the end of a losing campaign for her party's nominating contest and an aging senator making his last and final run for the Presidency under implications that his moment had passed as his success would make him the oldest elected president in history? "Scorned" and passed up for nomination? Final contest and last possible "loss" on a long career of service?

Old men will dream dreams, and young men will have visions.

Indeed.

~ CB

Sky Blue

May 14, 2008, 09:30 AM

Obama's picked up 2 more supers this morning.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90LEC081&show_article=1

stevento

May 14, 2008, 12:01 PM

HILLARY IS DONE. OBAMA WILL BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.

then why is she still going?
your math is nearly impossible. but she just keeps going because our math is fair and nearly impossible for obama to win.
now may i remind you that hillary now has 43,356 more votes than obama (abc, counting all the votes that were cast)
obama has not been able to make the case that he's more electable, but hillary has. so at the end of this, when she has more votes the supers will have a choice to make.

MacNut

May 14, 2008, 12:09 PM

The one thing that might scare the Dems is who has won the swing states. I see that as Hillary's only argument.

leekohler

May 14, 2008, 12:39 PM

then why is she still going?

Because she's an egomaniac just like her husband. She's also trying to get the rules changed to suit her.

obama has not been able to make the case that he's more electable, but hillary has. so at the end of this, when she has more votes the supers will have a choice to make.

Really? How will she get more votes again? Proof with links please.

Honestly stevento- your cheerleading is just about as annoying and offensive as your cars/women thread.

Lord Blackadder

May 14, 2008, 12:47 PM

now in order for her to win, two things have to happen.
1. something has to happen on May 31 with the rules committee.
2. the obama campaign is going to have to buckle or faulter significantly.

if those two things happen, she's the nod. there is hope yet.

I don't see the Obama campain faltering, unless there is a massive "swiftboating" negative campaign success on the part of Clinton.

But I have to admit that I find the Florida/Michigan debacle distasteful and I think it ultimately reflects badly on Clinton's campaign. The two states were not contested fairly; it may be the state party organization that is at fault, but the candidates and the voters will be the losers.

Whatever the legal ins and outs are, the bottom line is that voters in MI and FLA were not properly represented, and the results should not be seen as valid.

yg17

May 14, 2008, 01:21 PM

atszyman

May 14, 2008, 02:11 PM

then why is she still going?
your math is nearly impossible. but she just keeps going because our math is fair and nearly impossible for obama to win.
now may i remind you that hillary now has 43,356 more votes than obama (abc, counting all the votes that were cast)
obama has not been able to make the case that he's more electable, but hillary has. so at the end of this, when she has more votes the supers will have a choice to make.

SHE DOES NOT HAVE MORE VOTES. FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN DO NOT COUNT!

Of course by ABC's math they don't count any of the Democrat uncommitted votes in MI towards Obama. With ~238,000 uncommitted votes you have to figure at least 25% would have gone to Obama and that's more than enough to put him back in the popular vote lead. Of course you should also not give Clinton all of the votes since she was the only one of the top tier candidates on the ballot and managed to get some of the vote by default.

If you think not counting MI will alienate them in the fall, what will happen if you don't give any of the uncommitted to Obama and count it as is? Don't you think there will be enough pissed off Obama supporters to give the Dems as much of a problem in November?

Thomas Veil

May 14, 2008, 02:16 PM

then why is she still going? She's nuts?

your math is nearly impossible. but she just keeps going because our math is fair and nearly impossible for obama to win.
now may i remind you that hillary now has 43,356 more votes than obama (abc, counting all the votes that were cast)Yeah, but ABC did not count all the votes (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/some-post-wv-st.html):

Sen. Clinton ended up netting approximately 147,410 popular votes to her national popular vote total. (She was roughly 700,000+ votes behind Obama heading into this evening, so she is currently 579,643 votes behind Obama in the national popular vote in all nominating contests thus far -- not counting Michigan and Florida.)

The Clinton campaign will likely argue that they have regained the lead in the national popular vote because they like to include Florida and Michigan in their popular vote count, despite the fact that those contests did not count toward the nomination.And let's ignore that Obama's got more delegates, and that superdelegates (and even regular delegates) are abandoning her for Obama. And that that's what counts. Yeah, let's just ignore all that.

"Nearly impossible for Obama to win"? You're now leaving Delusional Junction and heading for Trollville. Last stop: Mighty Falls.

Cleverboy

May 14, 2008, 03:05 PM

then why is she still going? I think she's still going for 2 reasons. #1.) She honestly thinks she's more electable (I don't blame her). #2.) She wants to honor the efforts of everyone that's taken her this far in the process by finishing what she started and showing that she took it the distance.
your math is nearly impossible. but she just keeps going because our math is fair and nearly impossible for obama to win. now may i remind you that hillary now has 43,356 more votes than obama (abc, counting all the votes that were cast) You have to be honest. I may have missed something, but nearly everyone that talks about "counting" all the votes, omits the FACT that many of the caucus states Obama won, and simply not being counted at this time, because they haven't released their popular vote totals yet (this will happen later). Believe it or not, Iowa is one of them and that was the FIRST place Obama won (and which Hillary came close to third place).
obama has not been able to make the case that he's more electable, but hillary has. so at the end of this, when she has more votes the supers will have a choice to make. By the end of this, I'm hoping Michigan and Florida are counted in some form. There's a lot of hurt feelings out there, but parties have RULES. Everyone AGREED to them freely. It's just hard to figure out how to apply them when in places like Florida, Democrats were not directly in charge of establishing the date of the Primary. The candidates should have been allowed to take their name off the ballots though.

~ CB

Macky-Mac

May 14, 2008, 03:27 PM

I think she's still going for 2 reasons. #1.) She honestly thinks she's more electable (I don't blame her). #2.) She wants to honor the efforts of everyone that's taken her this far in the process by finishing what she started and showing that she took it the distance.
....

and reason #3) she's spent millions and millions of her own money.....and is SO close she can't stand to give up on that amount of money

stevento

May 14, 2008, 03:34 PM

SHE DOES NOT HAVE MORE VOTES. FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN DO NOT COUNT!

Seriously, what part of that don't you understand?

And how has Hillary made the case that she's more electable. Obama is doing better in polls for Obama vs. Clinton and he has wider margins than her in polls for either of them against McCain.
the polls on his website saying obama is stronger against mccian are from februray.
they may count. the rules committee meets on may 31 to make a choice on that. howard dean has already reserved hotel rooms for them in denver. i think that goes to show, they aren't just going to be left out in the cold.
one way to count those votes is to have a gang of superdelegates look and say "ya know what. if this were a fair election hillary would win" and have her win that way.

Really? How will she get more votes again? Proof with links please

working class whites, rural voters might not be there in the fall for obama.
here's something.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/opinion/main4040653.shtml
that's common knowledge.
how about the fact that there are no caucuses in the general election?

By the end of this, I'm hoping Michigan and Florida are counted in some form. There's a lot of hurt feelings out there, but parties have RULES. Everyone AGREED to them freely. It's just hard to figure out how to apply them when in places like Florida, Democrats were not directly in charge of establishing the date of the Primary. The candidates should have been allowed to take their name off the ballots though.

thank you. it was mostly republicans who voted to move up the date of the primary and now they want to disenfranchise democratic voters for it.

leekohler

May 14, 2008, 03:42 PM

the polls on his website saying obama is stronger against mccian are from februray.
they may count. the rules committee meets on may 31 to make a choice on that. howard dean has already reserved hotel rooms for them in denver. i think that goes to show, they aren't just going to be left out in the cold.
one way to count those votes is to have a gang of superdelegates look and say "ya know what. if this were a fair election hillary would win" and have her win that way.

working class whites, rural voters might not be there in the fall for obama.
here's something.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/opinion/main4040653.shtml
that's common knowledge.
how about the fact that there are no caucuses in the general election?

And that article you just posted is from April. What's your point?

yg17

May 14, 2008, 09:56 PM

the polls on his website saying obama is stronger against mccian are from februray.

Uh, there was a poll from earlier this week (which, according to my calendar, which I don't think is wrong, is not February) that had him at a huge margin over McCain (and a larger margin than Hillary vs McCain). I personally can't be bothered to find it as I just moved today and am still in the process of unpacking my crap, but go look around Daily Kos if you want to find it, that's where I saw it.

zioxide

May 14, 2008, 10:36 PM

one way to count those votes is to have a gang of superdelegates look and say "ya know what. if this were a fair election hillary would win" and have her win that way.

LOL.

That quote is priceless. I'll let you try to figure out why.
HINT: How the hell does having super delegates overturn the votes of the people constitute a fair election?

stevento

May 15, 2008, 12:52 AM

Marble

May 15, 2008, 04:58 AM

one way to count those votes is to have a gang of superdelegates look and say "ya know what. if this were a fair election hillary would win" and have her win that way.

The rational mind boggles. Also, the eyes, like this: :eek:

VoodooDaddy

May 15, 2008, 05:19 AM

Per MSNBC during Hardball last night:

Obama 47% vs McCain 40%
Clinton 46% vs McCain 41%

geese

May 15, 2008, 06:14 AM

The rational mind boggles. Also, the eyes, like this: :eek:

I think stevento is the old Iraqi Information Minister, Comical Ali, in disguise.

Marble

May 15, 2008, 06:18 AM

I think stevento is the old Iraqi Information Minister, Comical Ali, in disguise.

If the obvious joke hasn't been made, someone needs to.

Cleverboy

May 15, 2008, 07:07 AM

and reason #3) she's spent millions and millions of her own money.....and is SO close she can't stand to give up on that amount of money Mm. Campaign finance rules say she needs to pay herself back FIRST, or risk kissing anything she's loaned goodbye (converts to a "donation", and she becomes Mitt Romney... and Chelsea Clinton frowns at her diminished inheritance). I think she paid herself back from the first loan, though. I think this last one's going to probably be for keepsies.
thank you. it was mostly republicans who voted to move up the date of the primary and now they want to disenfranchise democratic voters for it. Unfortunatey, the state's elected officials disenfranchised them. I think it is EXTREMELY disingenuous for anyone to link what happened in MI/FL to Obama in ANY way (as many like to imply he's somehow "blocking" something that was made extremely imperfect by rules agreed to last year). The rules were made, the penalty for moving up the primary was 100% delegate loss. PERIOD.

If this isn't respected, state Democratic parties will move up primaries without a care, and there'll be a mess. I'm not sure how many people remember the "inching" of the primaries at the end of last year. It was CRAZY. We already have one "Super Tuesday", we don't need a bunch more. Seems that 100% delegate loss isn't enough of a disincentive though. Better to do 50% and not play a gain of electoral chicken.

~ CB

yojitani

May 15, 2008, 02:08 PM

It's snowballing now. Edwards and now four of his delegates have sided with Obama. He also now has the supports of the United Steelworkers.

stevento

May 15, 2008, 02:39 PM

Unfortunatey, the state's elected officials disenfranchised them.
howard dean has stated that all 50 states are going to the convention. PERIOD.
but howard dean noted, on leno last night, that it was unfair to punish the people for what the elected officials did. and he noted that the only reason they said "if you move the election, you lose your votes" is because they didn't expect them to actually move it up.
because there's a line that they are supposed to go in. first IA, then NH, then NV then SC, then everyone else.
but MI/FL jumped up, so then two of the early states jumped up (violating the rules, which i've already posted, nothing happened to them). then IA and NH started talking about going before the new year, so they said "no campaigning in mi/fl."
it's easy to say "well they broke the rules, they should suffer the punishment" but you can't just ignore 2.3 million voters, which dean noted.

Mm. Campaign finance rules say she needs to pay herself back FIRST, or risk kissing anything she's loaned goodbye (converts to a "donation", and she becomes Mitt Romney... and Chelsea Clinton frowns at her diminished inheritance). I think she paid herself back from the first loan, though. I think this last one's going to probably be for keepsies.

and might i add, hillary has stated she is willing to go broke if it means winning. if she's the nod, she'll make it back in book deals in a year.
they were broke when they left the white house and look where they are now. they can do it again.

PlaceofDis

May 15, 2008, 02:41 PM

howard dean has stated that all 50 states are going to the convention. PERIOD.
but howard dean noted, on leno last night, that it was unfair to punish the people for what the elected officials did. and he noted that the only reason they said "if you move the election, you lose your votes" is because they didn't expect them to actually do move it up.
because there's a line that they are supposed to go in. first IA, then NH, then NV then SC, then everyone else.
but MI/FL jumped up, so then two of the early states jumped up (violating the rules, which i've already posted, nothing happened to them). then IA and NH started talking about going before the new year, so they said "no campaigning in mi/fl."
it's easy to say "well they broke the rules, they should suffer the punishment" but you can't just ignore 2.3 million voters, which dean noted.

going to the convention, of course they are. but that doesn't mean that any or all the delegates are going to be seated. their still a part of the party, so of course they'll be present.

they did break the rules and deserve to be punished in some form. otherwise, what is stopping other states from doing it in the future?

elcid

May 15, 2008, 02:42 PM

one way to count those votes is to have a gang of superdelegates look and say "ya know what. if this were a fair election hillary would win" and have her win that way.

Hrm...let edit what stevento meant to say.

one way to count those votes lose the general election is to have a gang of superdelegates look and say "ya know what. if this were a fair election hillary would win" and have her win that way.

Tilpots

May 15, 2008, 02:51 PM

MI and FL should be at the convention... as spectators. They should be punished for breaking the rules they decided to break. Does the individual voter in these states suffer for their elected officials actions? Absolutely. That's what this country is all about. You elect officials, and they make decisions for you. Representative Democracy. That's how it works.

Clinton won't stop whining becasue it's the only longshot she has left. It's the only stance she can take. The DNC just needs to show they have a pair and tell MI and FL that they're out this year. Tell the voters in those states to punish the elected officials that acted on their behalf.

Sayhey

May 15, 2008, 03:51 PM

the point is things change. 5 months ago pundits were saying "hillary is the next president. nobody else has a chance" then things changed and now its "obama is the next president. nobody else has a chance" and things might change again.
howard dean said tonight, on leno, that FL and MI are going to the convention.
as soon as veracifier youtubes it, i'll post it.

look, i'm not stupid. i know what the math is. but i strongly support hillary and have since she threw her hat in. -wish she had done it in 04- so i'm not just going to walk away. i'm not going to quit until she quits. knowing her, that's likely never.

Things do change, and change quickly in the world of politics. It is just extremely unlikely that in a reality-based world the delegate count will be able to be changed enough to have Clinton win. The extremely unlikely does happen sometimes, however. As a Obama supporter, I hope that's not the case, but I respect the commitment of Clinton supporters who want her to continue. As long she doesn't play dirty - as it looks like she is now trying to do - I'm fine with her playing it out. Not to the convention however. After the last primaries on June 3rd, Democrats need to rally around our candidate.

Regarding Michigan and Florida, OBAMA has said they need to be represented at the convention. It's all in the details of how. My prediction is they will be seated based on the election results, but at 1/2 the delegates. The DNC must be able to set the rules or this isn't a national party, so some penalty must be paid by those who violate the rules. At the end of the primary/caucus season, I really don't think this is going to make any difference, so Obama can afford to compromise.

yg17

May 15, 2008, 04:20 PM

howard dean has stated that all 50 states are going to the convention. PERIOD.

There's a difference between going and voting.

stevento

May 15, 2008, 06:06 PM

one way to lose the general election is to tell two large states that they dont count. you dont know which state could be "that state" that is too close to call until the next day. could be florida again.
the republicans counted them halfway.
one thing the rules committee could do to count these states is use harvey weinstein's money and revote them both. it'd send a clear message "if you move you election up without our approval, your going to have to revote for it to count"
or just let michigan tack the democratic primary onto its Aug 17 election.
if hillary can go strong in these last few states, she can get ahead in the popular vote by every measure. it wont be a strong case that she stole it if she has more actual votes.

yojitani

May 15, 2008, 06:18 PM

Hillary's campaign is over. I don't know what it takes to get through to you (or her, for that matter) that it's the end. FL and MI don't matter to Hillary because her campaign is done. There is no hope. It's a dead bird and no amount of 'wakey! wakey!' is going to revive it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTSAFcLXqYY)

The dems made a huge, bone-headed mistake by shutting out Florida and Michigan. Howard Dean's gloss about thinking the nominee would have been decided is just stupid. What they thought might happen shouldn't have been part of their reasoning. I think the dems need to make an example out of someone to make sure that such a thing does not happen again - but in the meantime, they need to hire a top-notch negotiator to get Hillary to stop her internecine battle with Obama.

Thomas Veil

May 15, 2008, 06:19 PM

it's easy to say "well they broke the rules, they should suffer the punishment" but you can't just ignore 2.3 million voters, which dean noted.Obama has already made overtures to the people of Michigan, who didn't get a chance to vote for him before because of their state legislature.

Don't worry, Michigan and Florida will be voting...in November. Nothing will prevent that.

Regarding Michigan and Florida, OBAMA has said they need to be represented at the convention. It's all in the details of how. My prediction is they will be seated based on the election results, but at 1/2 the delegates. The Obama camp offered her a 50-50 split recently, but the Clinton camp rejected it:

Mrs. Clinton insists that the state’s 128 pledged delegates be seated according to the result of the Jan. 15 primary, which she won although the national Democratic Party declared the contest illegal in advance and Mr. Obama’s name was not on the ballot. That would give her a 73 to 55 advantage in delegates.

Mr. Obama, saying the primary was illegitimate and should have no bearing on the Michigan delegation, said he would accept a 64-64 split.

Various plans to untangle the debacle — including holding a new primary or seating just half the delegation — have been rejected by one or more of the various parties. Now Michigan’s so-called Gang of Four — Senator Carl Levin; Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick; Ron Gettelfinger, the United Auto Workers president; and Debbie Dingell, a Democratic National Committee member — are proposing that the delegation be split 69-59, reducing Mrs. Clinton’s 18-delegate advantage to 10 delegates.

No dice, the Obama campaign said. The Michigan primary, the campaign said in a statement Tuesday, “where Senator Obama’s name did not appear on the ballot and the candidates did not campaign, should not be the basis for how the Michigan delegation is seated.”New York Times (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/another-primary-plan-proposed-in-michigan/#more-4971)

Also, Hillary last October:

"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/6/12656/59124/210/490995)

Didn't seem to bother her then. Oh, and then there's another thing. Here's Clinton's campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, back in 2004, talking about the possibility of Michigan moving up their primary date:

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."Political Base (http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=1950)

Wow. Sounds pretty adamant to me. Wonder what happened to change his mind?

stevento

May 15, 2008, 06:46 PM

Don't worry, Michigan and Florida will be voting...in November. Nothing will prevent that.

...
The Obama camp offered her a 50-50 split recently, but the Clinton camp rejected it.

you're exactly right, they will be voting in november and the republicans counted them.
a 50/50 split is essentially shutting them out.

yg17

May 15, 2008, 06:47 PM

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8320/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

one way to lose the general election is to tell two large states that they dont count. you dont know which state could be "that state" that is too close to call until the next day. could be florida again.
the republicans counted them halfway.
one thing the rules committee could do to count these states is use harvey weinstein's money and revote them both. it'd send a clear message "if you move you election up without our approval, your going to have to revote for it to count"
or just let michigan tack the democratic primary onto its Aug 17 election.
if hillary can go strong in these last few states, she can get ahead in the popular vote by every measure. it wont be a strong case that she stole it if she has more actual votes.

The best case scenario out of MI for her would be maybe a 5 point margin, but Obama could easily win. Either way, the popular vote wouldn't change much.

And I have serious problems with one person who has their own bias financing the cost of an election, and so should anyone else who respects democracy and fair elections.

MacNut

May 15, 2008, 06:47 PM

Well you can't give all the votes to Hillary.

Thomas Veil

May 15, 2008, 07:52 PM

you're exactly right, they will be voting in november and the republicans counted them.Half. Let's be accurate.

a 50/50 split is essentially shutting them out.[broken record] And rewarding them proportionally is totally unfair. [/broken record]

Gray-Wolf

May 15, 2008, 07:52 PM

She's dead in the water, but refuses to accept it.

PlaceofDis

May 15, 2008, 07:54 PM

She's dead in the water, but refuses to accept it.

actually i think she does accept it and is just going through the motions to finish off the primary season.

why stay in it? because she's come this far, might as well finish it just because, but you'll notice that her attacks on Obama are virtually non-existent now.

Gray-Wolf

May 15, 2008, 07:56 PM

The Graceful thing, would to make a bow out, with some honor intact.

aLoC

May 15, 2008, 08:30 PM

why stay in it? because she's come this far, might as well finish it just because, but you'll notice that her attacks on Obama are virtually non-existent now.

She might be holding out for a miracle, for example some big scandal comes out about Obama, or some KKK nut assassinates him, etc.

leekohler

May 15, 2008, 08:38 PM

She might be holding out for a miracle, for example some big scandal comes out about Obama, or some KKK nut assassinates him, etc.

Actually, the KKK endorsed Obama.

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1227

aLoC

May 15, 2008, 08:43 PM

Actually, the KKK endorsed Obama.

Ha! That's amazing (or is he just pretend?). I don't know why they hate Hillary so much, apart from her health care ideas I see her as quite centrist.

leekohler

May 15, 2008, 08:49 PM

Ha! That's amazing (or is he just pretend?). I don't know why they hate Hillary so much, apart from her health care ideas I see her as quite centrist.

Go read the article. It's very much for real. They can't stand her.

atszyman

May 15, 2008, 09:20 PM

actually i think she does accept it and is just going through the motions to finish off the primary season.

why stay in it? because she's come this far, might as well finish it just because, but you'll notice that her attacks on Obama are virtually non-existent now.

I think the deal has already been made. There would have been a pretty big blowback from the GOP if Obama lost a state by double digits to someone who wasn't running (WV and KY). If the polls improve in Montana, I expect she'll drop out before June 3rd, otherwise watch for it on June 4th/5th. Shortly after watch for a call from Obama to help her pay off her campaign debt so she can work towards getting Obama elected.

Of course I'm almost always wrong, but it makes sense in my head.

yg17

May 15, 2008, 10:10 PM

Go read the article. It's very much for real. They can't stand her.

Scroll to the bottom of the page ;)

"The Daily Squib is a satirical publication and should therefore not be taken too fu**ing seriously"

stevento

May 16, 2008, 01:29 AM

Half. Let's be accurate.

the republicans did not just leave them out in the cold, which is what a lot of people want to do.

Sayhey

May 16, 2008, 02:12 AM

ahem, leekover, did you read any of the articles in that link? I don't think it's serious.

blackfox

May 16, 2008, 04:41 AM

Nice to see you sayhey.

Oh, on topic...let hillary finish her run. She won't win the nomination, but enough people support her to have it be a healthy exercise in democracy...

Thomas Veil

May 16, 2008, 05:34 AM

the republicans did not just leave them out in the cold, which is what a lot of people want to do.Well, that's why the Dems hold their convention in August -- so nobody will be cold.

(rimshot)

leekohler

May 16, 2008, 07:33 AM

Scroll to the bottom of the page ;)

"The Daily Squib is a satirical publication and should therefore not be taken too fu**ing seriously"

So I'm a Dodo! :) Oh well. It was a nice thought, wasn't it?

Hawkeye411

May 16, 2008, 07:37 AM

I'm guessing that she is being pressured by certain southern delegates to stay in the race.

But hey ... what the heck do I know about American politics :)

elcid

May 16, 2008, 09:14 AM

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/npr_poll_mccain_loses_to_obama.html

spin it up stevento.

yg17

May 16, 2008, 12:58 PM

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8320/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/npr_poll_mccain_loses_to_obama.html

spin it up stevento.

But polls are wrong and she is ahead in the popular vote if you give her mi and fl so she has to be the nominee!!!!!

Sky Blue

May 16, 2008, 01:14 PM

Actually, the KKK endorsed Obama.

http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1227

holy crap! you actually believed that :eek::eek::eek:

leekohler

May 16, 2008, 01:20 PM

holy crap! you actually believed that :eek::eek::eek:

Why not? Who'd have believed we'd have George Bush for 8 years? That happened, didn't it?

elcid

May 16, 2008, 03:07 PM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=168561&title=indecision-2008-west-virginia

After that, it surprises me that it surprises you that Bush won twice.

Antares

May 16, 2008, 03:33 PM

Much Ado

May 16, 2008, 03:46 PM

I think we all can agree that she should stay in this until all options of her being nominated are exhausted.

At the risk of dragging down the Democrat's hopes for November with her? No thanks.

Cleverboy

May 16, 2008, 05:06 PM

Hillary can still win the nomination. It may seem like it's becoming a longshot...but she can. That's why she's still in it. I think we all can agree that she should stay in this until all options of her being nominated are exhausted. I agree completely. I believe however, that its also debatable when "exhausted" is exactly. Once Barack Obama obtains commitments from the needed Super Delegates attains 2,025, we should be DONE. On CNN, you'll see Obama have a "presumptive nominee" label next to him. Clinton will then drop out the next day. She'll have taken it the distance. She'll have done everything she could to win, and no one will blame her.
Remember, Super Delegates don't make their final choice until the convention. If this goes to the convention, it will be an unmitigated disaster and an unnecessary drain on the process. After May 31st, I expect this will all be wrapped up in days, and Clinton will take a week, and endorse Obama. I think Ed Rendell put it absolutely the best, when he said on a radio program:
"I was down at Florida giving a speech to the Broward County delegates ten days ago, and I asked people whose for Barack Obama, and they cheered, whose for Hillary Clinton, and they cheered, and I said, okay, I've got a message for ya. One of you two groups is going to lose. And the group that loses I'm giving ya ten days, to pout, to be angry, to be dissappointed, and then ya gotta get over it, because the stakes for this country are too high come November."

~ CB

solvs

May 16, 2008, 11:48 PM

Have to ask... in your forum signature... veiled references to Clinton and McCain, or a random quote? A woman at the end of a losing campaign for her party's nominating contest and an aging senator making his last and final run for the Presidency under implications that his moment had passed as his success would make him the oldest elected president in history? "Scorned" and passed up for nomination? Final contest and last possible "loss" on a long career of service?
Call it foresight I guess. I used to have a quote from Dennis Miller in there. Something about Being just my opinion, but I could be wrong. Didn't suit me, and he just kept going out there and saying stupid things, so I changed it to something else. Long before this race started. I was going to remove it, but it proves more and more true all the time, so stay it does.

then why is she still going?
Because she can.

your math is nearly impossible. but she just keeps going because our math is fair and nearly impossible for obama to win.
Then your math is wrong.

now may i remind you that hillary now has 43,356 more votes than obama
No she doesn't.

obama has not been able to make the case that he's more electable, but hillary has.
By losing?

so at the end of this, when she has more votes the supers will have a choice to make.
And when she doesn't, they won't.

if this were a fair election hillary would win" and have her win that way.
The election is fair, and she's losing. If you want to talk fair, you can't seriously think we should take MI and FL as is. She doesn't get to win because they broke the rules and Obama obieded by them while she didn't. If the supers vote her in, people will not see that as fair.

working class whites, rural voters might not be there in the fall for obama.
You really want to go there? How about blacks? How about young voters? How about people who would see her winning this way as a cheat? You want to play the race card, go right on ahead. I prefer the fact-based logic card.

that's common knowledge.
So is the fact that she's not going to win.

it was mostly republicans who voted to move up the date of the primary and now they want to disenfranchise democratic voters for it.
I thought it was Dean's fault? Then Obama's? How about when you want to disenfranchise those who didn't get a chance to vote for him because he followed the rules? Doesn't matter anyway. Even with them, especially if we give the rest to Obama, she still isn't going to win.

the point is things change. 5 months ago pundits were saying "hillary is the next president. nobody else has a chance" then things changed and now its "obama is the next president.
Pretty much. They changed. They really can't change anymore at this point. She's just biding time. It's over.

and things might change again.
They won't.

howard dean said tonight, on leno, that FL and MI are going to the convention.
To be counted as is? I don't think so. Still, so? 50/50 will do nothing. Giving her hers and his the rest won't save her. It is over.

i know what the math is.
I don't think you do.

i'm not going to quit until she quits. knowing her, that's likely never.
That's still not a good thing.

howard dean has stated that all 50 states are going to the convention. PERIOD.
Still doesn't prove anything or help her at all, because they aren't going to be handed to her as is.

so then two of the early states jumped up (violating the rules, which i've already posted, nothing happened to them).
Sigh. We've already been over this. Many times. They didn't break the rules. They changed their dates, but that doesn't mean they broke the rules. There is such a thing as changing the dates within the rules. Which they did. FL and MI didn't. You don't even name them. Again. What, you think no one will call you on this? :rolleyes:

it's easy to say "well they broke the rules, they should suffer the punishment"
They did break the rules, and should be punished. Sucks, but blame the people who did it to you. How do you think the people who didn't get to vote fairly because Obama wasn't on the ballot feel? You don't care about them for some reason. You act as if the election was fair and Hillary deserved all of her votes. It wasn't fair as it was. She shouldn't have been on the ballot at all. That should make people distrust her right there, that she encouraged those breaking the rules even she agreed to, but you overlook that.

but you can't just ignore 2.3 million voters, which dean noted.
No one is saying we should ignore them outright, just that they can't be counted as they were, for the numerous reasons we've already mentioned that should be obvious.

Sayhey

May 17, 2008, 12:35 AM

Unless there is some very serious unforeseen development that derails the Obama campaign, this is likely officially over next tuesday or if the rules are changed June 4th at the latest. In the meantime, all of the TV time gets sucked up by the Democrats, as more and more people get excited by the campaign. As long as Hillary isn't out making more silly remarks about "hard-working white people" it's all to the good.

It may take the Clintons a little time to adjust to the reality of Obama as the nominee, but once it becomes clear the only way for them to win is to go to the floor of the convention and fight to convince the delegates who have already pledged their support to Barack to change their votes to her, it will be a very, very quick end to her support. Rats jumping a sinking ship won't be a graphic enough metaphor to describe how quickly superdelegates and some of her own pledged delegates will begin to come over to Obama. No one with any sense wants a fight at the convention over the nomination. People (read Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, all the elected Democratic office holders, etc. etc.) will rally around the Candidate once the official number is reached.

Blackfox, good to see you again as well. How's life in Texas?

Thomas Veil

May 17, 2008, 07:29 AM

Let me ask stevento one thing:

Bush is a man who doesn't listen to anybody. He doesn't live in the same reality as the rest of us. He doesn't deal with the way the world actually works, but the way he would like it to work. And unfortunately that doesn't, er, work.

He doesn't give a damn about rules or law, and if he can't find a way to get around, tunnel under or climb over them, he will just flat-out ignore them.

Now...who else does that sound like? And why, why in God's name, would we want another person like that in the Oval Office?

leekohler

May 17, 2008, 10:40 AM

Mackan

May 17, 2008, 10:52 PM

She is still trying to trick remaining voters that she has won most popular votes so far by including Michigan and Florida. Who wants someone like that as president?

63dot

May 18, 2008, 10:54 AM

the more the dem's primary gets closer to june, the more it looks like she is finished

she had to win more in past state primaries and be on board with super delegates

obama had to implode early on and he didn't

my answer could be different next week if she goes through an amazing character transformation in the eyes of the public because the ball is in her court, and she is also back up against the wall as far as possible at this point

is 2012 out for her? of course not, but this year may not be the year for her

63dot

May 18, 2008, 10:59 AM

stevento

May 18, 2008, 10:41 PM

At the risk of dragging down the Democrat's hopes for November with her? No thanks.

but that's not whats going on. we are not by any means destroying the party. the loser will give a speech telling his/her supporters to vote for the winner, and they will. we are registering millions of new voters as democrats in states like PA, KY, OR, NC, IN. if the race were over, that wouldn't happen. the reason people say that is because we usually have a nod by super tuesday and therefor it feels like this should be over by now.

blackfox

May 19, 2008, 04:32 AM

Sayhey, I am too lazy to update my sig. from the last time I was on these boards...I now live in Oregon, and am doing well thanks...to point, it looks like we could be the state to end it all w/ Obama vs. Hillary. From an Oregon POV, this is pretty amazing to actually be relevant.

Mackan

May 19, 2008, 08:57 AM

but that's not whats going on. we are not by any means destroying the party. the loser will give a speech telling his/her supporters to vote for the winner, and they will.

Then what about these polls showing that so many democratic voters say they will vote for McCain instead, if their candidate does not get the nomination? I am no expert in historic polls, whether this is a common phenomena, but it is rather mindboggling.

yg17

May 19, 2008, 09:03 AM

From an Oregon POV, this is pretty amazing to actually be relevant.

You must not have been paying attention. According to the Hillary campaign, any state she loses is irrelevant and doesn't matter :D

atszyman

May 19, 2008, 09:36 AM

Then what about these polls showing that so many democratic voters say they will vote for McCain instead, if their candidate does not get the nomination? I am no expert in historic polls, whether this is a common phenomena, but it is rather mindboggling.

I think most of that is bravado and hurt feelings rather than any indication of how they will actually vote in November (except for the GOP people who have voted in the primaries on both sides).

Time will have all of these people coming to their senses realizing what a third term of Bush's policies would do versus their non-ideal democratic candidate. Especially when there is more difference between the GOP and Dem plans on what to do. I think that the mess needs to end directly after that June 3rd primary, if not before then, to allow time for the loser to campaign for the winner and heal wounds to unify the party.

I'm more concerned about those who decide they will not vote if their candidate does not get the nod. Of course depending on where you live it's not that big of a deal, NY, CA will go Dem, TX will go GOP and many other states will already be pretty well decided, although it looks like there will be more swing states this year than the previous elections to the candidates will have to focus on more than just FL and OH.

leekohler

May 19, 2008, 09:41 AM

I think most of that is bravado and hurt feelings rather than any indication of how they will actually vote in November (except for the GOP people who have voted in the primaries on both sides).

Time will have all of these people coming to their senses realizing what a third term of Bush's policies would do versus their non-ideal democratic candidate. Especially when there is more difference between the GOP and Dem plans on what to do. I think that the mess needs to end directly after that June 3rd primary, if not before then, to allow time for the loser to campaign for the winner and heal wounds to unify the party.

I'm more concerned about those who decide they will not vote if their candidate does not get the nod. Of course depending on where you live it's not that big of a deal, NY, CA will go Dem, TX will go GOP and many other states will already be pretty well decided, although it looks like there will be more swing states this year than the previous elections to the candidates will have to focus on more than just FL and OH.

If the Democrats hand Clinton the nomination and she doesn't get the popular vote, I will indeed be voting third party. That's not bravado, it's just common sense. I'm not going to vote for somone who doesn't deserve to be there.

Sun Baked

May 19, 2008, 09:47 AM

The Graceful thing, would to make a bow out, with some honor intact.

Why maintain any honor when you can whine and manipulate your way in ... maybe.

atszyman

May 19, 2008, 09:55 AM

If the Democrats hand Clinton the nomination and she doesn't get the popular vote, I will indeed be voting third party. That's not bravado, it's just common sense. I'm not going to vote for somone who doesn't deserve to be there.

Of course you're not exactly in a swing state either. As much as I dislike Clinton, and the tactics she's been using to try and obtain the nomination. If she manages to pull it off and TX is polling neck and neck, I'll suck up my dislike and cast a ballot for her just to keep McCain out of office. And I would have voted for McCain in 2000 had he won the GOP nomination...

As much as I'd hate doing it I'd do it. Luckily her chances of winning the nomination are about as likely as a Democrat taking TX.

Antares

May 19, 2008, 12:30 PM

That's not bravado, it's just common sense. I'm not going to vote for somone who doesn't deserve to be there.

Why maintain any honor when you can whine and manipulate your way in ... maybe.

That's exactly (one of the reasons) why I wouldn't vote for Obama, under any circumstances.

leekohler

May 19, 2008, 12:37 PM

That's exactly (one of the reasons) why I wouldn't vote for Obama, under any circumstances.

Last time I checked, Obama was winning. I don't get your point.

Cleverboy

May 19, 2008, 03:26 PM

That's exactly (one of the reasons) why I wouldn't vote for Obama, under any circumstances. Eyes wide open, what you call "whining" and "manipulation" is more than likely no different than what other candidates have been guilty of. Obama to my knowledge, has only really complained after the widely criticised ABC debate. He didn't complain over the questions so much as the waste of valuable time.

Clinton has complained numerous times throughout the campaign, on a number of different fronts (FL/MI rules she'd signed, Caucaus legitimacy, media bias, fundraising deficits, etc). And, regarding "manipulation", I can't quite figure that one out. What would constitute "manipulation" on a level that would be reason not to vote for someone? Everytime something seemed "contested" Obama would seem to publicly "move on". Like in the Texas "Two-Step". Obama seemed to consistantly read the rules, follow-them, and prevail (like the results of Super-Tuesday, that put him ahead in the final tally). Meanwhile, we learn that numerous precincts in New York registered a "0" vote for him, where it was clear he'd done much better.

Even in New Jersey, while Kucinich screamed for a recount, I didn't hear any such noises from the Obama camp (and there could have been). Even when Ferraro sounded off, NO ONE in the Obama camp called her racist (and her comments were NOT), yet she willfully labeled herself that, in an effort to garner racially tinged sympathy (alleging that the Obama campaign was calling her this). Moreover, she's now calling him "terribly sexist". In fact, while Obama hasn't said anything about it publicly, one prominent Clinton supporter defected, because of tactics she used that panted Obama has "anti-abortion" when he wasn't.

One possible "manipulation" from Obama, might be the one Clinton called him on by saying "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" This was for the flier, that at the time had been out for over a month, following a televised debate. He'd used the pamphlet to "call her out" on the issue of how do you coerce participation in a manditory healthcare program? She'd been avoiding talk about this, which was a stark contrast to the information "rich" reviews some of her supporters credited her website with, regarding her policies. She could have done a much better job clearing that issue up if it were possible. I believe the 3am phone call ad was MUCH more manipulative than anything Obama has floated. Personally, I think the "hiring decision" tact is much less problematic, as it rests on what Americans truly believe is good for their country.

I can understand hard feelings, but with politics, the nomination is often about "personality", while the general election is usually about "party". Personally, I'm an indepedent. I'd love to have been able to vote for McCain (he seemed to have a great message and demeanor), but he's proven to be even less informed than Bush. I'd thought his "5 from the bottom of his class" comments were cute until his knowledge of the economy and even Iraq started to become serious questions.

While Clinton failed her first bar exam, Obama graduated to earn his professional doctorate magna cum laude (top of the class). Compare that to John McCain's dubious academic record and absent-mindedness on the campaign trail, and I would honestly be shocked that if presented a choice between the two men, a reasonable person would make an effort to at the very least, have our country lead by someone with significant background and educational merit. We've already been hornswaggled by Mr. Buddy Buddy for 8 years.

Fool me 3 times, a fooled man can't be fooled again?

~ CB

stevento

May 19, 2008, 06:59 PM

Then what about these polls showing that so many democratic voters say they will vote for McCain instead, if their candidate does not get the nomination? I am no expert in historic polls, whether this is a common phenomena, but it is rather mindboggling.

that's because this is during the primary season. after this is over, the party will unite, just it does every 4 years.

also i came across some more proof that barack obama is responsible for the lack of revotes in FL and MI. james carville says it, even though there was and still is money on the table for it, so that taxpayers dont foot the bill.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4860340

you have to watch a zyrtec ad (annoying). but start watching about 2/3 of the way through the video.

the only reason pundits keep saying its over is because they want to discourage voters in these last few states from voting. they want KY OR and PR to think their votes dont matter. because plain and simple, if FL and MI revote and she wins big tomorrow, hillary wins.

Mike Teezie

May 19, 2008, 07:20 PM

that's because this is during the primary season. after this is over, the party will unite, just it does every 4 years.

also i came across some more proof that barack obama is responsible for the lack of revotes in FL and MI. james carville says it, even though there was and still is money on the table for it, so that taxpayers dont foot the bill.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4860340

you have to watch a zyrtec ad (annoying). but start watching about 2/3 of the way through the video.

the only reason pundits keep saying its over is because they want to discourage voters in these last few states from voting. they want KY OR and PR to think their votes dont matter. because plain and simple, if FL and MI revote and she wins big tomorrow, hillary wins.

Dude, come on.

Marble

May 19, 2008, 07:28 PM

Stevento, you have an amazing mind.

stevento

May 19, 2008, 07:33 PM

yes, i do.
and might i add, if this race were actually over, they would be no need for them to keep talking about how hillary has no chance. but they go on and on. which signifies that its ongoing.
edit: in FL and MI revotes will full delegation, and she wins big tomorrow, she is the nod. because they are big states. there are 313 pledged delegates between them.
edit 2: and i still haven't had anyone present any argument against seating the pledged delegates but shutting out the super delegates from those states.

Cleverboy

May 19, 2008, 09:28 PM

edit 2: and i still haven't had anyone present any argument against seating the pledged delegates but shutting out the super delegates from those states. Again, because their state leaders screwed up. Clinton was fond of saying, "If this were the Republican Party, we'd have already become the nominee." The Democrats aren't Republicans, in fact, the Republicans stripped 50% of all pledged delegates to Florida and Michigan due to moving UP the state contest date.

The Democrats decided to strip 100% of the delegates from any state choosing to violate the rules. Now they're deciding to reverse that decision for the pledged delegates, because they never thought anyone would actually move up the primary with such a heavy penalty.

If they get 100% of their pledged delegates seated, the notion that they won't seat their superdelegates, doesn't sound like a poor compromise to me. Seating the delegates was about respecting the vote of the electorate. Super delegates are NOT bound to the will of the voter (as has been said REPEATEDLY), so they would easily fall into an entirely separate category.

---However you look at it, the have a LOT of work to do in redoing their rules. Getting rid of Super Delegates, resolving complaints about Caucuses, and determining how to penalize states that don't cooperate with the agreed primary order. 2012 will be a difficult time for the party if they don't have clear answers in the future for these issues. This ridiculous notion that they can RE-WRITE all the rules in the middle of the nomination process is highly disruptive and hardly fair.

Why have a contest if the rules can't be agreed to and adhered to for the duration of the event? Maybe that's what we get for having two families of lawyers from Yale and Harvard, with a constitutional scholar to boot.
also i came across some more proof that barack obama is responsible for the lack of revotes in FL and MI. james carville says it, even though there was and still is money on the table for it, so that taxpayers dont foot the bill. There is NO revote without actually reversing time. Many of the voters that would have given Obama an edge, would have already voted in the Republican primary.

~ CB

Everythingisnt

May 19, 2008, 10:08 PM

Even from up here in Canada it looks like a sure thing (That Hillary's done). At least, that's the idea I get when I watch the news..

Thomas Veil

May 19, 2008, 10:39 PM

Hillary is not going to "win big" Tuesday. She and Obama will pick up roughly the same number of delegates -- hers from Kentucky, his from Oregon. The difference is that'll still leave her 250 shy of the magic number, and him only 60 delegates away.

And Carville doesn't say that Obama "was responsible" for the lack of revotes in MI and FL, just that he was against the idea.

We all know the revotes didn't come about because of a variety of factors, which included the logistics and (lack of) time. To say Obama was "responsible" for it is wrong -- and you know better, too.

stevento

May 20, 2008, 12:10 AM

you guys get on me for not posting links. so i post links and you deny it without posting any of your own links.
the rules committee can say, take this cash and revote or be disqualified. and they'll do it. and turnout will be humungous.
or the DNC can take the cash and hold privately run elections.

The difference is that'll still leave her 250 shy of the magic number

good thing each and every one of MI/FL's 313 pledged delegates will hopefully be seated.
the reason i continue to support and cheer for hillary in the face of impossible odds is because she does the same thing.

zioxide

May 20, 2008, 12:39 AM

good thing each and every one of MI/FL's 313 pledged delegates will hopefully be seated.

and there's no way in hell she'll get more than 250 of those 313.

aLoC

May 20, 2008, 03:04 AM

Maybe she *wants* to damage Obama's chances, so McCain wins and she runs again in 4 years. That would be putting herself before the party I know, but it's possible.

Father Jack

May 20, 2008, 03:12 AM

Hillary is dead, she doesn't have the sense to lie down .. :(

(metaphorically speaking, of course)

FrankieTDouglas

May 20, 2008, 03:32 AM

Cleverboy

May 20, 2008, 05:30 AM

If by some chance Hillary ends up on my national ballot, I refuse to vote for her. When I hear her name, I think of you and your irritating, blind postings of praise for her on these forums and in no way do I want to be associated with that. So congrats, you are successfully turning people away from the candidate you support. You just might be Obama's best advertisement on the MR forums.You're epitomizing the worse of Obama supporters too. Many Obama supporters who say they'll never vote for Hillary overlook the fact that Obama has repeatedly said... and its TRUE, that there is more in common between the Democrats than the Republicans. If not he, than she. You might not like her, but McCain has virtually self-destructed on the integrity of the platform he had hoped to respresent.

Obama and Clinton supporters need to find middle ground, embrace more spite. The party can ill afford to ruin this moment in history. The Democrats failed to get Gore and Kerry in, and failing to get Obama OR Hillary in, will likely mean disaster... and an embracing of everything that's been failing American in the last 8 years.

Obama supporters that can't see another point of view should go visit an avid Hillary Clinton forum, and JUST READ. Think about ways to resolve the problems.
Hillary is dead, she doesn't have the sense to lie down .. :( If the shoe was on the other foot, I'm sure people would call statements like this disturbing. People need to stop dehumanizing this election process. Why can't you just be happy your guy won?

~ CB

Thomas Veil

May 20, 2008, 11:14 AM

you guys get on me for not posting links. so i post links and you deny it without posting any of your own links. Well, I merely commented your link and your spin on it. I didn't need another link to prove my point.

the rules committee can say, take this cash and revote or be disqualified. and they'll do it. and turnout will be humungous. Even ignoring the fact that the states themselves (http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/04/its_official_no_michigan_revot.html) have said a revote is not practical at this point, how in the world does the DNC force a revote on a state...especially when that is not a part of the rules and disqualification of the states is?

Your arguments are reaching new heights of absurdity.

or the DNC can take the cash and hold privately run elections. What the heck is a "privately run election"?

good thing each and every one of MI/FL's 313 pledged delegates will hopefully be seated.Ya know, if the DNC wants to make a joke of its own rules, piss off all the Dems in the other 48 states, and prove to the world that it can't run its own house, much less the country, that just might happen.

Sayhey

May 20, 2008, 04:30 PM

Stevento,
I'm sure there will be a compromise on the Michigan and Florida delegations. I'm also sure there will be some sort of penalty extracted on these delegations. Either you play by the national party rules or you don't have a national party. I have a tremendous sympathy for the idea that a large industrial state (aka Michigan) should be among the early primaries, but it CANNOT be done in defiance of the rules. When state parties break the rules they have to pay the price, and, as I said before, I think the compromise will be half the delegation will be seated (with the same proportions as the elections.) Whatever the compromise turns out to be, it won't change the outcome of the nomination process - that would mean disaster.

obeygiant

May 20, 2008, 09:52 PM

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/726/sackvd9.jpg

MikeTheC

May 20, 2008, 09:57 PM

Why don't all the states hold primaries on the same day?

Is it just that we like the drama?

atszyman

May 20, 2008, 10:19 PM

Why don't all the states hold primaries on the same day?

Is it just that we like the drama?

It's been discussed before but the reason this doesn't happen is that none of the candidates is able to raise enough money to campaign in all 50 states simultaneously for the all in one day primary. The real money only starts coming in when frontrunners manage to show themselves. It would be nice, and excruciating if there were a way to keep all the results hidden until the end of the races. Another idea would be to do it all in a couple months, do NE, SE, SW, NW states 2 weeks apart from each other and rotate the starting positions fair to everyone and we'd have a nominee by May...

MikeTheC

May 20, 2008, 10:47 PM

It's been discussed before but the reason this doesn't happen is that none of the candidates is able to raise enough money to campaign in all 50 states simultaneously for the all in one day primary. The real money only starts coming in when frontrunners manage to show themselves. It would be nice, and excruciating if there were a way to keep all the results hidden until the end of the races. Another idea would be to do it all in a couple months, do NE, SE, SW, NW states 2 weeks apart from each other and rotate the starting positions fair to everyone and we'd have a nominee by May...

I don't really see why it should be a problem, financially.

Each candidate does nothing but national advertising. They pick say one or two places to go and have debates. After that, we have a weekend set aside for voting.

Oh, wait a minute, we're talking about a country that lets different parties vote with different rules and procedures, and that lets parties get to exclude states. Never mind, how absolutely silly and daft of me to think I should take this country seriously.

(And sad to say, it's my country we're talking about here.)

Marble

May 20, 2008, 11:49 PM

Also, time is a factor. One big "super Tuesday" would mean more national adverts, and fewer opportunities for the candidates to travel to each state and speak locally. Not that all states get attention as it is now, but unless this single election day was to take place very late in the year, only the big states would get any useful kind of attention.

If it was to take place late in the year, then you force many months of campaigning and crossed fingers while everyone relies on partisan polls to benchmark their candidates' performance. There wouldn't even be a chance that a particular nominee would hit majority and be able to move on to planning for the general election.

That said, I'm certainly not defending the current system in its entirety.

stevento

May 21, 2008, 12:14 AM

atszyman

May 21, 2008, 12:15 AM

I don't really see why it should be a problem, financially.

Each candidate does nothing but national advertising. They pick say one or two places to go and have debates. After that, we have a weekend set aside for voting.

At least the current system gives them a chance to tour every state and make 2-3 stops in each if they so desire and have a chance to at least meet some normal people. The alternative is to disconnect them from reality even more than they already are. Hit a couple big urban centers and run national ads would only isolate the politicians from us further.

Oh, wait a minute, we're talking about a country that lets different parties vote with different rules and procedures, and that lets parties get to exclude states. Never mind, how absolutely silly and daft of me to think I should take this country seriously.

That's not the fault of the coutnry, that's the fault of the two party monopoly we have on the system. In an ideal world we wouldn't even bother with primaries, we'd just campaign for 6 months or so and everyone who was running would be on the ballot in November. You might have to put in runoff elections or instant runoff voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) but it wouldn't be monopolized by two candidates every year. God forbid we actually have a real choice rather than the lesser of evils we typically end up with.

63dot

May 21, 2008, 12:15 AM

While Clinton failed her first bar exam, Obama graduated to earn his professional doctorate magna cum laude (top of the class). Compare that to John McCain's dubious academic record and absent-mindedness on the campaign trail, and I would honestly be shocked that if presented a choice between the two men, a reasonable person would make an effort to at the very least, have our country lead by someone with significant background and educational merit. We've already been hornswaggled by Mr. Buddy Buddy for 8 years.

Fool me 3 times, a fooled man can't be fooled again?

~ CB

we are not voting for a professional test taker?

who cares how mccain did in school?

however, his absent-mindedness and his own mention of it at this time in his life are relevant among the points you mentioned...mccain would be the leader of the free world and the last thing we need is someone who can't remember stuff, probably due to age and breakdown of mental facilities

i like obama for several reasons over anybody, but not because he is or is not a good bar test taker many years ago

the president of the united states is not related to how many times it takes to pass a legal exam, or even to be a lawyer to be an effective president or even to win a nomination

obama, more than the others, has a plan, today, for america and it's what the candidates say about today, and not what they did in the past, is what matters for me

will it be easy to pay for it?
-probably not but it's not the small gas savings pandering that mccain and clinton have stupidly raved about...we have to fix america and it's going to take a lot of money and time

...and sacrifices, and obama is willing to get us there, and i would say clinton to some point while mccain's sacrifice of an increased commitment in iraq is targeting the wrong country to put funds into

mccain was an honorable hero and withstood terrible tortures in vietnam and did not use the easy way with giving into the christian right in his senate career, but i do believe he does not have the vision of the democrats and should have totally distanced himself from w

iJesus

May 21, 2008, 12:21 AM

NO! We can't let Steve Job's wife down!

=P
haha, I think that Hillary has realized she can't win this thing and she wants to slowly back out of this in order to convince her supporters that Barack Obama is amazing.

SNL did a nice spoof of Hillary Clinton saying "My voters will not vote for Barack Obama because they're racist". I thought that was kind of funny (not the fact that people are racist but because I can see some truth)

Thomas Veil

May 21, 2008, 05:11 AM

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/726/sackvd9.jpgThat's hilarious!

compuwar

May 21, 2008, 07:06 AM

SNL did a nice spoof of Hillary Clinton saying "My voters will not vote for Barack Obama because they're racist". I thought that was kind of funny (not the fact that people are racist but because I can see some truth)

According to CNN, exit polls in Kentucky indicate that ~20% of voters considered race a factor. It may be closer to the truth than lots of us want. :(

Rodimus Prime

May 21, 2008, 07:25 AM

The entire thing with FL and MI has shown is we need to change out the primaries are done.

I for one am tired of the same 5 or so states getting more say than any one else in who gets to run for president. Those first states play a huge role in getting things started.

This is the first time I can think of that after the first few primaries it even mattered. Look at the republican side this year by the time it came to Texas for example it was all but over.
Hell this is the first time we have ever even had heavy campaining in the primaries.

I do hope they parties learn from this and change the way they run. I think they should divide things up with so many a week and then randomly put the states there every 4 years. This would make it a lot better for everyone.

latergator116

May 21, 2008, 08:03 AM

atszyman

May 21, 2008, 08:55 AM

If you listen to pundits, all you hear is how impossible it is for hillary to win and they cant figure out what she's still doing in the race.

but the thing is, she's going to win. super delegates know hillary is more electable.
that's why the obama campaign timed the edwards endorsement the way they did.
anyway, without FL and MI, she was 650,000 votes behind. she netted 450,000 in KY (abcnews.com 100% reporting). obama did pretty good in OR but they have similary populations, so unless he can win by the same margin as he lost KY, she's walking away with more votes than he did today.

Including FL/MI with 88% of precincts reporting and tweaking the math to be most in her favor* she's only ahead by about 240,000 votes which coincidentally is about what the uncommitted vote in MI which was encouraged for Obama/Edwards supporters.

only 62% of OR is reporting, so check back tomorrow on abcnews.com and it'll show the popular vote. she's getting closer in the FL/MI excluded column.
unfortunately, i dont think a lot of supers are buying the FL/MI included math until may 31 when something happens.

And whatever happens will not be as favorable to Clinton as it currently stands since Obama's name was not on the ballot in MI which all candidates had agreed to do by the rules that Clinton herself agreed with before she started losing. Whatever compromise is reached will likely only deal with how to allocate the delegates and will not address the popular vote, and without Obama's name on the ballot the only thing even close to fair is to give both Clinton and Obama the same proportion of her vote count and the uncommitted vote count respectively. She got votes purely by being the only top tier candidate on the ballot and there are some who would have voted differently had there been more choices, so you can't give her all of that and then turn around and not give all of the uncommitted to Obama. While the uncommitted would have been split between Edwards and Obama, some of Clinton's votes would have also gone to them, and more people would have taken the time to vote or voted in the Democratic primary if it had not been already publicized as not counting. The most she'd net out of any compromise on MI will be around 10 delegates.

and PR, where she's ahead in polls, has 4,000,000 registered voters.

so she might be able to say to supers on june 3, "counting caucus goers as one primary vote, and even excluding MI/FL, i still have more votes, and you know i've got a better shot at winning..."
there is hope yet.
if she can trick obama into forgetting about her, she can win.

Unfortunately the lead she will have in the popular vote (if she has one) will be small fairly easily dismissed due to the way the caucuses are counted. If she had a commanding lead in the popular vote, 500,000+ maybe but given her best case scenario she's currently only at the previously mentioned 240,000 which will shrink as OR finishes its counting. That's only with FL/MI counted in the most favorable method and completely ignores the MI voters who did not vote for her.

He won by the rules agreed to by all parties when the contest started. Of course that doesn't mean the superdelegates can't overturn it, I just don't see a compelling case for them to do so. The myth that if a certain demographic didn't vote for her in the primaries they are suddenly going to vote McCain is ludicrous. It's like saying that the Democrats now have the Mormon and Evangelical votes now because Romney and Huckabee are out.

*most favorable Clinton counting excludes WA non-binding primaries, and the TX caucuses, counts FL as is, and gives her the ~330,000 from MI while awarding none to Obama. The ABC results includes TX and WA caucuses and primaries in their total counts which actually helps Obama.

stevento

May 21, 2008, 08:37 PM

She got votes purely by being the only top tier candidate on the ballot and there are some who would have voted differently had there been more choices, so you can't give her all of that and then turn around and not give all of the uncommitted to Obama....

....
....
If she had a commanding lead in the popular vote, 500,000+ maybe but given her best case scenario she's currently only at the previously mentioned 240,000 which will shrink as OR finishes its counting.

why should he get all of the uncommitted? the edwards campaign was alive and thriving then. there was a very large campaign launched by john conyers to get Obama/Edwards supporters to vote uncomitted and they did. I think we should just let those delegates go to the convention uncomitted and vote for whoever they want. they can vote for obama if they want to.
If she can get a lead in popular vote not counting FL/MI then will say to supers "if we counted them, i'm much farther ahead"
I just want to dispel this little myth that its impossible.
ok with 99% of OR reporting, she's got to make up 444,760 votes, (not counting FL/MI).
good think PR has 4,000,000 registered voters.

WV:
Hillary 67%
Obama 26%
Edwards 7%
if she wins PR by that margin she gets 2,680,000 he gets 1,040,000.
thats a difference of 1,640,000 votes. then she could make a very strong case to the supers.

Iscariot

May 21, 2008, 09:21 PM

There is no measure for how quickly I want this damned clown rodeo to end.

benmrii

May 21, 2008, 09:22 PM

WV:
Hillary 67%
Obama 26%
Edwards 7%
if she wins PR by that margin she gets 2,680,000 he gets 1,040,000.
thats a difference of 1,640,000 votes. then she could make a very strong case to the supers.

Even by giving in to Clinton's asinine 'math' for the sake of argument...

To suggest a 100% turnout of PR voters
To suggest that - if for some reason the percentages were exactly the same - that a large portion of the 7% who voted for Edwards wouldn't vote for Obama whom he endorsed after the WV primary
To suggest that she will win by near 35 points when she has never polled half that high during the primaries in PR
To suggest that Richardson's campaigning there for Obama since yesterday plus the latest polls showing that Hispanic voters are voting more for Obama than Clinton lately won't make a big dent

... is reaching. A lot.

Let's get real for a sec:

Assuming 40% turnout, which is pretty high, 1.6 million voters.
Assuming a 15 point win, which is higher than any polls I've seen from PR, she gets 920,000 and he gets 680,000.

That's a difference of 240,000, about half of what she needs... in her imaginary count-the-states-that-won't-be-counted-fully-because-they-didn't-follow-the-rules and don't-count-caucus-states-because-they-followed-the-rules math.

Gelfin

May 21, 2008, 09:51 PM

There is no measure for how quickly I want this damned clown rodeo to end.

I'd settle for Planck time if I had to, and I'm told I do.

atszyman

May 21, 2008, 10:05 PM

why should he get all of the uncommitted? the edwards campaign was alive and thriving then. there was a very large campaign launched by john conyers to get Obama/Edwards supporters to vote uncomitted and they did. I think we should just let those delegates go to the convention uncomitted and vote for whoever they want. they can vote for obama if they want to.

Why should Clinton get all of her votes when she was the only top tier candidate on the ballot? How many people would have voted for Obama or Edwards had they been on the ballot but instead voted for her?

There's no fair way to count MI since the vote is skewed in so many different directions due to lack of choices on the ballot.

So you've proposed stripping MI's superdelegates and honoring the will of the voters, by giving them the uncommitted voters as delegates free to choose whomever they want? People went out of their way to vote uncommitted against Clinton, why should that be ignored by giving those delegates free reign?

cycocelica

May 22, 2008, 02:07 AM

I am watching Nightline right now and it is mine blowing what the Clinton campaign is doing.

One Clinton worker said that since March Clinton has won more states, more popular votes and more delegates. So what, we just forget about January and February? What the hell are these people going to think of next? And don't get me started on the MI and FL debate. She signed that piece of paper agreeing to the terms stated at the beginning.

Sayhey

May 22, 2008, 02:39 AM

why should he get all of the uncommitted? the edwards campaign was alive and thriving then. there was a very large campaign launched by john conyers to get Obama/Edwards supporters to vote uncomitted and they did. I think we should just let those delegates go to the convention uncomitted and vote for whoever they want. they can vote for obama if they want to.
If she can get a lead in popular vote not counting FL/MI then will say to supers "if we counted them, i'm much farther ahead"
I just want to dispel this little myth that its impossible.
ok with 99% of OR reporting, she's got to make up 444,760 votes, (not counting FL/MI).
good think PR has 4,000,000 registered voters.

WV:
Hillary 67%
Obama 26%
Edwards 7%
if she wins PR by that margin she gets 2,680,000 he gets 1,040,000.
thats a difference of 1,640,000 votes. then she could make a very strong case to the supers.

Where do you get these numbers? There aren't 4 million people who live in Puerto Rico (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/rq.html).

Marble

May 22, 2008, 04:16 AM

yg17

May 22, 2008, 07:51 AM

good think PR has 4,000,000 registered voters.

Wikipedia has PR's population at 3,994,259, so even if every single person living in PR (including people under 18 and anyone else not allowed to vote) was a registered voter, you're still wrong.

atszyman

May 22, 2008, 08:44 AM

Where do you get these numbers? There aren't 4 million people who live in Puerto Rico (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/rq.html).

OK, the numbers there are approximately 4 million in population, with nearly 80% over 15 years old. So the absolute maximum number of voters is 3.2 million. Even if they all vote and she wins by a huge margin, and it would put her ahead in the popular vote she'll need to win by a 12.5 point margin to get 400,000 votes exactly, and that margin only goes up as turnout decreases.

Puerto Rico is not a state! They don't get to count in the general election, and it says nothing about her electability. For all of the talk about how the states that Obama won are non-important, how do you manage to assign any importance to Puerto Rico while simultaneously trying to ignore caucus states?

yg17

May 22, 2008, 10:28 AM

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8320/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

Where do you get these numbers? There aren't 4 million people who live in Puerto Rico (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/rq.html).

OK, the numbers there are approximately 4 million in population, with nearly 80% over 15 years old. So the absolute maximum number of voters is 3.2 million. Even if they all vote and she wins by a huge margin, and it would put her ahead in the popular vote she'll need to win by a 12.5 point margin to get 400,000 votes exactly, and that margin only goes up as turnout decreases.

Puerto Rico is not a state! They don't get to count in the general election, and it says nothing about her electability. For all of the talk about how the states that Obama won are non-important, how do you manage to assign any importance to Puerto Rico while simultaneously trying to ignore caucus states?

Am I the ony one who thinks its crap that Puerto Rico even gets to vote in the primary? I'm all for them getting to vote in the primary and the general, but if they don't get to vote in the general, IMO they shouldn't get to have a say in the primary. Ditto for Guam, the USVI and American Samoa

Don't panic

May 22, 2008, 11:49 AM

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8320/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

Am I the ony one who thinks its crap that Puerto Rico even gets to vote in the primary? I'm all for them getting to vote in the primary and the general, but if they don't get to vote in the general, IMO they shouldn't get to have a say in the primary. Ditto for Guam, the USVI and American Samoa

i disagree.

i think they should vote fort the actual elections, and since unfairly they can't, it's reasonable that they get a saying in who the candidates are.

the latest poll i have seen has hillary a 50% and obama at 37% with 13% undecided. if it remains along these lines, hillary will pick up just about 10 delegates

Cleverboy

May 22, 2008, 12:51 PM

we are not voting for a professional test taker? Failing the bar is not simply not passing any old test. In a lot of ways it can relate to how well you prepare and study before an important event. I'm not saying she's the same person now that she was then, but I think that's a pretty significant contrast when you look at how the two Democratic campaigns were run.

By many counts, Obama actually READ and STUDIED the RULES. Clinton is often criticized for attempting to CHANGE the RULES. There is something to be said for someone who can push those around them to compromise... but there are hard stops in life (like bar exams) where you simply need to be prepared. Y'know... prepared on DAY ONE.

The Five Mistakes Clinton Made
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html

#2. She didn’t master the rules
Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified — and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories. Even now, it can seem as if they don't get it.

~ CB

stevento

May 22, 2008, 02:29 PM

Wikipedia has PR's population at 3,994,259, so even if every single person living in PR (including people under 18 and anyone else not allowed to vote) was a registered voter, you're still wrong.

oh yeah because wikipedia is always right about everything. :rolleyes:
they've never had misinformation.

atszyman

May 22, 2008, 02:34 PM

Where do you get these numbers? There aren't 4 million people who live in Puerto Rico (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/rq.html).

oh yeah because wikipedia is always right about everything. :rolleyes:
they've never had misinformation.

Puerto Rico (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/rq.html) as posted above from www.cia.gov.

Or one of their tourism websites (http://welcome.topuertorico.org/people.shtml)?

Or census.gov (http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/puerto-rico/prmunnet.txt)?

Or a half million other links (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=puerto+rico+population&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)?

Why don't you post your information source that says they have more registered voters than their entire population?

Gelfin

May 22, 2008, 02:45 PM

Puerto Rico (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/rq.html) as posted above from www.cia.gov.

Or one of their tourism websites (http://welcome.topuertorico.org/people.shtml)?

Or census.gov (http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/puerto-rico/prmunnet.txt)?

Or a half million other links (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=puerto+rico+population&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)?

Why don't you post your information source that says they have more registered voters than their entire population?

The important question is, how many voters does Diebold say there are?

atszyman

May 22, 2008, 02:49 PM

The important question is, how many voters does Diebold say there are?

If we're going by Diebold we're already screwed (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks).

benmrii

May 22, 2008, 03:03 PM

oh yeah because wikipedia is always right about everything. :rolleyes:
they've never had misinformation.

I do find it more than a little amusing (sad?) that of the myriad of logical, mathematical and intelligent replies to your post that the only response you have is that Wikipedia may have misinformation about Puerto Rico's population.

On top of that, it doesn't.

Talking points from Clinton and her distraction-style non-answers. Bravo. :D

yg17

May 22, 2008, 04:33 PM

oh yeah because wikipedia is always right about everything. :rolleyes:
they've never had misinformation.

Would the CIA (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/rq.html) be a better source? Or perhaps the US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html)? Or how about the approximately 505,000 results from a Google search of "population of Puerto Rico" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=population%20of%20puerto%20rico&btnG=Google+Search) that verify what Wikipedia says?

Or, maybe all of those half a million links are wrong and there really are 4,000,000 registered voters in Puerto Rico, and every single one of them will turn out and vote for Hillary, and she'll win the nomination :rolleyes:

Edit: Ahhh crap, atszyman beat me to it. I need to read entire threads before replying :D

benmrii

May 22, 2008, 04:47 PM

Edit: Ahhh crap, atszyman beat me to it. I need to read entire threads before replying :D

Actually it was still pretty funny the second time around. :)

leekohler

May 22, 2008, 04:50 PM

I'm beginning to think that stevento is an internet troll, working for the Clinton campaign. Anyone else?

Don't panic

May 22, 2008, 04:54 PM

I'm beginning to think that stevento is an internet troll, working for the Clinton campaign. Anyone else?

given the effectiveness, it's more likely he is on Obama's or McCain's books ;)

skunk

May 22, 2008, 04:55 PM

Or possibly just a Clinton supporter. Why not?

leekohler

May 22, 2008, 05:10 PM

Or possibly just a Clinton supporter. Why not?

The lack of ability to deal with reality, for one. ;)

Thomas Veil

May 22, 2008, 05:36 PM

I'm beginning to think that stevento is an internet troll, working for the Clinton campaign. Anyone else?I don't think he needs to be working for Hillary in order to qualify as a troll, but yes, I feel he's starting to fit that category.

solvs

May 23, 2008, 12:55 AM

I'm beginning to think that stevento is an internet troll, working for the Clinton campaign. Anyone else?

I read somewhere the McCain campaign was hiring people to do that, wouldn't put it past Hill to do so too.

Why am I still reading this thread? :confused:

Opposition Grows To Clinton's Delegate Cause Celebre (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/22/compromise-in-works-to-se_n_103010.html)

63dot

May 23, 2008, 10:45 PM

Failing the bar is not simply not passing any old test. In a lot of ways it can relate to how well you prepare and study before an important event. I'm not saying she's the same person now that she was then, but I think that's a pretty significant contrast when you look at how the two Democratic campaigns were run.

By many counts, Obama actually READ and STUDIED the RULES. Clinton is often criticized for attempting to CHANGE the RULES. There is something to be said for someone who can push those around them to compromise... but there are hard stops in life (like bar exams) where you simply need to be prepared. Y'know... prepared on DAY ONE.

The Five Mistakes Clinton Made
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1738331,00.html

#2. She didn’t master the rules

~ CB

as for the bar, which state?

they vary and unfortunately i am a law student in california

both obama and clinton are prepared to take out mccain, it's just a matter of who will do it

it's not over til it's over and though i support obama, i still will not be shocked if clinton woos the superdelatates

in '92, at one point perot lead any candidate by a full 20 points, so in may, we are still very early on w/o a democratic candidate

...in '92, when it came time to voting many changed their minds to vote for a party more familiar to them

Cleverboy

May 23, 2008, 11:12 PM

as for the bar, which state?
they vary and unfortunately i am a law student in california I guess that's true. I wouldn't know the first thing about comparing the Washington D.C., Arkansas and Illinois bar exam. It'd be interesting to know how they compare.
However, after failing the District of Columbia bar exam[59] and passing the Arkansas exam, Rodham came to a key decision. As she later wrote, "I chose to follow my heart instead of my head".[60] She thus followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, rather than staying in Washington where career prospects were brighter. Ref: Clinton 2003, p. 64. According to Carl Bernstein's 2007 biography, two-thirds (551 of 817) of the candidates had passed, and Rodham did not tell even close friends of the failure until revealing it thirty years later in her autobiography. See A Woman in Charge, p. 92.

~ CB

macfan881

May 24, 2008, 12:21 AM

it5five

May 24, 2008, 03:03 PM

The lack of ability to deal with reality, for one. ;)

Why, thats practically a requirement of all Clinton supporters.

I think stevento is just, for some reason, really passionate about Hillary. If I recall, I think he's pretty young, so this may be his first time voting and he might just be excited.

Thomas Veil

May 24, 2008, 06:45 PM

Well i belive with her RFK remarks today she is done i never really liked her but i would suport her if she was nominated but after her comments today ive lost total respect for her and i hope she Decides to drop out and does not get a vp jobUnfortunately I don't think she's done, certainly not by the RFK remark. Note that she is now talking about taking this fight all the way to the convention.

She's moving the goalposts again.

63dot

May 24, 2008, 07:03 PM

I guess that's true. I wouldn't know the first thing about comparing the Washington D.C., Arkansas and Illinois bar exam. It'd be interesting to know how they compare.

~ CB

what is interesting is that dc is one of those bars that many can pass when they can't pass a particular state bar...but not all states

the bar is graded subjectively and unlike a math exam, one's score could vary on the mood of the grader at that moment

and if one can pass a state's bar, will that guarantee that they can even be a mediocre attorney?

one joke in law school is:

what do the lsat, law school, the bar, and practicing law have in common?

answer: nothing

even the american law degree, unlike the vast majority of the world, calls the basic practitioner's degree a "doctorate", of sorts called the J.D., where it is really the LL.B/B.C.L/B.A. in Law or a bachelor's degree as most lawyers see it, followed by the advanced graduate law degrees, which are the LL.M, followed in some academic circles by the S.J.D., Ph.D, or LL.D for a doctorate level law degree...all american law schools didn't convert over to the J.D. from the LL.B until the '70s when our nation's top law school, Yale, finally caved in and called their law degree a doctorate (this being a school full of many Ph.D programs of world reknown)

of course, besides the vague bar, and the "doctorate" degree that true advanced Ph.D holders scoff at, the bar and legal practice is not a place to judge a political candidate by as it has rarely been the case before

looking at a candidate's record is the best yardstick and in the case of clinton things look good for moderate dems, but obama does not have a large enough body of work to look at so the rev. wright issue hurts him

i still am with obama, but not as solidly as i have been in past months

...the true test will be how clinton and obama work the press until the convention has a nominee

if things hold as to america's disdain for w, the dems will win in an electoral college landslide in november

mccain will be an unfortunate victim of w's incompetence in the oval office and no matter how much mccain distances himself from the president, he's still a republican in a day when the gop is definitely not cool

i think carter beat ford based on an unfair association people had between ford and nixon

washington post reporters woodward and bernstein were unable to find a solid connection between watergate and ford, but ford paid the price in '76 and lost to a relative unknown

Mitch1984

May 24, 2008, 07:13 PM

63dot

May 24, 2008, 07:13 PM

Unfortunately I don't think she's done, certainly not by the RFK remark. Note that she is now talking about taking this fight all the way to the convention.

She's moving the goalposts again.

though it is unlikely, but not as much as some weeks ago, she has the possibility of finding favor with many superdelegates

my hope is the party will go with obama, who has the popular vote of registered democrats because the last thing the democrats need is a nasty split right before an election they should, by most forecasts, and announcers at conservative fox network, have in the bag

the fox neo-cons know the game and they are focusing on gaining ground in the house, newt gingrich style, and handcuffing the democratic president

...this is still not bad strategy since the dems did a good job in putting bush in his place after the dems took total control of congress...and the first move of a democratic congress came before they could even vote, and that was for donald rumsfeld to resign immediately

while i think the oval office will be democratic, i believe there is some chance that in nov. '08, or two years later, the gop can find the funds and advertising to push their way into a majority control of the house

one way would be for clinton to win via superdelegates and give the gop congressional races a lot of fuel

it may help in mccain's numbers, but probably not enough to help him win any race himself...but the gop can gain in some closely contested house races

63dot

May 24, 2008, 07:24 PM

I want Obama to win. But there's alot of talk about him being in the lead at the mo. I reckon that will encourage hilary supporters who weren't gonna bother voting, to vote.
I think she's just trying to be a strong women by campaigning till the end.
I'm not an American but are there stronger forces that detirmine who's president, did people really vote for bush over al gore?

gore won by a million votes in the popular vote, but by the way the votes were distributed, bush won more "points" in the electoral college

bush, by this system, had a slightly more broad based popularity, where gore had many votes in a more homogenous group of largely one of two major groups which were the college educated and minorities, which while quite considerate, did not bring gore over the top

this time, there is a marked possibility of mccain getting the same amount of votes from the popular vote this november, but being crushed by the electoral vote system because his vast popularity is very narrowed among the wealthy and southern and midwestern white blue collar workers

mccain will not likely gain the white northeastern and western blue collar vote and some wealthy in the northeast, great lakes region, and the west coast

his bid for the white house, in this electoral system, is doomed due to its narrow appeal based on a few demographics

where liberals complained that the electoral college favored bush, i do think that when the electoral college shows a landslide for the democrats, when the popular vote was much closer, those liberals will not complain this time about the electoral college

the most recent abc news poll i heard from a conservative libertarian's talk show showed any democrat (being obama or clinton, and possibly edwards) beating mccain by at least 100 electoral college points, or more - much more...which is considerate

solvs

May 25, 2008, 11:33 PM

Hillary: Why I continue to run (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/05/25/2008-05-25_hillary_why_i_continue_to_run.html)

It's pretty much exactly what you'd think it would say.

Iscariot

May 25, 2008, 11:52 PM

I think stevento is just, for some reason, really passionate about Hillary. If I recall, I think he's pretty young, so this may be his first time voting and he might just be excited.

I think so too. At least he's truly interested in voting and being an active participant in the democratic system, and it'd certainly be a blessing if more people would do the same.

But by Gandalf's beard I can't wait for this to be over so he'll shut up about it!

Cleverboy

May 27, 2008, 08:31 AM

I previously laid out projections for the remaining primaries:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=5410970

The numbers have predictably changed, with Obama's continued momentum. Most notably... the last two states now seem to be solidly Obama. Which, is an excellent note to end on. Puerto Rico will still be an interesting day of news. I'm hoping Clinton doesn't intend to imply that the tide is turning or anything.

Puerto Rico (http://www.pollster.com/08-PR-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) (6/1) latest: R&R - C:50, O:37, U:13 (3/31-4/05) CLINTON by 13%
Montana (http://www.pollster.com/08-MT-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) (6/3) latest: Mason-Dixon - C:35, O:52, U:13 (5/19/2008-5/21/2008) OBAMA by 17%
South Dakota (http://www.pollster.com/08-SD-Dem-Pres-Primary.php) (6/3) latest: Zogby - C:34, O:46, U:10 (3/24-04/03) OBAMA by 12%

So, the dates and splits will be:

June 1st - (1 contest) CLINTON win, next contest 2 days
(MEDIA READ: "Clinton still strong with the Latino vote, Obama still
struggling to reach out to Clinton's Latino base. McCain and Obama will battle for this base.")
June 3rd - (2 contests) OBAMA/OBAMA sweep, contests are FINALLY over
(MEDIA READ: "Obama is NOW officially the presumptive Democratic nominee.")

This ends amazingly well for Obama. Look at the last polling in Montana. Shows you how much support Clinton lost with voters. [edit: remove "black" voters]

~ CB

mactastic

May 27, 2008, 03:02 PM

Cleverboy

May 27, 2008, 03:09 PM

But what about the media narrative that Obama has a "white working class voter" problem? Those last two states don't have a whole lot of black people and are not among the most prosperous or educated states, so according to the narrative Obama should get his ass handed to him by Clinton by 30-40 points. Yet he is polling ahead. How can that possibly be?Wow. My bad. That's screwed up. I caught the title of this Digg story and thought it was the case... TOTALLY missing the sarcasm.
Montana's huge black population gives Obama the edge
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Montana_s_huge_black_population_gives_Obama_the_edge

Um... wow. Editting my previous post. No black people involved (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/30000.html) in Montana vote turn-around. Check. :o

Is that Montana all the way down there on the bottom? Yikes.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_tot_bla_pop-people-total-black-population

~ CB

mactastic

May 27, 2008, 03:15 PM

Wow. My bad. That's screwed up. I caught the title of this Digg story and thought it was the case... TOTALLY missing the sarcasm.
Montana's huge black population gives Obama the edge
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Montana_s_huge_black_population_gives_Obama_the_edge

Um... wow. Editting my previous post. No black people involved (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/30000.html) in Montana vote turn-around. Check. :o

Is that Montana all the way down there on the bottom? Yikes.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_tot_bla_pop-people-total-black-population

~ CB
Exactly. Obama has an Appalacian problem, not a white working class voter problem. Yet that spin has been pushed by everyone from Hillary to Russert.

Oregon is another state that's got a very small black population, and a large white population, yet Obama won handily there.

stevento

May 27, 2008, 07:00 PM

Here's a question: If this race is over, then why is Barack Obama even campaigning in Puerto Rico?
If its over then they dont matter, right?

mactastic

May 27, 2008, 07:05 PM

Here's a question: If this race is over, then why is Barack Obama even campaigning in Puerto Rico?
If its over then they dont matter, right?
I guess we're in for another round of "stupid questions".

Only one campaign has been running around telling states (or territories) that they don't matter... and it ain't been the Obama campaign.

Here's another stupid question, since we're obviously playing that game right now: If Hillary Clinton the most electable candidate, why isn't she leading in the delegate count?

solvs

May 27, 2008, 07:56 PM

Here's a question: If this race is over, then why is Barack Obama even campaigning in Puerto Rico?
If its over then they dont matter, right?

It does in the general. :rolleyes:

Macky-Mac

May 27, 2008, 09:08 PM

It does in the general. :rolleyes:

I don't think residents of Puerto Rico get to vote for president in the general election do they?

mactastic

May 27, 2008, 09:59 PM

I don't think residents of Puerto Rico get to vote for president in the general election do they?
No, I don't think they do. The weird thing is that they have some excessively large number of delegates in the Democratic primary. Like they have more than almost a third of the states or something like that.

solvs

May 27, 2008, 10:17 PM

I don't think residents of Puerto Rico get to vote for president in the general election do they?
Apparently that's true for those who are only residents there, but if any of them are legal residents of the US otherwise, they still can.

63dot

May 27, 2008, 10:25 PM

so clinton has, let's say 1/3 of the states' white blue collar voters while obama has most of the rest, and clinton has most hispanics, and obama has the vast legion of the rest of left and left of center, and centrist voters

does it not make sense, at this late date, to have a obama-clinton ticket?

reagan-bush in '80 did alright even though they went after each other in the primaries in the spring and summer

the key, in the end, is to keep the gop from taking the white house again, don't you think?

i say, don't get caught up in the recent clinton vs. obama debates

in a short period of time, it will be the dems vs. mccain

solvs

May 27, 2008, 10:31 PM

It would be hard to push a black man/woman ticket sad to say. Bad enough there are those who don't like Obama because of his skin color, or Hilary because she's a woman. Or Hillary because she's Hillary. Teaming up the 2 of them, if she even would take it, might be worse than it could be better. I'm not saying they won't, wouldn't be the first time Dems elect a ticket that's more trouble than it's worth, but they'll probably play it safe with a southern Dem who isn't Edwards, saving him for AG or something, and someone like Wes Clark as Sec of Defense or State. I'd like Webb in there somewhere, but he doesn't seem to want it. I think a lot more Dems overlap than we're giving them credit for.

benmrii

May 27, 2008, 10:41 PM

Here's a question: If this race is over, then why is Barack Obama even campaigning in Puerto Rico?
If its over then they dont matter, right?

Probably because it's a

good think[sic] PR has 4,000,000 registered voters.

... well, give or take since there aren't even that many residents there, but I digress. :rolleyes:

so clinton has, let's say 1/3 of the states' white blue collar voters while obama has most of the rest, and clinton has most hispanics, and obama has the vast legion of the rest of left and left of center, and centrist voters

does it not make sense, at this late date, to have a obama-clinton ticket?

Two points:

1) Actually in the most recent polls Obama is - ableit barely - edging Clinton in support amongst hispanics. That previously solid Clinton demographic shifting is another huge indicator of how far she has fallen the more she... well, speaks. The only solid demographics left to her are old women and uneducated white voters.

2) I look forward to Democrats vs. McCain although I don't think it will be much of a contest. McCain is already beginning to come apart bit by bit and he isn't even running against anyone yet. At the same time I disagree that Clinton would be even a viable candidate for the VP slot. She has been so divisive going into the end that her presence would not be as healing as we might like it to be.

The relatively small amount of people who won't wise up enough to vote Democrat even though they began voting for Clinton will easily be surpassed by the large amount of independents and young/new voters that Obama will attract. I think the numbers of people who say that they will either not vote or vote for McCain if (when) Hillary doesn't get the nomination are drastically blown out of proportion because of the context. In the same way that John Edwards in an NPR interview months ago - when still campaigning - said he had no intention of being a VP people will say that there is no way they will vote for Hillary's competition: simply because they are in the heat of battle. It will be a different story when it is Obama and McCain (and hopefully a different story when Obama asks Edward to be his VP).

atszyman

May 28, 2008, 09:04 AM

The relatively small amount of people who won't wise up enough to vote Democrat even though they began voting for Clinton will easily be surpassed by the large amount of independents and young/new voters that Obama will attract. I think the numbers of people who say that they will either not vote or vote for McCain if (when) Hillary doesn't get the nomination are drastically blown out of proportion because of the context.

Unfortunately the young demographic which were supposed to go vote for Kerry in 2004 since Bush had already been pretty bad, didn't bother to show up on election day and I'm not optimistic about them showing up this time either. Although I'm ready to believe it slightly more this time.

The biggest problem with the young block is that you're dealing with a lot of college students who happen to be far from home come election day since it's in the middle of the Fall Semester, which means absentee ballot, which means advance thought and preparation. You are also dealing with recent graduates who are starting life in new cities and may not have any clue where to go to vote.

I think it's dangerous to rely on the young voters to win the election. But Clinton also has to know that unless she goes all out to get her supporters to vote for Obama and get him to win in November she will be ostracized from the party. Even the slightest hint that she sabotaged his campaign to run in 2012 will tank her chances, especially if McCain keeps the current trends going. Another 4 years of this mess and she will be viewed as 2008's Nader and be lucky to keep her Senate seat from going to an up-and-coming young Democrat who runs against her, much less have any shot at the presidency.

it5five

May 28, 2008, 04:13 PM

Unfortunately the young demographic which were supposed to go vote for Kerry in 2004 since Bush had already been pretty bad, didn't bother to show up on election day and I'm not optimistic about them showing up this time either. Although I'm ready to believe it slightly more this time.

There's a pretty big difference between the young voters today and the young voters for Kerry. If I recall, people weren't excited about Kerry the way they are about Obama. With Obama, we see record sized crowds and A LOT of activity on college campuses. I'm confident that the young demographic will turn out for Obama. We'll see them in record numbers. The only reason people turned out to vote for Kerry is because he wasn't Bush. A lot of people were voting against Bush more than they were voting for Kerry.

leekohler

May 28, 2008, 04:36 PM

MacNut

May 28, 2008, 04:43 PM

Do NOT underestimate the youth vote. I remember we voted in droves for Clinton the first time.If I remember correctly, didn't MTV have a lot to do with the youth vote in 92. I seem to remember the boxers or briefs comment really helping him. That was the perfect storm. I don't see Obama being able to ride the wave that far.

leekohler

May 28, 2008, 05:02 PM

If I remember correctly, didn't MTV have a lot to do with the youth vote in 92. I seem to remember the boxers or briefs comment really helping him. That was the perfect storm. I don't see Obama being able to ride the wave that far.

IIRC- that comment came after he was already elected. Even so, I think it's good if Obama doesn't go there. It's things like that that got Bill in trouble. ;)

atszyman

May 28, 2008, 11:16 PM

There's a pretty big difference between the young voters today and the young voters for Kerry. If I recall, people weren't excited about Kerry the way they are about Obama. With Obama, we see record sized crowds and A LOT of activity on college campuses. I'm confident that the young demographic will turn out for Obama. We'll see them in record numbers. The only reason people turned out to vote for Kerry is because he wasn't Bush. A lot of people were voting against Bush more than they were voting for Kerry.

I'm not saying they won't turn out more for Obama than they did for Kerry, I just wouldn't count on them to win the election. The 18-24 crowd is in the middle of college and starting their careers and it's awfully hard to motivate them on a Tuesday (work/school day) in November. Why they have elections on such an odd weekday baffles me, and then they go and report with some astonishment that voter turnout was low.

Election day should be a national holiday where everything is shut down except the polling places, or we should move election day to the day after thanksgiving and put voting booths at the entrance to every mall, and have a TV channel where the men can vote using the remote control...:D

I wouldn't rely on the youth vote to win an election until you can vote in your hometown elections from a computer in your dorm room. At that point you'll start to see young voters really having an impact since voting will only take 5 minutes out of your day and access to a computer that you'll probably be at anyway, until then with new jobs/cities and possibly school getting in the way the young voters may look motivated but it also requires some planning to get to the polling place or have your absentee ballot, and these have not proven to be strong methods for motivating the youth.

Of course the worse it is, and the more bleak the future looks the more they will turn out since they have more of a stake in keeping this country strong than retirees who will most likely only see a few more presidents but manage to vote in large blocks for their interests.

aLoC

May 29, 2008, 12:22 AM

The 18-24 vote. Ah yes, the ancient and honorable strategy of relying on those with less developed judgment to get you in.

zioxide

May 29, 2008, 01:22 AM

The 18-24 vote. Ah yes, the ancient and honorable strategy of relying on those with less developed judgment to get you in.

Oh yeah, we 18-24 year olds definitely have "less developed judgement." :rolleyes:

Last time I checked it was the old people (at least people who are 22+ now) who voted Bush in to office TWICE.

Iscariot

May 29, 2008, 01:43 AM

The fundamentalist Christian vote. Ah yes, the ancient and honorable strategy of relying on those with less developed judgment to get you in.

Fixed that for ya.

leekohler

May 29, 2008, 07:03 AM

Oh yeah, we 18-24 year olds definitely have "less developed judgement." :rolleyes:

Last time I checked it was the old people (at least people who are 22+ now) who voted Bush in to office TWICE.

And elders wonder why they get no respect. :rolleyes:

PlaceofDis

May 29, 2008, 01:11 PM

so i'm reading about how Obama Played Hardball in first Chicago Campaign (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html)... which being from chicago, does reflect on chicago politics, but again the fact that he played by the rules that were set forth to get elected does NOT bother me.

this line caught my eye:

Although neither candidate campaigned in the two states, Clinton won about 50 percent of the Florida vote, compared to 33 percent for Obama. She won 55 percent of the vote in Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot

since she did campaign there. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080127/clinton/) and she is the one who is going against the rules, like leaving her name on the ballot in MI. since when is it more favorable to break the rules than to play by them? how is that good for morale and being a role model?

things like this, accusing Obama of using the rules to his advantage i don't get, he's playing the field that has been laid out, where everyone has the same advantages should they decide to use them.

benmrii

May 29, 2008, 08:07 PM

I'm not saying they won't turn out more for Obama than they did for Kerry, I just wouldn't count on them to win the election.

Aside from the fact that I still believe it won't be necessary for them to in droves in an Obama / McCain general election, I think the main difference between then and now is that they already are turning out more for Obama than they ever did for Kerry. And, as was said well above, they aren't coming out because the Democratic party is touting them, they are coming out because they are passionate about Obama.

Just a continuation of the higher voting numbers we've seen, the addition of independents and at least some new voters - that Obama's campaign is targeting with voter registration/information campaigns - will more than make up for those sad few who refuse to shift from Clinton supporters to Obama supporters.

[Clinton] is the one who is going against the rules, like leaving her name on the ballot in MI. since when is it more favorable to break the rules than to play by them? how is that good for morale and being a role model?

things like this, accusing Obama of using the rules to his advantage i don't get, he's playing the field that has been laid out, where everyone has the same advantages should they decide to use them.

Just one more example of her non-answer/heavily-spun/say-whatever-it-takes-regardless-of-truth 'answers.' She has almost as many votes if you count states that broke the rules (FL & MI) and don't count states that followed them (caucus states). She has almost as many votes if you count Michigan fully even though voters there couldn't vote for Obama. She has almost as many votes... if you care about that at all considering that isn't how someone is nominated.