Clinton/Obama, Florida/Michigan, and confusion over ‘popular will’
Given recent campaign rhetoric, the upcoming meeting of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, and the airing of HBO’s “Recount,” there’s been quite a bit of talk this week about popular political will, some of it misguided. National Review’s Rich Lowry, for example, seems confused.
Back in 2000, Democrats were contemptuous of rules and technicalities about how ballots had to be marked and the process for recounts. All that mattered was the popular will. And the biggest ultimate obstacle to it was the Electoral College, which kept Al Gore from the White House in this “stolen election.”
Well, the Democrats’ attachment to the unadulterated popular will has gone the way of the hanging chad. Suddenly, Democrats are sticklers for rules. […]
The change from 2000 to 2008 is simple to explain. Back then, the liberal establishment wanted Gore to beat Bush. Now, most of it wants Obama to finish off Hillary. The standards have changed accordingly.
Nonsense. Lowry may not remember, but Dems have long argued that 2000 was a “stolen” election, not because Gore won the popular vote, but because Gore won Florida. “All that mattered was the popular will”? No, all that mattered was counting the votes in Florida, to see who actually won the state.
Popular vote matters in large part for bragging rights. It’s a moral victory. But if candidates are told in advance that delegates (in a nominating fight) or electoral votes (in a general-election fight) will be the measurement of success, and candidates shape their campaign strategies accordingly, it’s hard to argue credibly that popular votes should trump the agreed upon metrics. In 2000 and 2001, Dems used Gore’s popular-vote victory in part to argue that Bush lacked a mandate for his agenda, not to argue that Gore actually should have taken the oath on Inauguration Day.
On a related note, it’s probably worth noting that a similar argument will emerge over the weekend, when Clinton supporters protest the Dems’ Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting.
The Democratic National Committee is bracing itself for protests outside its Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting on Saturday in Washington, where the fates of the Florida and Michigan primaries could finally be decided.
Supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton are organizing to march and then gather on the street outside the panel’s meeting, scheduled for Saturday morning at a hotel in Northwest Washington. […]
Besides their goal of pressuring the committee into counting the votes from Florida and Michigan, Mrs. Clinton’s supporters are hoping that an en masse gathering will demonstrate widespread support for her candidacy — and perhaps persuade a superdelegate or two.
The Obama campaign is urging its supporters not to demonstrate at the meeting, and has instead organized a voter-registration drive across the river in Virginia.
I don’t necessarily blame Clinton backers for trying to help Clinton out at the RBC meeting on Saturday, but I am curious how many of them are demonstrating because they’re genuinely outraged over the dispute between the DNC and two state parties over convention delegates or because they’re hoping to give their favored candidate an edge. There’s nothing especially wrong with the latter, but I get the sense that many want to pretend it’s the prior. It’s not about Clinton, they say, but about an unyielding commitment to honoring non-binding primary votes in states that broke party rules.
If we give the protestors the benefit of the doubt, and accept that they’re outraged because of the DNC’s punishment of Florida and Michigan, I have a couple of follow-up questions. How many of the protestors were outraged when the punishment was originally made last year, before we knew who won the non-binding primaries? How many denounced Hillary Clinton for saying these votes wouldn’t count? How many protested some of Clinton’s top aides for playing a direct role in making the decision against Florida and Michigan in the first place? How many criticized the 12 Clinton supporters on the DNC Rules Committee who voted to strip these two states of their entire slate of delegates?
How many said anything at all when it was just a matter of democratic principles, unrelated to any specific candidate or campaign?
Harold Meyerson concluded, “Clinton’s supporters have every right to demonstrate on Saturday, of course. But their larger cause is neither democracy nor feminism; it’s situational ethics.”
Burma has extended the detention of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
The countdown is on for Hillary Clinton to compare her doomed campaign to the plight of Aung San Suu Kyi. Or Maybe Rich Lowry, one of your bigger wingnuts, could take up the cause.
If only the voices of good people of Michigan, Florida and Burma could be heard. Lowry could pen a colum to that effect. It’d fit in well at the NRO.
The Hillarybots remind me of the “Yuppie rioters” in Florida in 2000.
Sigh,
Okay, I’ll take the hit as the Clintonistas.
Come June 3rd, Senator Barack Obama will not have won the nomination with pledged delegates. Therefore, he needs to have Super Delegates support him to win the nomination (2025 or whatever number it turns out to be).
There is no rule or reason that Super Delegates have to vote in proportion with the pledged delegates. Think that is ‘undemocratic’? How about the fact that Texas voted for Clinton but Obama got more delegates? That’s the rules you say? So is the rule that Super Delegates can vote as they wish, not as the Obama Campaign (or you) think they ought to.
So Clinton is trying to get the Super Delegate votes, and to do so she is trying to make arguments about electability, experience, and the ‘popular vote’. You say that under the rules ‘popular votes’ don’t mean anything. Quite right, except as much as her argument convinces Super Delegates to vote for her.
And as of now, the fact that there are enough uncommitted Super Delegates to still win Clinton the nomination convinces me that they are at least considering her arguments as valid.
Hillary Blogs
Obamas resume
Want to know the difference between Clinton and Obama supporters
And Find out What has been bothering me
This and more on…
http://sensico.wordpress.com/
Lance
So we’ll wait til June 4th and reevaluate then, OK.
*Sigh*
I live in Texas and Obama won Texas. I know that Clintonistas can’t accept that fact because the win came from the later count from the caucuses and not the primary alone. Caucuses are messy, but they are very democratic. I can’t for the life of me understand what Clinton and her bots don’t get about the legitimacy of caucuses…
I’ve never seen the word “nonsense” actually mean “what a lying sack of shit” before this post.
Thanks, Steve, for being so polite.
Lance – the argument that popular vote and polls showing electability is perfectly logical. And it would be a fair argument except for:
1) A large portion of her votes in the last two months have come from non-supporters (Op Chaos)
2) She’s been tearing down Obama in an attempt to make him unelectable. In fact the Superdelegate rationale flies in the face of her constant statements that Obama doesn’t want all the votes to count.
3) She has been getting a lot of assistance from the media, her claims of mysogeny notwithstanding. She will not get this after the primary. She knows it. The SD’s know it.
4) She has taken on a role until recently reserved for people like Anna Nicole Smith, Michael Jackson and Brittney Spears, which is a diversion from real news.
5) She can’t win on her positives. And she no longer tries to
The HeiHillaryites love the Soviet-style elections with only Hillary/s names on the ballot. Hillary is basically just a Republican. She started out as a Goldwater Girl back in 1964. She lies like a Republican; she smears like a Republican; she slimes like a Republican. She plays the race card like a Nixon or Reagan Republican. Hillary loves wars of fascist aggression as much as any Republican. Hillary is in the wrong party.
And as of now, the fact that there are enough uncommitted Super Delegates to still win Clinton the nomination convinces me that they are at least considering her arguments as valid.
Well, no, there aren’t. There are 197 remaining and she needs 245 to win. She’d have to get every single one of the 197 (exceedingly unlikely) plus 48 of the remaining 86 pledged delegates in the three upcoming primaries (possible), unless she can take some proportion of Edwards’ 7 pledged delegates who haven’t repledged for Obama (quite unlikely).
There may be some uncommitted supers still mulling over the possibility of endorsing Clinton. But to believe that all 197 are doing so is…well, wishful is probably the nicest way of putting it.
We’ll find out June 4.
“And as of now, the fact that there are enough uncommitted Super Delegates to still win Clinton the nomination convinces me that they are at least considering her arguments as valid.”
The super delegates are waiting until the primaries are finished up on June 3rd before making a major mass move. If they put this to rest before the final primaries were completed the clintons would be screaming that the nomination was stolen through an insider mover by party big shots. June 3rd all the primaries will have been contested, all the pledged delegates won, Michigan and florida wouldn’t change the results no matter if or how they’re seated and its over. Obama will have won and the super delegates and Party leaders can make their move and the clintons won’t have an argument left. The super delegates and party leaders are trying to nuetralize the damage the clintons wnat to inflict. IF Hillary Clinton decides to carry on past June 3rd she’ll look psychotic (more so than she does now). It’s “pre-damage control.”
Like many Lowry has a convenient memory. In the days before the 2000 election it was Republicans who threatened to go to court if the Electoral College defeated what they were certain was to be a Bush win in the popular vote. To somehow deride this as a “Liberal” interpretation of the rules is silly.
Answer this question. If Hillary Clinton took the position she now supports to the voters in New Hampshire back in January what would have happened to her in that primary? She would have lost because back then everyone spoke up for New Hampshire and Iowa to be first. No matter what your position it should be consistent. Clinton’s is not and does not for that reason deserve support.
Does anyone know if C-SPAN will be carrying the rules committee meeting on Saturday? I’d like to watch it. Thanks.
Dee Loralei – I don’t think C-SPAN decides this far in advance what they are going to air, and you’d be hard pressed to find anything a day in advance by watching the channel. However, this is their website with the schedule. They might give a day’s warning. Good luck. I too would like to watch it.
http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp
Yes, CSPAN will carry it (per C&L).
Lance: “How about the fact that Texas voted for Clinton but Obama got more delegates?”
No, Texas did not “vote for Clinton”. Clinton won the Texas primaries and Obama won the Texas caucuses – get the facts straight please, my good friend…
Lance, @ 3, said the following stupid and/or untruthful thing:
And as of now, the fact that there are enough uncommitted Super Delegates to still win Clinton the nomination convinces me that they are at least considering her arguments as valid.
Your candidate needs 245 delegates as of right now. There are only 187 remaining uncommitted Supers—again, as of right now. Please. Enlighten me. enlighten every last sentient being, blade of grass, grain of sand, and subatomic particle in the whole wide Universe—and explain to all of us what kind of quasi-temporal, Quantum Mathematical Theorem you have devised that promotes 187 as being more than 245.
You should really try to get your money back from KKKarl Rove for that “Math-Whiz-by-Mail” course he sold you—y’know?
Count me as one of the outraged people when this was first announced.. you could probably count 2.5 million other Floridians and Michiganites in that column as well.
At least Obama has the common sense to ask his followers not to demonstrate against democracy, now only if he would have made an effort to act like he wanted those votes counted.
Shorter Rich Lowry(in the venerable words of Homer Simpson, who these days even as a fictional character seems to have a more cogent view of reality than wingnuts):
Well yeah, everything looks bad if you remember it.
Ohioan, Texas did vote for Clinton by 51% to 49%.
Caucuses are un-democratic, exclusive, and do not truly represent the will of the people.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/299951683/1804
Candidates were told in advance about the rules. The rules include the right to object to patently absurd political outcomes (no representation of Michigan and Florida at the convention) at the rules committee and the Credentials Committee. The rules specify that a majority of all the delegates (including superdelegates) determine the nominee. One side consistently has demonized the other for seeking to follow the rules, ie, making a case ot all of the delegates, including the superdelegates, about who has the best chance of beating John McCain in November.
With every story on this issue, the media should inform it’s audience about, remind it’s audience about, and link to the clear language of the Four State Pledge (pdf).
To her credit, Clinton has successfully distracted the media by making it about the “will of the people” and the “voters of Florida and Michigan”.
However, it’s not about the issues she claims. It’s about Hillary and the fact that she lied and cheated when she signed this Pledge and then violated it. Since the media is giving her a pass on this lying and cheating, by ignoring the Four State Pledge, it’s quite possible that she’ll benefit if delegates from those two states are distributed based on so-called election results.
Reward the cheater and punish those who played by the rules? Nice.
DanP @ #8
1) A large portion of her votes in the last two months have come from non-supporters (Op Chaos)
Ok, forget for a moment that PA, WV, KY are CLOSED primaries, if you remember correctly through March 08 most Republicans voted for Obama, or rather “against Clinton”
2) She’s been tearing down Obama in an attempt to make him unelectable. In fact the Superdelegate rationale flies in the face of her constant statements that Obama doesn’t want all the votes to count.
Where do you live, Mars? HRC doesn’t need to tear him down, and is not the reason for his demise. His wounds are SELF INFLICTED.. Wright, Ayers, Bittergate, etc.. get over it.
3) She has been getting a lot of assistance from the media, her claims of mysogeny notwithstanding. She will not get this after the primary. She knows it. The SD’s know it.
I’m glad I wasn’t taking a drink when I read this or it would be all over my screen. The MSM and especially MSNBC and CNN are in the tank for Obama. Have you seen Olberman or Matthews lately? The only person who sticks up for Clinton is Joe Scarboro and Lou Dobbs, and Joe’s been out for 3 weeks now.
4) She has taken on a role until recently reserved for people like Anna Nicole Smith, Michael Jackson and Brittney Spears, which is a diversion from real news.
She is out polling Obama vs. McCain and is winning the GE polls and Obama is not, and she has beat him by nearly half a million votes since Texas, and you talk about her like she is yesterday’s news. Keep underestimating her, it will make it that much sweeter if she wins.
5) She can’t win on her positives. And she no longer tries to
And Obama can? His message of hope and unity is garbage, and his claim that he can win the votes of people who voted for Clinton but she cannot win the votes that he won is WRONG! Did you see the latest Gallup polls showing how she is running even with Obama in the states he won, and she is out polling him against McCain by huge margins in the states she won, including ALL of the major swing states.
If, as I was informed, the DNC Rules say the candidate must not “participate” in the primary of FL and MI, Hillary broke the rules too . By leaving her name on the ballot instead of withdrawing it like almost all of the other candidates, in accordance with the dictate not to “participate”, she broke the rules. Even if some delegates are now awarded to those states for the convention, she should not receive any unless the DNC wants to reward a rulebreaker for the violation. That’s a strange prescription for law and order.
This was all foreseeable if you look back to Ben Smith’s blog last fall: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Off_the_balllot_in_Michigan.html
A commenter (Jon C) added, then, “The primary move for my state was a grand-stand move by Gov. Granholm and her cronies– nothing more.” That of course included Debbie Dingell and Sen. Levin who’ve been trying for years to move MI primary election to an earlier time.
The most prescient comment by RKA on 10/09/07went:”Hillary’s people want the early Michigan and Florida primaries so that name ID and national perceptions can blunt the impact of early state voters who actually see the candidates close up and make deliberative decisions. I think it is smart for these guys to take their names off the ballot because it will make it much more difficult for Hillary to use “wins” in these states to reverse momentum built against her if she stumbles in the legit early states.”
Caucuses are un-democratic, exclusive, and do not truly represent the will of the people. -Greg
Feel free to make that argument to the parties and legislatures in Texas, Iowa, Nevada and the other caucusing states in an effort to change the way future primaries are handled. That’s how it’s done now, and no amount of crying will change it. I was right there arguing with Zeitgeist some of these very same points months ago, and he had plenty of sound argument to the contrary. You should look up his guest posts on the subject, they were quite good.
Your vitriol reminds me of why he doesn’t comment anymore. At the time, a lot of the craziness was coming from a few unhinged Obama supporters, but now, most of the crazy is clearly in the Clinton camp. The shtick is really getting quite tiresome.
Ok, forget for a moment that PA, WV, KY are CLOSED primaries, if you remember correctly through March 08 most Republicans voted for Obama, or rather “against Clinton”
So what you’re saying is that as soon as the Republican race was wrapped up, Hillary got a huge surge in support from Republicans? How is that a selling point?
Especially when exit polls indicate most of them wouldn’t consider voting for her over McCain. I just don’t get this line of reasoning. Obama’s crossover support was consistent indicating it is more likely to carry over in November. Hillary’s crossover support spiked after the Republican nomination was wrapped up and Rush Limbaugh called on his goons to fix the race, indicating it is not likely to carry into November.
By leaving her name on the ballot instead of withdrawing it like almost all of the other candidates, in accordance with the dictate not to “participate”, she broke the rules. – HillaryBroke RulesToo
This is patently false. The rules did not mandate that the candidates remove their names from the ballot, this was a choice Obama and Edwards made, presumably because they thought they would lose.
The rules however state that 50% of the delegates should be removed as punishment, and Howard Dean and Donna Brazile removed 100% of the delegates.. how’s that for the rules, yeah party unity (NOT!).
The most charitable explanation I have for Hillary is that when she was tearing out the kitchen sink to throw it at Obama, she hit herself on the head with the wrench and has been walking around in a daze ever since.
The one loudest cry against her for her assassination comment — at least as it referred to the actual assassination of RFK — was that she shouldn’t bring up the painful memories of 1968. But the most painful of all were the police riot — and the way it was blamed on the demonstrators and used against the Democrats for decades.
So now she’s calling for demonstrations at the Rules Committee meeting. Just imagine one (possibly Limbaugh-inspired) group of agents provocateur.
doubtful,
Obama’s crossover support is overstated, and probably near non-existent now.
Cacuses are undemocratic, the vote to delegate ratio is 5:1 vs. Primary votes.
Please read the following:
http://www.talkleft.com/media/caucusnorris.pdf
Here’s some highlights:
• The Primary-only pledged delegate spread is less than 1/10th of one percent.
• The caucus-only pledged delegate spread on the other hand is 2:1, and gives Obama a 136 delegate advantage. Obama’s win in the caucus states account for almost all of his pledged delegate lead.
• Caucus voters amount to 2.9% of the voters but account for 15% of the pledged delegates so far. In other words, one caucus vote counts for the same as five primary votes.
Did I mention that caucuses tend to exclude a LOT of people who would have voted for Clinton?
In that document, look at the data from states that held Primaries and Caucuses, Obama won most of the delegates yet in the primaries he came within 1-2% of Clinton, and even lost the popular vote in Nebraska and Texas.
He will likely get nowhere near the 83% he got out of Idaho caucus at their primary tomorrow either, garbage.
Cacuses are undemocratic, the vote to delegate ratio is 5:1 vs. Primary votes. -Greg
I never argued with you on that point. That was my point months ago, but I don’t have any delusions that I can change things right now, and even if I did, I know it wouldn’t be relevant to caucuses that occurred months ago.
That’s the way those states selected their delegates this year, ironically, all well within the rules and contracts laid out by the DNC. There simply isn’t anything you can do now that will change that, and it is especially duplicitous when you advocate absolving other states that did not follow the rules.
I understand that it is all you have: discount the caucuses and count all of the rule breakers to give Hillary an edge in a metric that ultimately doesn’t even matter. You’ve got to understand just how much reaching you’re doing to get there and why it looks so petty and childish to so many of the other commenters.
…Howard Dean and Donna Brazile removed 100% of the delegates… -Greg
Howard Dean had nothing to do with it. Harold Ickes, did, though.
Caucuses are nothing but a vote suppression technique that severley limts participation. It’s hard to believe they’re still being used in this process.
“The rules did not mandate that the candidates remove their names from the ballot, this was a choice Obama and Edwards made, presumably because they thought they would lose. The rules however state that 50% of the delegates should be removed as punishment, and Howard Dean and Donna Brazile removed 100% of the delegates.”
Hey Greg,
I see you’re back with a vengence.
Kudos on that “presumably because they thought they would lose” comment. That was funny.
Anyway, it’s interesting that you blame Howard Dean and Donna Brazille for stripping Michigan and Florida of all delegates. Some fun facts to jog your cherry-picking memory. Howard Dean doesn’t sit on the RBC that eliminated all the delegates. Yes, Donna Brazille (still uncommitted) does. So do 13 other supers who committed to Clinton (as opposed to 8 who have committed to Obama). Reportedly, all RBC members voted to strip these two states of all delegates…except one…an Obama super. So, your nonsense about Howard Dean and Donna Brazille is exactly that. Clearly, given the numbers, Clinton supers are as responsible, if not more, for stripping all delegates.
With regard to your comment that the “rules” did not mandate…. You and I know this is cherry-picking as well since the Four State Pledge that Clinton agreed to and signed did mandate she not “participate” in the Michigan and Florida primaries. You’re not going to argue that she didn’t participate in these primaries, are you? If so, then you’re arguing with Hillary Clinton who expressly stated that she “participated” in these two elections (while, like you, talking up the rules and ignoring the Four State Pledge).
Hillary Clinton cheated. Cherry-picking won’t change that fact. Why you support allowing cheaters to benefit from their cheating is beyond me. As far as I’m concerned, honesty is a progressive value. You are a progressive, aren’t you?
Caucuses Rock. People love them.
Ya Caucuses to favor the candidate that has:
a) the most dedicated supporters;
b) greater likability; and
c) the superior organizational and administrative abilities.
So Hillary goes 0 for 3 here. I guess this is why her supporters now hate the Caucus.
But Hillary has had 35 years to work to end Caucuses and it is only now that she gotts a problem with it.
We all know why.
So, they will be counted after all: nice to know you can break the rules and get a slap on the wrist for it. People in Florida and Michigan can be outraged, but this happened as a consequence of voter apathy: I bet most people in those states were even aware that the primaries were going to be moved up and if so, make their votes not count. So, the everyday Joe didn’t care, so the (bipartisan move I believe) politicians did it anyway, get their delegates banned, and then once the media gets ahold of it, THEN they realized it. Doubt many cared at first. Hillary didn’t care, Obama and others didn’t care. The selective nitpicking from both sides is utterly exhausting now. This is either lack of foresight or brilliant sabotage by the Democrats in these respective states. It serves as an important reminder that when you don’t pay attention, people will screw you over if they feel like it.
If the Democratic Party doesn’t survive its autoimmune phase, might I suggest the Anarchist Party take root in Michigan and Florida: seems to be a couple of politicians that could run with that platform.
Sorry, lousy keyboard:
“I bet most people in those states weren’t even aware…”
Why have rules and laws if no one obeys them?? Obey them only if they suit your purpose…in a hurry…drive past the speed limit….run that red light.Why pay your taxes??You need money more than Gov…and they only waste it any way.You didn’t ask to be born…so why should you pay support for an un-planned pregnancy? And the list goes on………
They pledged not to campaign, they did not pledge to not participate. Somebody forgot to tell that to Obama though, he had a fund-raiser in Tampa that had a marching band for crying out loud, sounds like campaigning to me… don’t forget he also had a national ad which just happened to run in Florida the week leading up to the election.
So you see, the only personwho broke the actual pledge (not the one you are clearly making up) was Obama.
It is true that the Democratic legislators in Florida voted to move up the date to Jan 31, but only because the Republican majority placed it in a bill they dared not vote against, besides the Republicans already had the majority vote needed to pass the bill.
This is a subject I know very well having actually researched it instead of spewing untruths I might have heard on Kos like they are facts.
Last post was a response to Chris #32 in case anybody is reading this or actually cares. 🙂
Greg says.
Question: Does anybody care?
Answer: Not really.
Everybody knows situational ethics suck.
DON’T BE DUPED AGAIN AMERICA !!!
IT’S ABOUT ELECTABILITY !!!
Large numbers of BUSH_McCain Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on with the backing and help of the medical and insurance industry. Under the direction of the George Bush, and Karl Rove vote fraud, and vote manipulation machine. Because they feel Barack Obama would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And they want to stop Hillary Clinton from fixing the HUGE! American, and Global mess they have created. shocking!!! isn’t it. Just gotta love those good old draft dodging, silver spoon Texas boys. Not! 🙁
You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves off of you, and your children’s suffering.
With Hillary Clinton you are almost 100% certain to get quality affordable universal health care for everyone very soon. And you are also certain to see major improvements in the economy for everyone.
The American people face even worse catastrophes ahead than the ones you are living through now. It will take all of the skills, and experience of Hillary Clinton to pull the American people out of this mess we are in. Fortunately fixing up, and cleaning up others incompetence, immoral degeneracy, and mess is what the Clinton’s do very well.
Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!
Just look at Oregon for example. Obama won Oregon by about 70,000 votes. But approximately 79,000 Bush republicans switched party’s back in January to vote for Obama in the democratic primary. They are not going to vote for, or support any Democrat in November. Are you DEMOCRATS going to put up with that. Are you that stupid, and weak. The Bush republicans think you are that stupid, and weak.
As much as 30% of Obama’s primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses, and open primaries where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help. Except North Carolina where 35% of the population is African American, and approximately 90% of them block voted for him. African Americans are only approximately 17% of the general population.
Hillary Clinton has been OUT MANNED! and OUT SPENT! 4 and 5 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton. This is even more phenomenal when you consider she has been also fighting against the George Bush, Karl Rove vote fraud machine in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Hillary Clinton is STUNNING!.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. That is crystal clear now. Because all of the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. And the demographics, and experience are completely against him. All of this vote fraud and Bush republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.
You will have another McGovern catastrophe where George McGovern lost 49 of 50 states. And was the reason the super-delegates were created to keep that from happening again. Don’t let that happen to the party and America again super-delegates. You have the power to prevent it. The only important question now is who can best win in November. And the answer is HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON. That fact is also now crystal clear.
And YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose. As do African Americans. Support Hillary Clinton. She will do her best for all of you. And she will know how to best get it done on day one.
The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.
The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.
Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic, and heroic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen. Probably the best there has ever been. 🙂
“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)
Sincerely
jacksmith… Working Class 🙂
p.s. Cynthia Ruccia – I’m with ya baby. All the way. “Clinton Supporters Count Too.”
Greg said, “They pledged not to campaign, they did not pledge to not participate.”
Answer me this, Greg. Are you a liar, or do you just insist on remaining misinformed? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you insist on remaining misinformed.
However, for the sake of others who aren’t similarly afflicted, somebody provided the link to the actual Four State Pledge document in comment #22 above. If you haven’t already, please read the part in the document where the signatory (e.g. Hillary Clinton) pledges not to “campaign or participate“, so as not to be mislead by falsehoods parroted by the likes of our buddy Greg.
Commander Guy, nothing you said about caucuses makes sense.
a) the most dedicated supporters;
What you mean is that he had the most organized anti-Hillary democrat for a day campaign:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26826
b) greater likability; and
This is beginning to sound like a broken record but… Wright, Ayers, Bittergate, etc. Your boy is NOT likable by my standards, nor the standards of the majority of people who prefer McCain to HIM in a year when Democrats should be a sure bet! Obama is ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory while you happily cheer for the LOSER!
c) the superior organizational and administrative abilities.
I think you mean superior negative campaigning while claiming to be taking the high road. The problem with your theory is that America is starting to see who Obama really is, and they don’t like what they see. He is losing to McCain in General Election polls while Clinton is way ahead of him, and he has lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes since March 5, that would be the date of the Texas and Ohio primaries.
You bet your ass the SD’s are shitting themselves looking at the numbers, according to the Obama News Networks (CNN/MNSBC), they dare not overturn the leader of the delegate count as if this somehow reflects the will of the people better than the popular vote, and millions of Obama followers are eating this up, so in their minds they risk losing the support of those people, but on the other hand they already know they will lose the election if they continue to nominate him due to the defections to McCain.
This has nothing to do with race, Obama offends people, and he will not win them over, guaranteed.
Greg
SCOREBOARD
Obama beat Hillary 83-16 in the Idaho caucus. This netted him 15 delegates and wiped out hillary’s win in PA.
PA has 21 electoral votes and Idaho has 4 electoral votes.
Who is smarter, better organized and with the more reliable supporters?
It ain’t Hillary, who plainly and simply was not ready one day one.
Hillz blew her wad in PA but didn’t spend a dime in Idaho.
Not very strategic.
If you wanna do Custer last stand, at least pick a battle you can win
I read the stupid pledge Chris, and I’m not stupid so don’t patronize me.
She did not campaign here, Obama did, or did you not read my previous post on this matter?
Having her name on the ballot is not campaigning, you are truly the ignorant one, not me.
When Greg puts nonsense out, then we have to beat it back (although most are aware by now that he insists on being a hack).
Obama ran ads specifically in the southern areas of super-Tuesday states that border Florida (i.e. Georgia and Alabama). He wasn’t “campaigning” in Florida. Apparently, Greg isn’t aware that airwaves don’t recognize state borders. (It’s actually quite desperate that people still insist that ads intended to run in Alabama is the same as “campaiging” in Florida when airwaves bleed over.)
Also, with regard to Florida, the definition of “campaign” is defined in the Pledge that Greg refuses to read. Obama’s private fundraiser also did not violate the Pledge in letter or spirit.
On the other hand, Hillary violated this Pledge in Florida by campaigning, as defined, via the national and local Florida news media in the days leading up to the primary and “participating” (which she readily admits).
My fingers are tired, but most are well aware that Greg also lied about the Florida Republicans being entirely responsible for the primary date in Florida. Sad to say, Florida Dems are responsible too. (FYI, Clinton surrogates used to say the Republicans did it. However, since people pointed out that all Florida Dems voted the for measure, these surrogates now claim, the Republicans made them do it.)
I take it back. I no longer give Greg the benefit of the doubt. He’s on the blogs too much to be that misinformed…no matter how hard he might try.
After this long post, the thing to remember is that Hillary violated the Four State Pledge when she “participated” in both elections and “campaigned” (as defined in the Pledge) in Florida. Again, she cheated, and now she wants to benefit from cheating.
Greg gots nothing.
Oh…you’re still there? I didn’t say you’re stupid. I said you’re either a liar or deliberately misinformed.
If you read the pledge, then you saw that Hillary agreed not to “participate”, which by the way, contradicts your statement, “they did not pledge to not participate”.
Out of curiousity, were you lying when you wrote that they didn’t pledge to “participate” or were you lying when you wrote that you read the pledge?
Wait…she didn’t campaign there? Did you see the picture all over the news in the days leading up to the campaign with her getting off the plane, walking up the microphones and talking about the election and how she would be back on election day. Did you see you “victory” speech on the night of the Florida primary? I’d say that’s “campaign or participating”.
I don’t get you bro’. You’re definitely full of it. Maybe you’re lying to yourself as well.
Hillary did not participate in the state prior to the election, her victory speech/rally happened after the voting finished, which would be after the election, or would you say that participating after the election is also against the pledge? In that case Obama is also guilty of doing so in addition to his participation and campaigning prior to the election.
This clearly states as campaigning is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC, you are trying to twist the meaning into something which it is not. Removing her name from the ballot in Michigan was not required by the rules.
Good night, I’m done trying to have a battle of the wits with somebody who is obviously unarmed.
I have read through most of posts here and find them to be entertaining at best.
The facts are this.
Florida and Michigan ignored both DNC and RNC rules. The Republicans lost 50% of their delegates and Democrats lost 100%.
Clinton was fine with this until she started losing. Then she cried “Foul”.
Now Florida and Michigan are crying “Foul” as well.
Why? Because they thought they could break the rules and get away with it, with no penalties. Unfortunately, the voters in both of those states basically got the shaft. Who’s fault is it? Not Obama’s or Clintons, or the DNC/RNC. It was the lawmakers/Party officials in those states who made these decisions. Why? So they could make their states more important in the primaries.
Rules are rules.
You don’t tell your children they can’t play their PS3, and then when they do play after you told them they couldn’t, you reward them by letting them play more.
That is what they want. They want to be rewarded for breaking the rules. Sorry people, thats not what rules are for. You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game, just because you are losing.
As far as Caucuses go. They have been around forever and aren’t going to go away any time soon. So deal with it.
I think if you are truly Democrat you need to worry about McCain and quit worrying about Clinton vs Obama. If Clinton wins (which is highly improbable) then everyone in the Party should get behind her. If Obama wins, then everyone in the Party should stand behind him.
Because this is how I feel. If you are Democrat and you run to McCain because your candidate didn’t win. Then you should be held responsible for the 1000’s of deaths that will come from the war in Iraq. And the blood of our young men and women will be on your hands and heads.
My two cents
Fact is that for most of the years some states have held primary elections, they were nothing but window dressing. Party leadership selected the delegates. The caucuses were actually a huge step forward, as are the elections where the vote actually determines delegates. So Greg’s observations have little relevance.
Hillary talked about 1968 and the fact that year is that the nominee was HHH who entered ZERO primaries that year. Even if Bobby had lived and won all the primary elections, he would never have been the nominee because those states already had the delegates selected by party leadership.
It’s always been up to the States to determine how their delegates are selected (lately within certain overall parameters set by DNC). When they select, yes. How, no. If you want to open that up, that’s a whole nuther question.
I’m from Tampa, FL. I don’t think any of Florida nor Michigan’s votes should count.
The people from these states had ample opportunity to challenge our state party as well as the national party and we did in court. The court ruled that the DNC was within their rights to not allow our votes to count.
The courts ruled, some of us voted, some didn’t, but it was done with.
Hillary has been counting on our votes for the past couple of months when it started to look like she was losing. Where was she last winter? Oh, yeah, abiding by the DNC’s decision.
Now, the DNC is reconsidering. In what alternate universe should 1/2 of our votes be counted and which half will they choose? What about all the people who didn’t vote because the court ruled in the DNC’s favor.
Once again, Florida’s stupidity will take what should be an inalienable right and make a joke out of it.
I’ve been a life-long democrat and actively campaigned for candidates for more than 30 years but I find myself more and more disgusted with my party this year.
Maybe I’ll just vote Republican in the national election.
Color me alienated and dis-allusioned.
I am sorry but everyone get behind the Democratic candidate no matter who it is just as dumb as me thinking about voting Republican.
Maybe I should move to France. 😉
Wow! I never noticed just how wild Clintonistas get before.
As for ‘not participating’ in Florida, Hillary didn’t have a choice. The state creates the ballot and they, not she, put all the candidates names on it (weird, really). Which is why Obama’s name was on the ballot.
And yes, Senator Clinton didn’t take her name off the Michigan ballot. Unfair really for Senator Obama. Which is why I suppose he ought to get all the ‘undeclared’ or whatever delegates from Michigan (or actually half of them, as the state should be punished). Of course counting any of them pushes the target number of delegates up.
As for the whiny complaints that there are not enough Super Delegates left for Hillary to win, let me correct. If she does well in the last three contests she can win with the remaining Super Delegates. Unless the rules have changed in Puerto Rico (which they might) I believe that is a winner take all contest.
And of course, nothing stops Super Delegates from changing their minds. They have before after all.
As I remember, Senator Obama was bragging for months about getting Republican voters to vote for him. Are you bitching now that they participate?
And yes, I imagine this will be over soon after June 3rd.
“Hillary did not participate in the state prior to the election, her victory speech/rally happened after the voting finished, which would be after the election, or would you say that participating after the election is also against the pledge?
Wow, talk about pretzel logic.
Yes. Leaving her name on the ballot when she could have removed it and then claiming to win is “participating”. Campaigning via national and local television news and making a victory speech after an election, thereby acknowledging the validity of that election, is “participating”.
Like I said, when Greg claims that Hillary Clinton didn’t “participate”, he’s not only arguing with me. He’s arguing with Hillary.
Listen carefully to Hillary speak about her decision about “whether or not to participate” in Michigan (about 2:40 into the recording). Good stuff.
For the sake of clarification, I have to note that Greg wrote in his earlier post, “They pledged not to campaign, they did not pledge to not participate.”
However, once Greg learned that he was quite mistaken, his new argument became, “Hillary did not participate in the state prior to the election, her victory speech/rally happened after the voting finished, which would be after the election.”
Desperate measures from desperate people.
This is more than just about Obama and Clinton. This is bald faced democracy on the line. We have a situation where bad decisions by a few people resulted in stripping the rights of voters. Because of that, those states have determined the front runner by default. Hillary would be ahead if the Democrartic party had dealt with this earlier. Does anyone else wonder whay they waited so long?? The other problem is many voters like myself are so mad at the way the party has shoved Obama down our throats I will not vote for him no matter what. By the way, I am not bitter, and am an extremely educated latte drinking liberal. The sad part about this is that Obama supporters and Clinton supporters see this situation completely different. That is why the individual campaigns should not have any say in the decision. If all of the delegates are not awarded, I will write in Clinton or vote for Nader. I am so shocked that after 2000 the party and the media would be stupid enough to try to pick our candidate for us (Obama) and try to ignore the people’s choice (Clinton). Just plain stupid.
I have no doubt that while Clinton agreed with the DNC that FL and MI should be stripped of their seats if they held their primaries early against party rules, she was planning ahead that she could later cry foul if she needed those states. Or just cry. Kind of like keeping $20 hidden in your wallet in the event you find yourself without cash.
Other posts are correct, this is not about the voters in FL and MI, it’s about Hillary Clinton. If the DNC and the superdelegates give in to her, they should and would have a difficult time looking at themselves in the mirror each day and this political tactic will be used for elections to come.
Let her cry. She’ll get over it. And so will everyone else . . . the next day.
Seating delegates unfair? Even if half of the Michigan or Florida pledgeable delegates are seated, it does not account for the virtual tie between the Democratic candidates for President. Clinton has strength in the electoral count, Obama is stronger in pledged delegates. Seating half of the delegates will still not decide the nominee. I have proposed a sensible solution to party chairman Gov. Dean outlining such rules to include MI voters, and their delegates, in deciding the person to broker the tie – a Vice Presidential nominee. With two strong leadership candidates, it is unlikely either would be a good supportive running mate for the other. In a drafted VP scenario, however, no one can claim it is not fair, everyone participates, and the party remains united. Of course pundits will have a field day in this dream “VP broker” scenario, should the same fate befall the VP race as the Presidential candidates. ~Stephen L. Rush
If Hillary gets everything she wants (all the FL & MI delegates seated), Obama will still have an imposing lead. I’m sure Hillary will continue campaigning all the way to Denver unless and until the remaining delegates give Obama such an insurmountable lead that it will blow her out of denial!
It’ a pity so much time, money, and effort has been wasted appeasing Hillary!
Hillary, the Queen of Spin and a Legend in Her Own Mind!
http://klintons.com
If she does well in the last three contests she can win with the remaining Super Delegates. Unless the rules have changed in Puerto Rico (which they might) I believe that is a winner take all contest.
I believe I’ve corrected you on this before. The rules have not changed–Puerto Rico was never a winner-take-all contest. It was misreported as such and much of the MSM repeated the incorrect statement. Puerto Rico is proportional like every other Democratic primary.
Clinton will get 29-35 of Puerto Rico’s 55 pledged delegates. She will get a maximum of 7 each in South Dakota and Montana. She is not going to then convince every single one of 196 (one less than yesterday) remaining uncommitted supers to vote with her to achieve the magic number of 245. You are living in a dream world unencumbered by calculators.
“Even if half of the Michigan or Florida pledgeable delegates are seated, it does not account for the virtual tie….”
I always chuckle when I hear or see Clinton or Clinton surrogates talk about a “virtual tie”.
Obama raised more money from more people. He won more popular votes (no fuzzy math needed). He won more states. And, the only metric that really matters…he won more pledged delegates.
The oft-repeated phrase “virtual tie” is spin that can be translated as “we’re in second place”. In truth, there’s no such thing as a virtual tie in elections. The person who wins get the nod; the person who comes in second gets nada.
I’ve been a liberal Dem. all my life. Since we send Jimmy Carter all over the world to make sure elections are fair and every vote counts, maybe we should just place him in charge of our own elections.
It is truely unfair that Michigan and especially Florida’s votes won’t count! And no I am not a Hilary supporter and I’m not a Obama groupie either. I’m a Democrat. I fought for votes to be counted in Florida in 2000, I fought against the Republican’s stealing, trashing and manipulating the election of 2004 in Ohio. How can I call myself a Democrat and not fight for every man and woman’s vote to count! At the end of the day, whoever wins is fine. But don’t punish these fine people in Michigan and Florida and say “well will give you a half vote” that is just so condescending and un-democratic!
Nick,
The elections in Michigan and Florida were sham elections. In Michigan, candidates removed their names from the ballots because the rules said it wouldn’t count. In Florida, candidates didn’t campaign because the rules said it wouldn’t count. In both states, voters stayed home because the rules said the elections wouldn’t count. To argue that those votes should be counted is ludicrous on it’s face.
You’re anger is entirely justified, entirely belated, and I suspect, aimed at the wrong people.
Back to the candidates. Obama honored the Four State Pledge and Hillary violated it. Now Hillary wants the DNC to punish Obama for his honesty and be rewarded for her dishonesty. Despite her claims to the contrary, she doesn’t give a rat’s ass about “enfranchising v. disenfranchising” the voters of Michigan and Florida.
Maria said: “Clinton will get 29-35 of Puerto Rico’s 55 pledged delegates. She will get a maximum of 7 each in South Dakota and Montana. She is not going to then convince every single one of 196 (one less than yesterday) remaining uncommitted supers to vote with her to achieve the magic number of 245. You are living in a dream world unencumbered by calculators.”
Thanks for the corrected info on PR. That did seem a little strange to me, though it would inflate the importance of the Island if it were winner take all.
As for the dream, it’s not mine, it’s Clinton’s. I’m just not going to stamp on it as though I had some sort of right to drive her out of a nearly tied campaign.
And I see no reason to conclude she can’t get the delegates she needs. After all, some of them have already proved they are willing to switch allegence, so don’t count your committed Super Delegates until they vote.
Real Clear politics has some interesting numbers 5/28/08.
a nearly tied campaign
Clinton needs 245 delegates. Obama needs 44. She needs 5x as many delegates as he does. That campaign’s not tied, fella–it’s over.
And I see no reason to conclude she can’t get the delegates she needs. After all, some of them have already proved they are willing to switch allegence, so don’t count your committed Super Delegates until they vote.
Okay, so you’re moving the goalposts from “There are enough uncommitted supers for her to win” to “Enough committed delegates might switch to put her over.” Got it.
I asked you this yesterday and didn’t get an answer, so I’ll try again. What do you think the likelihood is of massive numbers of superdelegates and/or pledged delegates switching to Clinton now? I’m not asking about the possibility. I’m asking you what you think the probability is. We’ve established that until there’s an actual vote on the convention floor, you won’t accept the delegate counts, but I’d really like an honest answer on what you think the probability of Clinton prevailing at the convention is.
check this out…..
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1
something is wrong in democrats house….there is a covering up..there is a blackmail going on underground…someone is forcing pple to go against hillary and favour obama.so i guess Bill clinton is right
it is far better to seat all delegates because of fall election
David Axelrod whose daughter benefitted from hillary clinton and bill clinton health policies during her epilepsy illness is now contracted to smear hillary in public eye bcos shes seen as the only formidable woman who had come out to be the first america woman president…..why do we look at they husband and wife instead they can deliver?????…if you doubt what i ever said check out the link below
check this out…..
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1
Re # 67,
The Goal Post is and has always been the vote on the convention floor. That doesn’t change.
Got it, Lance. You won’t answer the question. I don’t blame you a bit–your position is untenable and your embarrassment about it is evident.
And of course everybody hugely respects what Harold Meyerson knows about feminism…the old &(((&^*NHK coot.
Remind us again what year and what century it is.