The Strangest Basketball Game in the World

This entire argument about Hillary using the popular vote to grab the nomination is akin to the following peculiar NBA basketball game.

Both teams start out knowing that the game will be decided based on who is leading on the scoreboard at the end of the game. Points will naturally be awarded for successful baskets....

As the game goes on, one team (which happens to be missing all its shots) decides that it will try to convince the referees that the game should be determined based upon the total number of PASSES each team has made....

:shake head:

Naturally, had both teams known that the game would be decided based upon the number of passes, the team that is leading in baskets DEFINITELY would have put more effort into passing.  (Setting aside the fact that the team leading in baskets also has more passes at the time when the losing team starts pushing for new rules mid-way through the game.)

If the Democratic Party wanted to base its candidate selection on popular vote, then it would have already done so.

It doesn't.

So no pleading after the fact is going to change that for Hillary.

Obama's campaign has been masterful, especially in targeting its efforts at "odd-numbered" delegate areas and other key sections of these states.

To me, this demonstrates what a great military tactician Obama will be WHEN he is elected President. He doesn't just try to carpet bomb everything; he skillfully chooses his targets and goes after them.

Had the Party's candidate selection been based on popular vote instead of delegate counts, then the way that Obama would have targeted his time/effort/money/people/energy would have been markedly different.

And Hillary would still be losing under those rules as well.... :-)

Sorry.

The argumentation that HRC is using to convince the superdelegates to base their decision on a different metric than the one that was agreed upon is simply absurd....

In fact, it reminds me a lot of President Bush's calls for retroactive immunity, having facilitated the breaking of the law. One simply cannot have a functioning system (or a fair game) if the rules can be changed after the fact.

The "popular vote counts" call is not the first time the Hillary has done this. She did it in both Florida and Michigan. First she signed a document stating:

"THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008)"

Every Democratic candidate had their names removed from the ballot in Michigan out of respect for the Party's decision.

Hillary didn't.

Now she is claiming, "The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored."

:shake head:

America has had enough of leaders who change the rules as they go along in order to meet their own personal needs. Rules are there for a reason.

Sorry.

•  Tips jar

  by TheOpinionGuy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:30:16 PM PDT

•  I think Hillary thinks it is a different kind

  of game. Like one of those reality shows where the winners are those folks who are willing to plunge their heads into a vat of worms and generally debase themselves. Hillary thinks you get the nomination by making a fool out of yourself, such as by going to Michigan and basically begging for a revote. And then begging Obama for one.
  If scoring on pure cringe-worthiness, HRC is the clear front runner.

  by crankyinNYC on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:42:13 PM PDT

•  Bad Analogy

  There is a defined winning score in this game, and neither Candidate can get there without Superdelegates.

  by The Baculum King on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:46:06 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps true, but how does that

    change the fact that Hillary wants to change the rules mid-game in order to have a better argument to make to the superdelegates?

    by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 02:08:00 AM PDT

  •  The Analogy is Apt...

    We're in the Final Four basketball tournament, and everyone knows that the willingness of the refs to call foul more against one team than the other can directly affect the game.

    Obama is winning in points (the way the game is scored) and should go to the Championship game against McCain.

    Hillary is whining that no team in past Championship games has ever won without a good passing game. The complaint is simple moot, and ignores the fact that a good team will play differently against different opponents.

    by TheOpinionGuy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:06:19 AM PDT

•  rules is rules

  as a kucinich supporter, i heard all about the rules, rules that excluded him from debates, rules that kept him off the ballot for not signing a loyalty oath to the democratic party. i was basically told tough shit, those are the rules.
  as far as i'm concerned they should play this out by the rules.

  by rasbobbo on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:48:59 PM PDT

•  Basketball?

  I thought we were playing golf!  Fewer points is better, right?

  by happymisanthropy on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 10:50:33 PM PDT

•  This is basketball Bill Laimbeer style..

     where theyre down 20 points with 30 seconds to go and bill is throwing those elbows all over the place...  
  Sometimes Players(politicians) do just want to cause damage even if they cant win..

  by Klaypott on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:31:37 PM PDT

•  The rules are the rules

  that is true. However we can't forget that in the end the person who is elected is supposed to reflect the will of the voters. Delegates and electoral votes are a workable substitute for the popular vote much of the time but it's inevitable that when they come out different than the popular vote you will get complaints. People expect that their elected officials will be determined by who gets the most votes so I can't imagine why we don't just do that.

  But obviously changing things right now in the middle of the race would be unfair (especially when Obama is winning).

  by amRadioHed on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 11:54:24 PM PDT