The inconvenient fiction of the Democratic presidential race
Consider a hypothetical. Let’s say that right now, Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton among delegates, statewide victories, and popular votes. The margins are such where it’s extremely unlikely he’d catch up before the convention. She’d raised more money than him, and had won 14 of the last 17 Democratic contests, almost all by wide margins.
Would there be intense pressure for Obama to face facts, consider the good of the party, drop out of the race? I think any fair reading of the political landscape suggests the answer is yes.
But, this is, of course, the exact circumstances we have today, except it’s Clinton trailing, not leading. I’ve seen the argument elsewhere, but Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen do a very nice job today of summarizing a provocative point: the Democratic race is over, but no one wants to admit it.
One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.
Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.
Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.
People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.
Indeed, Vandehei and Allen note that Clinton campaign aides live right here on Earth, and one key Clinton advisor conceded that her chance of winning the nomination is no better than 10%, “an appraisal that was echoed by other [Clinton] operatives.”
And yet, I get the sense no one — not campaign reporters, not the candidates, no one in the party — is supposed to admit any of this. Instead, the conventional wisdom is that the race for the nomination is “practically tied,” and will go “down to the wire.” Vandehei’s and Allen’s broader question is a good one: why this fiction is taken so seriously.
Oddly enough, Vandehei and Allen make a very compelling case that it’s the media’s fault.
Journalists, for instance, have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.
One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media — including Politico — have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces.
Avoiding predictions based on polls even before voters cast their ballots is wise policy. But that’s not the same as drawing sober and well-grounded conclusions about the current state of a race after millions of voters have registered their preferences.
The antidote to last winter’s flawed predictions is not to promote a misleading narrative based on the desired but unlikely story line of one candidate. […]One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business.
The media are also enamored of the almost mystical ability of the Clintons to work their way out of tight jams, as they have done for 16 years at the national level. That explains why some reporters are inclined to believe the Clinton campaign when it talks about how she’s going to win on the third ballot at the Democratic National Convention in August.
That’s certainly possible — and, to be clear, we’d love to see the race last that long — but it’s folly to write about this as if it is likely.
In this sense — and really, only this sense — the traditional media is actually guilty of a pro-Clinton bias. As Atrios noted, “[W]hile it would be absurd to claim that Clinton is treated well by the press – she’s treated horribly in general – it’s also the case that anyone else would be subjected to a louder and increasingly derisive drumbeat for her to get out of the race.”
I think that’s right on both counts. When it comes to Clinton personally, the media has been vicious on far too many occasions, as demonstrated this week with reports about her presence in the White House during her husband’s dalliances with Monica Lewinsky. (The reports had no news value at all, but were given huge play.) But when it comes to Clinton’s chances, it’s practically the polar opposite — the media, in general, treats her as a candidate right in the thick of things, who has an entirely plausible rationale for staying in the race.
Put it this way: when was the last time a reporter from a major outlet pressed Clinton on when she will drop out of the race? If the shoe were on the other foot, and Obama’s campaign thought it had no better than a 10% chance of getting the party’s nod, would he hear the question a lot more often?
But, Clinton supporters argue, there are 10 contests left and 260 or so uncommitted superdelegates. Doesn’t that mean anything can still happen? Vandehei and Allen run the numbers and explain that the odds are just too remote and unrealistic.
In my heart of hearts, I don’t really expect campaign reporters to start covering the race this way — it’s in their interest to promote (and even create, if necessary) a prolonged fight — but Vandehei and Allen make a case that’s hard to deny.
For the good of the party, though, this question/topic should be put to her. But who will be the person that will break through Clinton’s inner circle and do so.
I’m sure if it was outlayed in this detail to her, she would end her campaign.
Sad to say, but I’m going to finish this with a big NOT.
Everyone on this site knows this, even if they won’t admit it. I think the Richardson endorsment sealed this thing, but people won’t figure that out until Monday.
Oh dear. This will surely draw the ire of the trolls. Take cover.
First, you must accept that her goal now is to win the Democratic nomination in 2008. I suspect it’s not. Her goal now is to destroy Obama and the Democratic party and ensure a McCain victory so that she can try again in 2012.
Her unique place in history and a complicit corporate media are the only things enabling her to do this.
She lost the race. I wish she would accept defeat already. But she’s going to try and take this to the convention and split the delegates. With her endorsement of McCain and her constant attacks on Obama, she risks hurting the Democratic party and handing the election to McCain.
I actually wouldn’t mind if Hillary stayed in, just as long as she toned down the attacks and was just trying to win this on her own merits. But of course, there’s no point in her doing that, as she can’t possibly win it that way, as she’s already too far behind due to huge blunders she made early on. Instead, her strategy is to tarnish Obama so severely that superdelegates will be forced to reject him. She isn’t planning to win this on merits. She just wants him ruined. And it’s obvious that her supporters, at least the ones that keep posting here, totally agree with that. They see Obama as a villian who has unfairly denied Hillary her rightful nomination and deserves to be torn down in a process they pretend is “vetting”.
But no matter what they claim, it’s obvious that Hillary knows she can’t possibly win this outright. She just wants to take a gamble with the dice, and doesn’t care if she sends Obama crippled into the general election or into the Whitehouse. It’s obvious that the media has no problem with that either.
I mostly agree with doubtful. I think her goal now is to destroy Obama. If it were just for this year she would probably drop out since the chances of destroying him enough to get the nomination are remote. The fact that she can destroy him enough so that he loses in November and she can run again in 2012 is the added benefit that keeps her in it. She wants to run against McCain, and whether it is now or in 4 years isn’t a critical concern.
I posted this very thought the other day in comments, and will continue to do so until someone tell me why she’s still in the race, even though her doing so hurts the party and the country.
I’m still waiting for a response that’s not centered around her doing what is best for Hillary and no one else.
While I agree about the MSM’s tacky coverage of the Monica “drop by” with Bill, and HRC’s proximity to it, I still wonder why these diaries came out now. To garner sympathy? If she had dealt with this long ago it wouldn’t be raised in the news so much now. I guess any news is good news and she is still in the news and therefore still in the race – will this ever end unless someone pulls the plug for her?
but… but… if both races are settled, what will the political writers have to write about, what will the talking heads have to talk about, from now until the conventions?
the issues? HA!
It’s a good point that it would be absolutely insane if the first viable African American nominee did better by basically every standard, but was then denied the nomination because of superdelegates. That would alienate sooo many people, including most African American voters, I presume.
That is also a point that is based solely on Obama’s race, but it’s true. And it doesn’t undercut his candidacy in any way — the only reason the argument even holds weight is because he really did perform better than her. If she had performed better than him, the same thing would apply the other way. But she just hasn’t.
I wish this would catch on. It really is ridiculous the way the press is playing it. She is not going to be the nominee. We all need to drop this already. Isn’t it kind of patronizing to her? I know, I know, she sure as hell doesn’t see it that way. But come on…
So, if the superdelegates know this is done, and one would have to assume they do, why don’t they put a fork in it? Why don’t they just say it as they see it?
she’s hoping that either she can damage Obama enough to snatch the nomination away, or make him unelectable if he does get the nomination
This is why Texas was so important, and why I tried so hard for Obama in the end. I could see that it was extremely difficult for Hillary to win, and thought it was better to not send this thing to the convention. That was her firewall. The problem was, she did just well enough to keep from drowning, but not well enough to turn the tide — thus, it peters on.
I just want this thing over, and Obama has it, short of some amazing Florida-style electioneering. So, it’s time to rally around our nominee.
Oh dear. This will surely draw the ire of the trolls. Take cover.
Oh yes. Steve, you’re going to get accused of bias for not pointing out all the articles that came out today suggesting that Obama has no chance of winning.
cue Greg, Mary and ComebackBill to tell us this analysis is totally and completely wrong, that Obama is already finished and dead, in 3, 2, 1…
Steve, you’re going to get accused of bias for not pointing out all the articles that came out today suggesting that Obama has no chance of winning.
LOL!
Hillary should do what she should have done YEARS AGO – just go home and BLOW BILL!
She could have saved us all from monica-gate and maybe would not even have a chimp-in-chief then.
“That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.”
Here’s an article pointing that way
I’d write something witty but HRC says my state doesn’t count because — oh, hell, I don’t even remember why we don’t count. The only one who counts is HILLARY. If she can’t win, screw the party — which means screw the general — which means screw the Court — which means screw the country — which means screw you and me. To which I say, screw her.
I still wonder why these diaries came out now. -just guessing
The documents weren’t released by the Clintons, they were released due to an FOI request made by Judicial Watch.
One reason the media props up the Clinton campaign could be that it gives them the ability to take bank shots – accusations toward Obama, while pretending to merely report what Clinton is saying. The more divisive she is, the more advantageous to McCain. But notice, they don’t call her out on these attacks; they merely report them over and over again. She’s a useful tool.
(17) little bear —
Sarcasm? Perhaps, but that’s fairly inappropriate.
Your premise that Obama supporters would encourage him to quit when the race is so close as to be statistically tied is flawed.
“The March 14-18 national survey of 1,209 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters gave Clinton, a New York senator, a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama, an Illinois senator. The poll has an error margin of 3 percentage points.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080320/ts_nm/usa_politics_gallup_dc_3
The nominee will be decided by the superdelegate on the floor in the convention.
Why do people have a problem with that?
OT for Danp:
Sorry, I only now made it back to the thread where you made your Watergate question. To answer it at last:
Yes, the Plumbers broke into DNC Headquarters twice. They first broke in on May 28th, took photos of documents in O’Brien’s desk, and placed a bug there. When that bug was determined to be defective, they went back in on June 18th, when they were caught after the security guard saw the taped lock on the door.
I preface my remarks by stating I’m not in the HRC camp. But she’ll get out of the race at the point where she knows she cannot win the nomination. It doesn’t look like she’s there yet. One of the reasons she remains in the race is because Obama cannot go after her the way he can and will go after McCain.
I don’t believe for a minute she’s out to “destroy” the Democrat party if she cannot win the nomination. This is her last best hope to win the White House. Should she fail to get the nomination in 2008, and should McCain win in November, there will be no Clinton 2012 bid.
There’s a lot of time left between now and the convention, and the drumbeat gets louder and louder day by day for Hillary to pull the plug. She will hear it, and she will do it.
Nell, the whole point of this point and the linked article is that the race is NOT statistically tied.
AND a survey of only Democrats is far from being the whole story. To win the general, a candidate must get votes from Independents and even Republicans.
Nice cherry picking though. If you read enough stats, you’re sure to find something that might superficially support your point.
Its a shame Hillary is destroying the Democratic party like this. He goal is now to bash Obama until the public can’t remember what lies about him or his “reverand” and apparent mind controller (who listens to their pastor word for word: oh yes conservatives) are true or false.
Then she can say. Wow the public really doesn’t know if they can trust Obama VOTE FOR ME BY DEFAULT.
What a lose she is. Now if she’d just admit it maybe Obama will let her take a tour of the Oval Office next year.
Because five months is a lot of time to waste for Clinton and Obama to be battling each other when instead they could be organizing the party against McCain.
The superdelegates are going to pick Obama. It would be suicidal for the party establishment to back Clinton when Obama beats her in every metric.
Therefore if Clinton cannot win — which is all but certain given the numbers — then isn’t the party better served by having a nominee and being able to focus all efforts towards the Republicans than spending the time between now and the convention infighting?
The nominee will be decided by the superdelegate on the floor in the convention.
Why do people have a problem with that?
Because, as the post notes, (1) Obama has almost insurmountable leads in terms of both delegates and the popular vote; and (2) the superdelegates are highly unlikely to go for Clinton if Obama does, as it seems likely, maintain those leads.
If it’s overwhelmingly likely that they’re going to side with him anyway, why wait until August? Why drag this out, keep the party divided, and prevent the nominee from focusing his fire on McCain?
Now is the time for Hillary Clinton to come to the aid of the party…
Only Hillary knows what’s going on in Hillary’s head, but this election is becoming like Iraq for her. She is looking for some way to turn this into a win, either factually or morally. But like Iraq, it will be bloody and it will cost a bunch of money to continue, both of which may bode ill for her and her party
If she still thinks she can pull it off, and polls out of Pennsylvania indicate she’s doing well there, she may be figuring she has a long stretch to turn the momentum around before the big PA primary.
If she knows it’s over, she may be waiting for a reason to pull out, such as losing another primary, so it’s not her that’s quitting it’s the events that are forcing her hand. Either way, it looks like she’s trying to save face.
Plus she may be trying to replenish her campaign coffers for future elections. She did after all lend her campaign a bunch of her own cash, though I think she may have enough in the bank to pay herself back. But she may want to consider doing her party a solid and leaving on a high note now rather than being proven beyond a doubt the party prefers another candidate over her. If Barack wins it will be the end of the Clinton era and I think she knows it.
Here’s Bill Clinton, today:
Any questions?
Because the only ways the SDs can get her the nod are:
1.) Ignoring the will of the people, who have favored Obama over Hillary;
2.) Make Obama so toxic that SDs vote for her because Obama is too tainted;
3.) For some other type of backroom dealing to occur that would turn off many of the new politically active voters in the party that have been brought in this campaign.
Obama has a lead of 800K votes, and it Clinton would have to win by 80-90% margins to surpass it in the remaining contests. Same goes for delegates, since they’re alloted proportionally.
Again, if the situation were reversed, Obama would have been asked to step down a while ago. But since it’s Hillary, no one says a peep (at least not those she listens to).
My biggest fear?
Obama has brought in a ridiculous number of younger voters. In fact, his candidacy has a chance to turn almost an entire generation into Democratic voters.
But if doesn’t get the nod — something can only happen with ugly political maneuvers — those younger voters may swear off politics for quite a while.
I hope it doesn’t turn out that way, and it relies on those kids being cult-like. But it could, and that would be very, very bad.
I think its called good for the party to take this to the last contest in June
All the left wing loonies out in force today get some more latte and take your meds.
TR, don’t mention that Obama basically endorsed the disenfranchisement of MI & FL by not working to compromise in order to get a re-vote authorized.
If his lead was actually insurmountable as you say, then he should not have been afraid to push for a re-vote.
By the convention he will have a slight advantage in pledged delegates, but that gap will be closed significantly, and could possibly have been surpassed with MI & FL.
Emily – you’re the one that brought “performance” into the thread.
All the left wing loonies out in force today get some more latte and take your meds. -Comeback Bill
I know Steve has a lot of restraint when it comes to deleting comments, but this is the fifth or sixth time today I’ve read this exact same comment about sipping lattes from this troll.
Quite annoying.
Face it Obama made himself unelectable not Hillary
You are absolutly right….Hillary needs to step down for the good of the party…..Its a democtratic TEAM effort and the MVP has already been chosen by the majority…..no more division Hillary, save some of your dignity and try for next go-around. Mathematically she cant win more delegates, when the next 10 contests are done she might lessen Obama’s lead by 10-20 delegates……But its doubtful, he just spoke here in oregon today, and even he has said it before….the more people hear him the better off he is……he is an inspiration that this country and the world needs in D.C.
If his lead was actually insurmountable as you say, then he should not have been afraid to push for a re-vote. -Greg
You obviously believe he has some motivation not to allow a revote in Michigan. (Florida chose on their own not to submit a plan, so he had nothing to do with it.) Can you please tell me what Obama stands to gain by preventing a Michigan revote?
Because from where I sit, he has only gains to be made, since he got zero votes there last time.
Which concerns of the Obama campaign do you not think are legitimate concerning the revote?
By November Obama might win ILL but not much else because he is unelectable.
If his lead was actually insurmountable as you say, then he should not have been afraid to push for a re-vote.
And if the Yankees are leading the Red Sox by three games in September, then they shouldn’t be afraid of accepting a sudden MLB rule change that counts spring training games in the AL standings either.
This isn’t about being “afraid,” this is about abiding by the rules that keep us working together to have a coherent and cohesive party. Rules that were crafted, in part, by Harold Ickes as a representative of the Clinton campaign. Rules that were agreed upon by all the candidates in a signed pledge, including Hillary.
She wants a do-over in those states because it’s to her advantage, plain and simple. That’s her right to want it, but no one — not in the DNC, not in the states, and certainly not her opponents who played by the rules — is under an obligation to bend or break the rules so she can get a second chance in this campaign.
Respectfully, I really don’t get why anyone around here honestly
thinks that Hillary’s plan is to sabotage Obama, and then run again in 2012. Frankly, I believe that she is smart enough to realize that this is (was?) her only shot. After all she has said and done in the last few months, I can’t see her running for the Dem nomination in 2012. She is doing what she’s doing because she still believes her own hype. To her, a 10% chance of securing the nomination means its not over yet.
In a press release the Obama camp wants the Michigan delegates to count, but wants the delegates split evenly between the two candidates. That doesn’t sound like a democracy to me, more like Marxism.
Hillary was calling for seating of the delegates before February 5th, so to say that she is only trying to pander now that she is behind is obnoxious. Millions of people are being disenfranchised, and people continue to say this is OK because they broke the rules..
If the DNC and Howard Dean wanted to punish the Florida Democratic Legislators, they could have come up with a better way than disenfranchisement.
You should read this article, it is the most comprehensive article I’ve read on the subject to date:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1724374,00.html
If Obama really wanted to, he could have compromised, he had to know that the perception would be that he was stalling in order to force Michigan into a stalemate, and therefore be partially blamed for inaction due to the fact that he stood to gain from the continuing disenfranchisement of millions under the guise of “playing by the rules”. Pathetic.
The childishness of some of the comments on this thread is almost too much to believe. I say “almost” because I see them on virtually every blog. Grow up, people. Learn some manners.
This post is also appropriate for the FL and MI votes. If it were Obama trailing and wanting FL and MI to count, then Clinton would be pointing out the unfairness after she followed the rules and did not campaign in these states.
Hillary is screwing us all and that is why Richardson came out and endorsed Obama. He’s showing guts. Good for him.
What’s this “statistically tied” BS?
Obama leads Clinton in both delegates and the popular vote by a margin of roughly 10%. On what planet (besides Clintonia) can that much of a difference be considered a “statistical tie”?
“The nominee will be decided by the superdelegate on the floor in the convention.
Why do people have a problem with that?”
Because the remaining pledged delegates won’t alter the current delegate gap by more than 10 votes. If Clinton goes into the convention trailing by 150 delegates, she will need to split the last 260 superdelegates by 205-55 just to catch up. By more to win convincingly.
In order to give Clinton the remote chance she has of doing that, the Democrats have to waste five months that they could have spent attacking McCain and something approaching $250 million. Obama and Clinton have spent that between them since the beginning of the year, and we’re not even halfway to the convention. The well may be deep, but it’s not bottomless.
I totally agree that they need a better system of finding a nominee, but that is a problem for 2012. Anyone who has no problem with this going until the convention is basically admitting they don’t care if the Democrats win or not in November. And they won’t if they exhaust their war chests and give the Republican nominee a free pass for six months.
It’s true enough that the system sucks for whichever states go last. There used to be measurable benefits to doing so, and it’s understandable that the last few states want to be heard this year, since it’s their only real chance under the current system, but the primary goal here is not so much having a say in the nominee as it is producing a candidate who will win in November. Going all the way to the convention will ensure that neither of them does, if only because they will both be forced to spend like drunken sailors to keep ahead of the other one. Clinton is already broke and Obama, despite his phenomenal fundraising abilities, will be too if he has to keep it up until June.
I have a problem with that.
“In a press release the Obama camp wants the Michigan delegates to count, but wants the delegates split evenly between the two candidates. That doesn’t sound like a democracy to me, more like Marxism.”
Rubbish. Orthodox Marxists prefer caucuses.
Re revoting in Michigan and Florida (particularly the former since i am one of the “disenfranchised”).
If the candidates were so worried about us, one – or all – of them would have done something about this long before now; they would have done something about this before we voted.
In terms of Michigan, it really doesn’t friggin matter what the candidates want or don’t want. The plan has little chance of passing in our state Senate; moreover, they didn’t bother with it before they took their “well deserved” two week vacation.
“Millions” of people in Michigan will not be disenfranchised. The 330,000 people who voted for Clinton will feel disenfranchised, but since they knew it wouldn’t count when they voted…so what? A few people voted for the couple of other candidates who were on the ballot, but they did so knowing those candidates weren’t going anywhere anyhow. The rest of us voted “uncommitted”; that means that we went out of our way to say, “Yea, we are the disenfranchised.” But we can’t really be reenfranchised because we didn’t vote for a candidate.
I hate to be rude, but the Clinton supporters who are harping on MY disenfranchisement can shove it. Seriously, you don’t need to worry about me. We all know that if we voted again and Obama won…you’d all be here the next day telling us why we don’t really count anyhow.
Christ, and they say that Obama supporters are like a cult…
I’ve long been one of those people who could happily support either Obama or Hillary as the nominee– I thought the best possible outcome was for them to figure out a way to join forces and become the “dream ticket” with Hillary on top for 8 years and then Obama would be set up to take over for the next 8. If the Dems were decent strategists they might have realized that would have been one hell of a long-term strategy.
However, if THE CLINTONS follow a scorched earth strategy against Obama and win the nomination by destroying him I WILL NOT and CANNOT VOTE FOR HER. How can she not see that she’d only be exemplifying EVERY nasty thing people have said about her? So power-hungry that she’s willing to divide, nay, DESTROY the party just so she can set herself up to lose against McCain? She’d lose because A LOT of Dems would leave the party in droves if this were to happen. It’s just too ugly, too cutthroat, and not good for the party whatsoever.
In the absence of Hillary suddenly becoming willing to see the writing on the wall then high ranking Dems need to start talking about it out loud– Al Gore? Edwards? Pelosi?
Like Lex, I’m not all that impressed with Clinton supporters harping on my disenfranchisement. Going by the previous primary vote is no solution, and at this time there is no reasonable remedy. Among the other problems, many independents who might have otherwise voted Democratic already voted in the Republican primary believing that the Democratic primary wouldn’t count, making them legally unable to vote in a Democratic revote.
Most likely the super delegates will follow Richardson’s path and sometime before the summer will give Obama enough votes to clinch the nomination. Then Obama could agree to allow the Michigan and Florida delegates at the convention.
As for coverage of the race, it is no different than sports casters who pretend the losing team in a football game can make a comeback long after the game is over. They know people will tune them out if they can’t be convinced there’s still a contest.
“All the left wing loonies out in force today get some more latte and take your meds”
Comeback Bill, if you want to stereotype progressives and call Democrats mentally ill snobs, you may wish to consider joining the Republican Party as an alternative.
They go in for mendacious, spiteful, reactionary abuse like you’ve done, and they’re much better at it.
If you’d like to be on the side of social justice, freedom and peace instead, you may want to work on your people skills and learn to engage in conversation.
[comment deleted]
Greg – if hillary really cared about this country – SHE WOULD BLOW THE CHIMP SO WE COULD IMPEACH THE MF ALREADY!
She failed in her “duties” to the country when bill was president and she knows what shee would do to make up for it.
Greg, I hope you are no older than say, 18, because it would be awful for a grown man to post such filth. One reason I am so turned off by HRC’s supporters is that many are spiteful and bitter, and you certainly exemplify those qualities.
On March 21st, 2008 at 5:21 pm, Comeback Bill said:
it took you 43 minutes. C’mon trolls, you need to work harder than that…
Well said Midora.
obama is the nominee…
and thats all i have to say about that.
I think Lex finally broke what was left of Greg’s brain.
yeah, well said Lex…
What’s this “statistically tied” BS?
Yeah, sorry, that term doesn’t apply here at all.
You can only have a statistical tie if you’re polling a small sample group to gauge the attitudes of a larger population. In that case you’d have a margin of error which would determine the range in which there could be a statistical tie.
We’re counting actual votes here, not predicting the vote outcome based on a small sample. The only tie would be an actual tie, and we’re nowhere near that case.
When the level of discourse on this site drops so low, it is no longer fun to read. *cough, cough, Greg @ 57*
Usually the discussion on here is interesting and insightful. Some comments deserve to be deleted, as they add literally nothing to the conversation.
Yes, if Hillary Clinton wasn’t the Establishment’s candidate, the darling of Wall Street (and Wal-Mart) for going along for 30 years with their anti-union activities here and supporting their anti-union “free” trade agreements, if she wasn’t supported by the Boomer Female Chauvinists who are what too much of boomer feminism evolved into, who believe it’s her “turn” and that she has “seniority” in the Imperial Succession, the Democratic Party would be clamoring for her to stop.
Oooh, Lex. You pissed him off! HIGH FIVE!
I’m sick of Obamaniacs making light of the disenfranchisement issue, and then trying to make HRC supporters look like assholes for actually supporting democracy.
Then when you in your ignorance finally spew enough crap to piss me off and react, you all pounce in unison.
This is getting tiresome, your hypocrisy is increasingly obvious and transparent.
Any superdelegates out there? It might be useful to hear different supporters make their case:
Hillary supporter:
“You are just another pathetic Obamaniac who is more than happy to see millions of voters disenfranchised because this helps your fucking savior, and this is OK because you feel that the end justifies the means. GO FUCK YOURSELF you selfish pig.”
Obama supporter:
“But I [endorse Senator Obama] just with enormous enthusiasm but enormous respect. I believe that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee. I’m not asking anybody to get out of the race, but I believe it’s time to get behind a nominee who can win” (Bill Richardson).
My prediction is that the combination of the math sinking in and unhappiness with where Hillary and her supporters are taking the party will persuade quite a few more superdelegates to make the same decision as Richardson over the next week or two.
I think Greg and Comeback Bill are just trolls and not Clinton supporters. Mary probably is a Clinton supporter but not a very bright one.
You go Lex, you’ve got Greg on the run. You’re made him look really pathetic.
“That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.”
Here’s an article pointing that way — MixedMudd, @18
Sorry, I’m too ‘puter illiterate to replicate the link embedded in MM’s message, but I highly recommend reading it in its entirety (ie, track it back to the full article by Calloway)
Calloway is “all wet”; his idea — that the blacks should abandon Dems, form their own party/block (with what platform?) and wait to be courted by both parties — is about as smart as people pushing for “Unity ’08” (platform: let’s all get along) or voting — yet again — for Nader (platform: both parties stink, and I want the limelight). It’s as smart as cutting your nose off to spite your face. And, I don’t know who Calloway is or how much his voice “rates” among blacks. But. If he does manage to persuade the majority of blacks to split off, then *everyone* is in trouble. Not just Clinton, but Obama also (does he think he can get Obama to run as the head of a strictly black party/block?).
And the black population loses, as well. Repubs have been courting them for years, but Repubs are well known for breaking campaign promises at the drop of the ballot. Dems might not be a *whole lot* better but, dammit, they *are* better. And I have some news for Mr Calloway: blacks ain’t the only ones who’ve had to swallow their bile, election after election, and vote for the lesser evil (ie an unprepossessing Dem over a Repub).
N. Wells
You picked the lines that supported your point and ignored ones that didn’t
We all need to tone it down!
I’m pretty angry, like Greg… but that tends to be counter productive.
If this almost 50/50 division is so in need of somebody dropping out, and Obama is the one who is uniting this country, perhaps he should drop out and endorse HRC.
No? I don’t think that’s a good idea either.
“Comeback Bill, if you want to stereotype progressives and call Democrats mentally ill snobs, you may wish to consider joining the Republican Party as an alternative.
They go in for mendacious, spiteful, reactionary abuse like you’ve done, and they’re much better at it.”
I think he might have missed his chance. I’m starting to see more and more evidence that the Republicans are starting to turn their backs on that. Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul have both shown (to me anyway) that they’re trying to rise above that, and they both pulled in a lot of hard-core Republican support. It was only a couple of months ago that some of Ron Paul’s supporters chased Sean Hannity down the street (in New Hampshire, I think). I think the dittoheads have just about worn out their welcome.
Early polls show states like Texas, North Dakota, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, and even Alaska may go to the Democrats this year if Obama campaigns well and McCain doesn’t. I can’t even begin to guess what the map is going to look like in November.
Oh, and Greg @57, thank you for showing so much sympathy to one of the “disenfranchised” voters you care so much about.
An endorsement from Edward and/or Gore would go a long way in settling this.
over 12 million Americans have cast their vote for HRC.
Depending one how you count them, the difference between the popular vote for Obama and HRC is just a few hundred thousand.
Almost half of America’s democrats that have cast their vote have voted for HRC. That half of America would be pretty upset those who think she should throw in the towel prevail.
I hate to say it, but an endorsement from Edwards/Gore would only go a long way if it were for Obama. I know, that sucks for HRC, but it’s kind of true. An endorsement for her from a high ranking Dem a) would be more “expected” as she has more superdel support, and b) wouldn’t fix any of her other problems, like having delegates/popular votes/money.
An endorsement from somebody like that for Obama, though, would be a sign that the party higher-ups are starting to coalesce around a nominee.
To the people who support Hillary: She is in the worse spot in this primary. No matter who you’re for, it’s hard not to admit that. Even her staff admits it, regularly. It could be arguable whether or not this primary season should end, but we can’t debate the fact that Obama is doing better than her and that the only way for her to win the nomination is by superdelegate. Those are facts that everybody, everywhere has acknowledged.
It’s not Hillary that will “make Obama unelectable.” Obama has done that all on his own. I guess I’m a troll since I support Clinton? That’s some good leadership your guy has demonstrated in uniting our party…
This will make your heads explode because it’s so opposite of your world, but one of the reasons many of us support Hillary is because we know Obama can not and will not win the GE. We are doing everything we can to prevent a president McCain. If Obama is the nominee, you can blame his flame out in the GE on Hillary all you want, but 1/2 the country will know better.
I find it amusing that all the polls still show Obama beating McCain by a greater percentage than a Clinton/McCain matchup.
I suppose in your world view….
That’s some good leadership your guy has demonstrated in uniting our party…
I genuinely don’t understand this complaint. Can you point out what you feel Obama has done that’s driven a wedge in the party?
This will make your heads explode because it’s so opposite of your world, but one of the reasons many of us support Hillary is because we know Obama can not and will not win the GE.
Yeah, again, I don’t get it. In my world, Obama has been consistently leading McCain in the general election polls by a wider margin than Clinton (who’s been trading leads back and forth with McCain), and Obama had a wider margin in the state-by-state electoral college poll by SurveyUSA. How do you “know” that all the polls so far have been wrong?
Obama has won more states, more delegates and the popular vote. The only way for her to win is to destroy him and play chicken with the superdelegates and simultaneously undermine whatever chance the Dems had to have a strong, unified party.
Do you sincerely believe people are going to unite around her if this strategy succeeds? If she figures out a way to get a superdelegate coup then as a party we can forget the youth vote, much of the liberal vote and the African-American vote for a generation or more. So much more is riding on his success than on hers.
I personally have respect for Hillary and think she’s smart and capabale and would even make a good president, however, I sincerely think she CANNOT win the GE. Her negatives have been and always will be FAR greater than his. No amount of arguing can change the fact that so many people in this country hate and loathe her (and her husband) and their minds cannot be changed.
I move that all Clinton and McCain staffers with nothing to offer except their campaigns’ talking points should hereby reveal themselves and drop their troll/concern-troll disguises. Can I get a second?
You DEFINITELY get one from me, beep!
Greg @69,
Are you referring to my ignorance? That’s kind of funny, because i live in Michigan. I was following this story when it first came up because it affected me directly. I’ve actually listened to Mark Brewer (jackass that he is) “explain” the whole situation in person.
If the MDP hadn’t been such fools, i would have voted for Kucinich. I didn’t vote “uncommitted” because i’m an “Obamamaniac”; i did it because it was the closest i could come to giving the Michigan Democratic Party the middle finger that it so richly deserves.
But at this point i have only two choices…apparently. I can be an Obamamaniac or i can be a Clinton(whatever). Given those two choices, i chose the former…if nothing else for my aversion to spittle.
I wish i could have seen the deleted comment…
third. Motion carried? Does it even need a vote?
You all make me really sad. And I’m sure that gives you great joy.
Obama is barely leading in popular vote if you include FL and MI, and as much as you all would like to discount those states, those are real people who cast real votes.
The latest, updated SUSA polls for EC votes in the GE:
Hillary Clinton 294
John McCain 231
Tie 13
John McCain 288
Barack Obama 238
Tie 12
http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx
How can you not see that he can’t pull this out in the GE? You are setting yourselves up to believe that if he is the nom and loses the GE it will all be due to Hillary. Nothing and no one will convince you otherwise — I understand that. But why do you have to be so mean to people who don’t support him? Why are those of us who support Hillary trolls? Do you not understand the more mean and rude you are, the more of us you are driving away? And do you not understand you will need all of us in November if he’s the nominee? Yes, you’ll keep the AA vote in the Dem fold, but you are going to lose a much bigger voting block with your anger and hatred towards us.
I used to enjoy reading here, and just dropped in tonight to see if I could return. I understand I can’t. We are not welcome and there is no reason for anyone to subject themselves to such negative, dark energy.
May you all find peace and love in your hearts. Not being snarky. I honestly mean that and send you all light. Laters.
Jen, if you return…
I am sorry that you feel you have to go. The thing I keep trying to get across is that polls today are not polls later.
And again I will reiterate Gennifer Flowers. Did anyone think that Clinton 1 would be able to come back from that? I most certainly did not. Especially after Donna Rice.
But Bill Clinton pulled it off because people liked him.
And people more than like Obama. They respect him. HE did not make the comments that everyone goes ballistic over (I, apparently, am the only one who doesn’t find them that offensive. Truth hurts sometimes.) And when he is able to talk to people – and amazingly as an adult – he will be in a by far better position than he is in today. And even today, he leads McCain.
“Do you not understand the more mean and rude you are, the more of us you are driving away? And do you not understand you will need all of us in November if he’s the nominee?”
Channelling Mark Penn, I have no choice but to tell you that, no, we don’t need all of you in November if Obama’s the nominee. You are not all “significant”.
Some of you voted in caucuses.
Some of you live in red states. You are not in the electoral calculator.
Some of you belong to demographic groups that will vote Democrat anyway. Some will vote Republican. Neither is really “significant”.
By golly, your name might even be Richardson. Then how significant are you?
You might even be right and Clinton would win while Obama will lose. But I would have an easier time believing that if she would throw her campaign strategist and a few of her staffers overboard. I’m sorry that you feel this board has become antagonistic towards you and you don’t feel welcome, but that is exactly how half the country feels about your candidate.
I agree with Jen ant #85. Differing opinions are not wanted here.
And frankly “little bear”s comments (#58 an example) are the most offensive posted here, but receive no comment because they support (or is it denigrate) the right candidate?
little bear and hisfellow posters
re: post #58 and previous of the same type which remain here without comment or objection.
i guess we now know what a woman’s appropriate role is. What an enlightened group of people!
little bear and his like-minded posters.
re # 58 I guess we now know what a woman’s place really is. What an enlightened group of people!
Most of us don’t agree with misogynistic crap, don’t dump anyone else with him as a “like-minded poster” unless they actually comment on what he says, which as you note no one here is doing.
Shalimar
Maybe not. But what if this kind of thing was said about your candidate? Just imagineall the self-righteousness. Anyway what about silence being complicit? That’s what is always alleged in anti-Semitism and racist incidents. It applies to the grossest misogynism goo.
Jen, sorry you feel Obama supporters here are hostile. I am very new here, but I tend to disagree. I think some of the Hillary fans are malicious, though you are an exception.
I also disagree with your contention that Obama has no chance of winnng the General Election. True, HRC supporters might not vote for him, but sad to say, he wouldn’t really need them. I think Obama would be a more viable candidate than Hillary. Many Obama supporters are so turned off by Hillary’s gutter tactics that they plan to stay home on Election Day if she is the nominee. I can’t speak for African-Americans, but I have heard that they, too, will sit on their hands if Clinton is the nominee. Can’t really blame them, after the insidious racism evinced by the Clintons this primary season.
Hillary’s campaign is very good with providing old political rhetoric. Selling the same old meat, but not adding much freshness to it. Since this process has been winning passed candidates she is having a hard time dealing with the fact that her meat has expired, yet she hangs on.
Someone please barbeque her steak and let her enjoy her last meal. More importantly, give her a hand book on what it means to but others before you.
In fairness to the non-malicious Clinton supporters here (and there aren’t many who have revealed themselves), comment 59 is out of order.
It doesn’t excuse Greg’s @ 58, however, which was personally directed at another commenter here.
You don’t win an election by calling for your opponent to quit.
Obama people have been calling for Clinton to step aside (take one for the team) for months now, even when it was ludicrous to suggest. Clinton has every right to run without you people claiming that she is somehow damaging the party by doing so. This race is too close for her to concede.
Obama appears to be in the process of losing his support among cross-overs and independents — the support that gave him most of his primary and caucus victories. If he is less electable in Nov because of that and because of the information coming to the surface, finally, about Rezko and about Wright, then superdelegates will have to decide who can run the best race. That may be Clinton. Further, as I have pointed out before, the stronger Clinton is at the convention, the more she can leverage in terms of platform, who becomes VP, who makes up party leadership and so on. There is more at stake than just a party nomination.
You guys seem to think that waiting to attack McCain is going to hurt Obama. My question is, why is Obama waiting to attack him? Clinton has no say over what Obama chooses to do in his campaign. He can start campaigning against McCain now if he wants.
Many of us are supporting Clinton because we genuinely believe she is better qualified than Obama. If Obama cannot beat Clinton, he cannot beat McCain. Obama should have sewn this up by now if he were truly the strong candidate he pretends to be.
If Obama wins, it will prove that a minimally qualified African American man will be shown preference over a more qualified woman who has worked hard for the party her whole life. That is an uglier side to sexism than any racial attack on Obama over the past weeks. Somehow no one seems to care about that. I suppose it is because men are so used to asserting their privilege that when a woman is given unfair treatment it just seems natural to them. These same men are the first to object when Obama is called arrogant (not uppity, arrogant) for presuming to run for president with only two years of national experience. If Clinton were persisting only to set an example to women that they should not step aside and surrender their ambitions when they are justified in claiming a seat at the table, then that will have been a major contribution to our country’s democracy, no matter who wins in November. Some of us can see the good in that.
Alex #96, I didn’t say all Clinton supporters are bitter and spiteful, just a good many of them. Are you the judge of this message board, pounding your gavel, and declaring that comments are “out of order”? With all respect, Judge Alex, I have every right to my opinion, just as the Clinton supporters are entitled to their opinions.
Obama has said more against McCain than Clinton has. Obama doesn’t attack. Which, apparently, is something you don’t appreciate. I, on the other hand, do.
Clinton has less electoral votes. Clinton has less popular vote. And he should go away? And, Mary, I know you like Clinton but when she gave kudos to McCain, and when she congratulated him on his last win but ignored any mention of Obama, well to that I say Screw Her. That was nothing but her over the party. And it was bullshit. I am half expecting her to run as McCain’s running mate if she doesn’t win the dem nod.
As to Obama’s experience, maybe this will help a little.
His record suggests several priorities and the bills he supports address many of our most pressing problems.
Most of his legislative effort has been in the area of Energy Efficiency and Climate Change (25 bills), health care (21 bills) and public health (20 bills), consumer protection/labor (14 bills), the needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces (13 bills), Congressional Ethics and Accountability (12 bills), Foreign Policy (10 bills) Voting and Elections (9 bills), Education (7 bills), Hurricane Katrina Relief (6), the Environment (5 bills), Homeland Security (4 bills), and discrimination (4 bills).
Of the 15 bills Senator Obama sponsored or co-sponsored in 2005-7 that became law:
Two addressed foreign policy:
Promote relief, security and democracy in the Congo (2125)
Develop democratic institutions in areas under Palestinian control (2370).
Three addressed public health:
Improve mine safety (2803)
Increased breast cancer funding (597)
Reduce preterm delivery and complications, reduce infant mortality (707).
Two addressed openness and accountability in government:
Strengthening the Freedom of Information Act (2488)
Full disclosure of all entities receiving federal funds (2590)
Two addressed national security
Extend Terrorist Risk Insurance (467)
Amend the Patriot Act (2167)
One addressed the needs of the Armed Forces
Wave passport fees to visit graves, attend memorials/funerals of veterans abroad (1184).
Of the 570 bills Senator Obama introduced into the Senate during the 109th and 110th Congress (Senate Bill numbers are in parentheses), they can be summarized as follows:
25 addressed Energy Efficiency and Climate Change
Suspend royalty relief for oil and gas (115)
Reduce dependence on oil; use of alternative energy sources (133)
Increase fuel economy standards for cars (767, 768)
Auto industry incentives for fuel efficient vehicles (1151)
Reduce green house gas emissions (1324)
Establish at NSF a climate change education program (1389)
Increase renewable content of gasoline (2202)
Energy emergency relief for small businesses and farms (269)
Strategic gasoline and fuel reserves (1794)
Alternative diesel standards (3554)
Coal to liquid fuel promotion (3623)
Renewable diesel standards (1920)
Reducing global warming pollution from vehicles (2555)
Fuel security and consumer choice (1994, 2025)
Alternative energy refueling system (2614)
Climate change education (1389)
Low income energy assistance (2405)
Oil savings targets (339)
Fuel economy reform (3694)
Plug-in electric drive vehicles (1617)
Nuclear release notice (2348)
Passenger rail investment (294)
Energy relief for low income families (2405)
21 addressed Health Care
Drug re-importation (334)
Health information technology (1262, 1418)
Discount drug prices (2347)
Health care associated infections (2278)
Hospital quality report cards (692, 1824)
Medical error disclosure and compensation (1784)
Emergency medical care and response (1873)
Stem cell research (5)
Medical Malpractice insurance (1525)
Health centers renewal (901, 3771)
Children’s health insurance (401)
Home health care (2061)
Medicare independent living (2103)
Microbicides for HIV/AIDS (823)
Ovarian cancer biomarker research (2569)
Gynological cancers (1172)
Access to personalized medicine through use of human genome (976)
Paralysis research and care (1183)
20 addressed Public Health:
Violence against women (1197)
Biodefense and pandemic preparedness and response (1821, 1880)
Viral influenza control (969)
End homelessness (1518)
Reduce STDs/unintended pregnancy (1790)
Smoking prevention and tobacco control (625)
Minority health improvement and disparity elimination (4024)
Nutrition and physical education in schools (2066)
Health impact assessments (1067, 2506)
Healthy communities (1068)
Combat methamphetamines (2071)
Paid sick leave (910)
Prohibit mercury sales (833, 1818)
Prohibit sale of lead products (1306, 2132)
Lead exposure in children (1811, 2132)
14 address Consumer Protection/Labor
Stop unfair labor practices (842)
Fair minimum wage (2, 1062, 2725, 3829)
Internet freedom (2917)
Credit card safety (2411)
Media ownership (2332)
Protecting taxpayer privacy (2484)
Working family child assistance (218)
Habeus Corpus Restoration (185)
Bankruptcy protection for employees and retirees (2092)
FAA fair labor management dispute resolution (2201)
Working families flexibility (2419).
13 addressed the Needs of Veterans and the Armed Forces:
Improve Benefits (117)
Suicide prevention (479)
Needs of homeless veterans (1180)
Homes for veterans (1084)
GI Bill enhancement (43)
Military job protection
Dignity in care for wounded vets (713)
Housing assistance for low income veterans (1084)
Military children in public schools (2151)
Military eye injury research and care (1999)
Research physical/mental health needs from Iraq War (1271)
Proper administration of discharge for personality disorder (1817, 1885)
Security of personal data of veterans (3592)
12 addressed Congressional Ethics and Accountability
Lobbying and ethics reform (230)
Stop fraud (2280)
Legislative transparency and accountability (525)
Open government (2180, 2488)
Restoring fiscal discipline (10)
Transparency and integrity in earmarks (2261)
Accountability of conference committee deliberations and reports (2179)
Federal funding accountability and transparency (2590)
Accountability and oversight for private security functions under Federal
contract (674)
Accountability for contractors and personnel under federal contracts
(2147) Resctrictions awarding government contracts (2519)
10 addressed Foreign Policy:
Iraq war de-escalation (313)
US policy for Iraq (433),
Divestiture from Iran (1430)
Sudan divestment authorization (831)
Millennium Development Goals (2433)
Multilateral debt relief (1320)
Development bank reform (1129)
Nuclear nonproliferation (3131,977,2224).
9 address Voting/Elections
Prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections (453)
Voter access to polls and services in Federal elections (737)
Voter intimidation and deceptive practices (1975)
Senate campaign disclosure parity (185)
Require reporting for bundled campaign contributions (2030)
Election jamming prevention (4102)
Campaign disclosure parity (223)
Presidential funding (2412)
Integrity of electronic voting systems (1487)
11 addressed Education
Increase access of low income African Americans to higher education (1513)
Establish teaching residency programs (1574)
Increase early intervention services (2111)
Middle school curriculum improvements (2227)
Public database of scholarships, fellowships and financial aid (2428)
Summer learning programs (116)
TANF financial education promotion (924)
Higher education (1642)
Build capacity at community colleges (379)
Campus law enforcement in emergencies (1228)
Support for teachers (2060).
6 addressed Hurrican Katrina
Hurricane Katrina recovery (2319)
Emergency relief (1637)
Bankruptcy relief and community protection (1647)
Working family tax relief (2257)
Fair wages for recovery workers (1749)
Gulf coast infrastructure redevelopment (1836)
5 addressed the Environment
Drinking water security (218, 1426)
Water resources development (728)
Waste water treatment (1995)
Combat illegal logging (1930)
Spent nuclear fuel tracking and Acountability (1194)
Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act (Introduced in Senate)[S.726.IS ]
4 addressed Discrimination
Claims for civil class action based on discrimination (1989)
Domestic partnership benefits (2521)
Unresolved civil rights crimes (535)
Equality or two parent families (2286)
4 addressed Homeland Security
Judicial review of FISA orders (2369)
National emergency family locator (1630)
Amend US Patriot Act (2167)
Chemical security and safety (2486)
BTW, Obama’s list of accomplishments came from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783?new=true
“You guys seem to think that waiting to attack McCain is going to hurt Obama. My question is, why is Obama waiting to attack him? Clinton has no say over what Obama chooses to do in his campaign. He can start campaigning against McCain now if he wants.”
Obama has attacked McCain since at least his Wisconsin speech. Clinton, on the other hand, has nullified those attacks by praising McCain. That’s the issue here.
McCain has run one of the worst election campaigns I’ve ever seen, but Hillary Clinton gave him a clean slate by claiming that he had “passed the threshold to be commander in chief”. Bill Clinton just the other day gave a speech praising McCain’s patriotism, which makes Obama (whose own patriotism is being publicly disputed) look like a subversive for attacking him.
At this point, the two of them are openly sabotaging Democratic efforts to take McCain down.
“Obama should have sewn this up by now if he were truly the strong candidate he pretends to be.”
Agreed. And this goes triple for Clinton.
Bill Clinton is the one of the greatest democrats ever! He has been idolized ever since he left office. How can all the new Obama supporters deomonize him and deny Hillary and Bill 8 more years in the White House. Don’t we want to return to the 90’s and all the greatness the Clinton’s brought to this country?
Obama’s Double Standards
If the shoe were on Obama’s foot, his followers would scream bloody murder if it was suggested that he “drop out” of the race for the sake of “The Party.”
And before his followers get too high and mighty, some of them might pause to remember 1980, the year in which Ted Kennedy (yeah, THAT Ted Kennedy) took his battle for the nomination all the way to the convention, scorching and savaging Jimmy Carter on the way, and was pushed to do so in large measure by many of the very same left-Democrats now pushing Clinton to step aside.
It would be so uplifting if Obama and his followers dropped the false concern about the Democratic Party and what “might” happen to it. We’ve managed to survive and thrive quite well amid some historical nastiness. And frankly, this is probably one of the few times in our history that Democratic voters are visibly excited about the prospects and about the candidates. The only harm that results to democracy is stifling it for political expediency.
Michiganders…For those who care…don’t let your voice or your vote be taken away because of stupid party politics and Obama’s selfishness. Write your state representatives AND SENATOR OBAMA saying you wish to have a re vote (it will be paid for). Tell Obama that you will not be there for him in November if he continues to obstruct your revote.
Based on the votes cast in January, Hillary would win the popular vote. So please do this for all of us… Your state is especially necessary as I suspect Florida will be seated as all the candidates were on the ballot.
Don’t despair….articles such as this contribute to a mime which says your candidate is already defeated which of course causes that candidate to be defeated.
Rove did this to Gore in 2000. George W. claimed victory even before all the votes were counted and then called Gore a sore loser when he tried to fight for legal votes.
DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN IN THIS PRIMARY.
The writer above is exactly correct. Obama says his campaign is “high minded” and then behaves in a way that disenfranchises Michigan and Florida.