View Story | 384 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Which means it should reasonably come down to who wins the popular vote. Clinton could very easily win that.
Economic Populist Forum
by unlawflcombatnt on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:42:47 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
and not real math.
When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.
by clonecone on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:43:37 PM PDT
Roughly 5 million votes remain, if Michigan and Florida are NOT counted. If Clinton wins 60% of those remaining, she'll pick up 1 million more than Obama. If she wins 65%, she'll pick up 1.5 million more than Obama.
That'll put her in the lead, or very close, in the popular vote. If she gets anything from either Michigan or Florida, it will put her ahead in popular votes.
That's the "real" math.
by unlawflcombatnt on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:21:56 PM PDT
that you dixiecrats conveniently leave out of the equation. Iowa's votes count, even though we were smart enough to put her in third place.
MI and FL did not have sanctioned delegate selecting events. There's nothing to count.
by clonecone on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:44:34 PM PDT
want to act like Michigan's her state to call.
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." Orwell
by NotablyZen on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:05:46 PM PDT
the popular vote does not represent popular opinion. it doesnt count caucuses. it has mi/fl thrown in and those were flawed votes. some are open some are closed. etc. it makes no sense.
if the supers are interested in getting an idea of popular opinion among democrats, then they can see who is leading in the polls. or other things. but this popular vote crap is nonsense.
by Schwa SF on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:44:50 PM PDT
She can only win the popular vote by counting the Stalin Primary in Michigan, giving no votes to Obama.
Please, take your bullshit spin somewhere else.
"Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought on the unthinking." - John Maynard Keynes
by Drew J Jones on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:45:41 PM PDT
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:36:57 PM PDT
decided on the basis of committed and super delegates. We all knew that going into this contest.
Then, we get behind the nominee and work to win in November and bring our troops home.
Its the delegates that count
by Morgan Sandlin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:45:43 PM PDT
she threw in the towel on the caucus process.
As others have pointed out, the people she needs to convince with these new parsing theories are the ones who are less susceptible to those smoke and mirrors- the SDs. They know how twisted and forced her logic is and they ain't buying.
Next.
by brueso on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:50:17 PM PDT
others.
Obama came out on top. As a Richardson supporter I accepted that it wasn't his to be had. I'll work hard as can be for our nominee.
Most of Clinton's supporters will also. 99% of them know what is best for our country.
by Morgan Sandlin on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:00:55 PM PDT
of Doddmania. Dodd's support of Obama is what ultimately led me to Camp O.
Liberal parenting funnies at The Hausfrau Blog
by jamfan on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:09:21 PM PDT
There is no popular vote, since caucus states don't even necessarily report one. And the DNC rules call for the election to be decided on delegates, whether elected or super delegates. I thought this was totally obvious to everyone by now.
The real reason the Government wants to have a war in Iraq is TO HAVE A WAR IN IRAQ - Keith Olbermann
by thursdays child on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:20:38 PM PDT
not to clinton supporters
by claytoncharles on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:25:53 PM PDT
reality has an Obama bias?
by thursdays child on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:27:22 PM PDT
Obama is leading among super D's too.
by Stroszek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:45:53 PM PDT
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:47:44 PM PDT
Only if you use the absurdly intellectually dishonest tactic of counting Michigan as Clinton at 328K and Obama at...well...0.
Also, you would have to record Washington, Iowa, Nevada, and Maine at zero votes, although that would mean disenfranchising about 400,000 voters.
If you don't use that absurd metric, she has to average a lead of about 67-33 in the remaining states.
T'aint gonna happen, kid...
"You share your young with the wolves of the nation...Theres nothing left til you pray for salvation"Black Rebel Motorcycle Club "American X"
by Steve Singiser on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:48:46 PM PDT
who trudged though the ice and snow to vote against Hillary. If her votes are "real," aren't those?
May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.
by Fonsia on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:35:34 PM PDT
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:36:09 PM PDT
Like in the fantasy world where she gets ALL of the Michigan votes, even the 44% who voted against her. Or let's count Puerto Rico which cannot vote in the general. And let's exclude several states with caucuses. I know, let's have this scenario have a pretty unicorn too!
by gladkov on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:50:10 PM PDT
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:50:42 PM PDT
for guts. I hope you will be as dedicated to the Democratic Nominee whomever that might be.
by mystic on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:51:29 PM PDT
Popular votes are not part of the rules. Furthermore, if you are counting popular votes you are being unfair.
How can you possibly think it is fair to a caucus state like Minnesota (where people can only vote for 2 hours) to be compared to a primary state such as Wisconsin (where people can vote all day)?
Check out how many people voted in both states. You will find that Wisconsin had a MUCH larger voting turnout, despite being a smaller state.
The popular vote is a joke in this case. This is why they have pledged delegates to make things fair being caucus states and primary states. Furthermore, if popular vote was indeed how this should have been judged on, wouldn't it have been nice to tell Obama first? You can bet he would have put more resources into states such as CA and TX.
by mnguy66 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:52:40 PM PDT
Obama's supposed strength in the plains and west come from a few thousand activitsts showing up at a caucus. As TX showed, its not reflective of how people will vote when given a chance for real democracy.
The fact is that we are about to pick the weakest possible nominee who won with a coalition of anti-war activists and african americans. That's something like 15 to 20% of the general election -- not much of a coalition. And because blacks are bunched in the deep red states, the electoral college dilutes this coalition even further.
I doubt Hillary can pull this nomination out now, but I do think this is going to be really, really close and it need not have been. This should have been a layup of an election, but I can't see Obama winning FL or OH, while I can't see Hillary losing those states. Its really hard to win without at least one of them.
He can put together the Gore states (sans Florida) plus Colorado and Nevada. That's really the only winning hand I see for him.
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:36:59 PM PDT
Now, go and play along in your Hillary is 44 sandbox until we finish kicking Hillary's ass in the rest of the primaries.
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:38:32 PM PDT
who make me dislike Obama
I used to think a lot more highly of the guy until I ran into his supporters
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:40:54 PM PDT
Got it.
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:44:55 PM PDT
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:57:43 PM PDT
That is the same kind of excuse. And excuses are for losers.
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:58:43 PM PDT
statistics and stuff, continue to show, as they have for some time, that Obama garners more electoral votes than Hillary. So why are you making shit up?
The constitutional crisis was over two years ago. It's been full-scale erosion since then.
by geomoo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:59:43 PM PDT
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:03:36 PM PDT
look at any poll of polls right now and Hillary is wining the electoral college match up and Obama is losing it
look at this map, which shows Obama beating McCain in just one state that Clinton loses -- Colorado. In contrast, Hillary flips Ohio, Florida and WV.
that's the difference between winning and losing
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:09:08 PM PDT
Survey USA's map shows Obama doing better than Clinton. Either one could beat John McCain in the general election. But Obama has won this election fair and square. Hillary lost. The sooner that you can accept this fact, the more likely it is that we will beat John McCain.
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:15:38 PM PDT
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:15:55 PM PDT
http://www.surveyusa.com/...
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:17:04 PM PDT
its as of March 6, that's about a week before Obama's troubles with Wright began
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:20:48 PM PDT
And Real Clear Politics shows that Obama is doing no worse than Hillary. Look, this is not about some Scary Brown preacher. This is about ensuring that we will not bomb millions of Iranians and Iraqis back to the stone age. And that means ensuring that John McCain never gets elected President. Look, Hillary fought a good hard fight, but she has lost and it is over. Will you join us in our fight to take back the White House and make sure that John McCain never gets close to the nuclear trigger?
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:25:32 PM PDT
In fact, the 'kitchen sink' has hurt both candidates.
Nonetheless, Obama is STILL doing marginally better against McCain than is Clinton:
Pablano's 538.com
If toast always lands butter-side down, and cats always land on their feet, what happen if you strap toast on the back of a cat and drop it? -- Stephen Wright
by jacortina on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:41:24 PM PDT
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:44:19 PM PDT
They put her at 50-50 in WA, yet the site gives the EVs to McCain. If she wins either MI or WA, she wins, and the site puts her odds of winning those states at 41% and 50%. I don't see her losing either one but definitely not both.
The only state Obama has above a 40% chance of picking up according to the site is Ohio. So he can't win without Ohio. It's possible, but not tailor made for him.
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:56:15 PM PDT
The question is not about Obama; he'll do just fine. The question is about you. Why do you believe what the media tells you when they lied to you about Iraq?
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:58:09 PM PDT
except, of course, the one that just proved you wrong.
I can only begin to imagine your arguments if the shoe were on the other foot and people were making these absurd arguments for Obama to stay in the race. And of course these polls are skewed by the anti-Democratic and selfish behavior of Clinton supporters who say they will vote for McCain over Obama--proof enough of their irrationality.
by geomoo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:25:56 PM PDT
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:27:12 PM PDT
has any group of supporters had the unmitigated gall to argue that the delegate count should be overturned based on an unreliable prediction of who might do better in the GE. Never. Not one candidate. Get a grip.
by geomoo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:31:09 PM PDT
its pretty common. Last time was in 68, which is within my lifetime
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:34:22 PM PDT
Again, why do you believe what the media tells you when they lied to you about Iraq?
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:36:31 PM PDT
I remember it well. Here's an interesting quote from Wikipedia about the 1968 Democratic Convention:
The confusion of the convention, and the unhappiness of many liberals with the outcome, led the Democrats to begin reforms of their nominating process, increasing the role of primaries and decreasing the power of party delegates in the selection process.
And here you are arguing in favor of repeating the same mistakes that led to chaos at that Convention, undemocratically taking power away from the primaries and placing it back into the hands of superdelegates. Leading to chaos at least as devastating to the Dems as what happened then. I can only ask, what is the matter with you?
A repeat of 1968 is exactly what Rush Limbaugh has been salivating over. In fact, it's the last desperate hope of him and his ilk. Is it really worth it to you to empower that? What in God's name motivates you in this? Are you racist? Are you a one-issue voter on the basis of feminism? Do you have that skewed a view that Obama would be so terrible whereas Clinton would be that great? I can't imagine any rational basis for screwing over the Democratic Party, and by extension our country and the world, by continuing with baseless arguments to back wreckless damaging behavior by your candidate. This is as unfathomable to me as the behavior the criminals now controlling the executive branch. I'm not exaggerating. I can't imagine what is going on in your mind. How many ways do you have to be proven wrong?
WHAT THE HELL'S THE MATTER WITH YOU?
by geomoo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:48:23 PM PDT
that you're statement was false
and you seemed to have confirmed that you were making a false statement
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:35:32 PM PDT
was false. RFK was assassinated in 1968 while running for the nomination in CA. Where is the parallel with this election, for heaven's sake? I don't remember, nor have I read, of anyone making an argument that the rules of nomination should be changed because one if the candidates was unelectable. That convention was screwed up in so many ways, with LBJ unexpectedly deciding not to run. And rather than argue that the rules should be thrown out, as you suggest, the rules were followed but studied afterward (as is only appropriate) and changed. It is beyond me how you can find any glimmer of justification for your argument in those disastrous days for the Democratic Party and the country. There are parallels perhaps, but that time was so different in so many ways that your argument is basically absurd.
And yet, I am more than willing to lose a battle and win the war, which is my basic point. Even if there were a parallel, then that very paralled would argue forcefully, FORCEFULLY I scream, against the argument you are making. Yet with typical blinders and obsessive focus on a single tree, a twig even, you respond with apparent smugness that your little point carried the day. Forget the forest: that your example pointed to a time of tremendous suffering for our country and the world, that the very tactic you are arguing in favor of resulted in an extension of the war in Viet Nam and the election of the President whose legacy we and the world continue to suffer under with Cheney et al.
But you want to be right.
Since you seem to think facts only exist to support your preconceived notions, I don't suppose this ABC/Washington Post poll has had any impact on you. And BTW, it's brand new:
GENERAL ELECTION MATCHUPS OBAMA 51% McCain 44% Clinton 46 % McCain 43%
GENERAL ELECTION MATCHUPS
OBAMA 51% McCain 44%
Clinton 46 % McCain 43%
by geomoo on Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:37:31 PM PDT
NT
by NotablyZen on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:06:48 PM PDT
It tends to measure the depth of your support not just the distribution in the population. If people aren't willing to give up an evening to support you can you really call them supporters?
The reason Clinton did better in lots of primaries is she had way better name recognition and most Democrats have a favorable view of the Clinton administration. However, that is fragile where states like California would no longer go for Clinton if they voted again today. I mean how can Clinton win without California?
by sam storm on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:43:02 PM PDT
and if they can't get an ID and proof of citizenship, what does that say about their willingness to invest the time necessary to have a say in their government.
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:58:42 PM PDT
I don't know what the hell the immigration debate has to do with the topic of discussion.
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:00:08 PM PDT
its called an analogy. In this method, its used to ridicule a belief by pointing out the other person's internal inconsistencies
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:01:36 PM PDT
It was Hillary Clinton's people on the state parties who chose to fuck with the rules.
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:02:46 PM PDT
Selecting our nominee for the general election is completely different than voting for the president in the general election.
A caucus determines who has people willing to work to get them elected. A primary is far more about name recognition, media spending and image. In a caucus strategy and organization can triumph over fame and fortune and I think that for selecting a nominee that is probably a good thing.
by sam storm on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:34:30 AM PDT
"However, that is fragile where states like California would no longer go for Clinton if they voted again today. I mean how can Clinton win without California?"
What are you talking about???
Clinton annihilated Obama in California.
There's nothing "fragile" about her hold on California. Are you just making up the facts as you go?
Have you Obamatrons lost all touch with reality?? It appears you have.
And don't you just hate the fact that I posted actual copies of 3 polls here for you to see? Hard to argue when the facts are staring you right in the face, isn't it?
You can't make your usual false statements about the polls "showing a virtual tie", can you? (You know, like the way you did in California, howling that it was a "virtual tie.")
The facts are staring you in the face, and you can't concoct an Obama-like lie to dispute them.
by unlawflcombatnt on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:09:00 PM PDT
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM PDT
Obama does quite a bit better than Clinton against McCain now. Sorry to burst your bubble. Why can't you people lose gracefully--I guess you are like your fearless leader. She is delusional.
by Wings Like Eagles on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:33:33 PM PDT
Obama now has a 6% lead over Clinton in California. So if they were to hold a new primary Clinton very likely wouldn't win California. I was just making a dig at that stupid idea about winning the big states.
If we started the whole nomination race over again it is exceedingly unlikely that Clinton could win since she has lost groun in a lot of the early states.
by sam storm on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:26:12 AM PDT
The fact is that we are about to pick the weakest possible nominee who won with a coalition of anti-war activists and african americans.
I'm mising how ithere's explanation how the "the weakest possible candidate" managed to "win".
but I can't see Obama winning FL or OH, while I can't see Hillary losing those states.
Well, that's good enough for me. After all, you've probably won a presidential nomination or two of your own, right?
"For a man who will turn 72 this month, he's a surprisingly immature politician--erratic, impulsive and subject to peer pressure"-Newsweek.
by Inland on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:15:48 PM PDT
Obama has more support than just the 20% you claim- he leads McCain by several points nationwide in a new Washington Post poll.
Barack is the nominee, get over it.
Full Disclosure: I'm one of those "Hopemongers."
by Medude24 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:22:41 PM PDT
I'm saying the coalition that voted for him in the primary is 20%. That's the group that won the nomination for him -- the african american vote won a lot of primaries in the south, and the anti-war activists won a lot of caucuses.
I was getting more sanguine about Obama when he won VA and WI because he looked like he was going to reach beyond that base, but that just seems like ancient history now
The washpost poll is encouraging, but Gallup had him up by only 1% over the weekend.
Plus, he seems primed to win the popular vote but lose the election because of the geographic spread of his support. For example, he will narrow the big GOP margins of victory across the south by increasing black turnout, but he likely won't win a single southern state.
Look, that's just how I see it. I backed Hillary for a reason, and I think she's actually stronger now than at the start and he's weaker.
I think she's likely not going to win this thing now, but the Red Sox played out the last four games of the 2004 ALCS and look what happened
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:31:39 PM PDT
Look, you can't believe everything the media tells you about that. Hannity and the Republicans are screaming all the time about how Obama is going to be no different than McGovern. And you are reacting the way that they want you to -- by cowering in fear. Oh, boy -- we can't have those scary brown people running our country. Oh, boy -- we've got another Dukakis on our hands. Why do you believe everything the media tells you when they lied to you about Iraq and Watergate and Iran-Contra?
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:34:04 PM PDT
by chick ghandil on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:39:09 PM PDT
You are using his talking points. Why do you believe what the media tells you when they lied to you about Iraq?
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:45:29 PM PDT
The Republicans would've busted out a new scandal (real or half-real or fictitious; we know at least one sex scandal, a bunch of money scandals and pardon scandals are real) every week should HRC have been nominated (assuming that Obama has this locked up). W/o considering that aspect, every estimate you make of her coalition is error-prone and misleading.
OTOH, Obama has been pounded for the last 2.5 months, yet, he is more or less retaining his original coalition of about 35-45% white vote, 90% AA, 60-70% youth/new voters, higher education ("egg heads" as Begala mouthed off the other day; did he look at his head in the mirror, I wondered :)) etc for the primary. It's projection to the GE is giving him currently about 45% and slightly ahead of w/ McCain. Those are the GE #s after 2.5 months of simultaneous hammering he took both from external force (GOP) and (more weaking in the short run) internal force (HRC's negative campaign). Now that he is taking McCain head-on and his voter regn drive is underway, he'll start gaining steam vs JM, I expect.
Evan Bayh is a McCain/Lieberman clone.
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 07:19:50 PM PDT
He only trails by 1.6% in pollster.com averages:
Lieberman's pull and retired folks in FL may help McCain carry FL this time. I'd not make it a major "must win" state in a strategic plan for Obama.
Now, if someone told me 2 years ago that Obama would've finished withing 5% in the TX primary (which he did) and be within 10% of the Republican (which he is), I would've laughed. Wouldn't you have as well?
The Obama campaign is a phenomenon which means that risk and reward are both higher than an apriori well-known candidate The way he has handled himself through some roughing up from HRC and the rightwing so far (since late Feb) gives me the confidence that we'll be on the reward side of the scale come November with him as our flag bearer, especially because I suspect that he will wildly succeed in his 50-state voter registration (over)drive.
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:59:08 PM PDT
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:59:56 PM PDT
No.
Delegates only. Committed and Super.
"We should be able to deliver hot bottled water to dehydrated babies." John McCain
by llamaRCA on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:55:36 PM PDT
by Eternal Hope on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:56:38 PM PDT
by llamaRCA on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:01:43 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 384 comments