Jerome Armstrong at mydd attacks Kos

http://www.mydd.com/...

The real popular vote is very close. Clinton leads by just 12,506 votes, a lead of .04 percent. The numbers I passed on in a post yesterday about Clinton's lead in the popular vote excluded estimates from 4 caucus states, which I didn't realize until being able to check in later (and updated the post). I see that Markos flipped out with a tirade about it.

But, rather than be content with calling out a math error, Markos has to up the ante audacious to demand we "count the count the Michigan "uncommitted" votes for Obama". Ah, well, John Edwards was still in the race at the time and was surely in the same boat, having also pulled his name off the ballot in Michigan. At least Markos isn't calling for Texans that caucused to have their votes counted twice, or that Puerto Rico votes won't count... yet.

Jerome Armstrong is now a political HACK. Mydd is now offically My Daily Denial!

Jerome Armstrong blames Obama for Obama not being on in Michigan.

No one but Obama is to blame for his having no votes in Michigan. His campaign came up with the gambit to take his name off the ballot in MI to score cheap points in IA, and his campaign took the lead in convincing Edwards and Richardson to follow along and remove their names from the MI ballot to try and force Clinton to follow suit (my sources are from top people in the Edwards campaign). it didn't work, Clinton took the hit of the political stunt and kept her name on the ballot in Michigan.

Whatever they are smoking I do not want any.

•  heading out

  going to the Byron Nelson golf tournment my dad got tickets.

  by AHiddenSaint on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:57:50 AM PDT

  •  Markos also used to agree with Jerome

    Jerome Armstrong blames Obama for Obama not being on in Michigan.

    Check this post by Markos

    What's more, Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

    So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

    by gaf on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:26:42 AM PDT

•  Flesh the diary out a little more

  and give some arguments to railroad Jerome 'pollstrologer par excellence/political hack' Armstrong's trollish highly stupid incoherent arguments.

  by soms on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:58:41 AM PDT

  •  It is obvious that Armstrong is on the Clinton

    payroll

    by aaraujo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:10:43 AM PDT

    •  If he was on the Clinton payroll

      he would be listed somewhere in an FEC filing. If you have evidence, show iy. If not, don't make the accusations

      Personally, I never discount people being stupid for free.

      by MissLaura on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:28:34 AM PDT

      •   <g> I'm not sure that aaraujo was being

        literal, though I agree with your assessment.

        I almost replied to the post that 'Unfortunately, he's not, which makes it all the sadder'.

        by Morgan Sandlin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:37:04 AM PDT

  •  I believe that kos already fleshed this out

    yesterday.

    by wader on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:13:00 AM PDT

    •  Not completely

      The diary above corrects the missing 4 caucus states, so that part of Kos's objection is rectified. Kos's assignment of uncommitted MI votes does not pass the smell test because as the diary correctly points out Edwards was still in the race.

      by 1918 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:22:00 AM PDT

      •  What *really* doesn't pass the smell test...

        ...is the Clinton Campaign demanding, with a straight face, that a primary election with only one name on the ballot be treated as it if was in some way a real election, not the Clinton-only sham it obviously is.

        Do they really believe we're all that stupid?  That we won't notice that their idea of "fair" is zero votes for their opponent?  Apparently Michiganders who are for Obama are to be added to the every-growing list of states and constituencies that "don't count" because they didn't choose the DLC's Annointed One.

        Prog

        by Progressive Witness on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:43:22 AM PDT

        •  They never discussed "fair"

          and they obviously are not interested in the concept either. But nonetheless, if you want to total up all popular votes cast then Obama does indeed get zero in MI.

          Unless of course he had some write-ins.

          by 1918 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:49:32 AM PDT

          •  And that, of course...

            ...is why you can't have any serious discussion of a hypothetical "popular vote" metric if you include Michigan in that metric without somehow balancing the Michigan estimate, based on exit polling or whatever.

            Otherwise we're just playing Calvinball, where every possible metric must be arbitrarily skewed to benefit Hillary Clinton.

            by Progressive Witness on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:56:08 AM PDT

            •  It is not hypothetical

              unless you try to "balance" it by assigning votes to Obama. Actual votes were cast, they can and have been counted and constitute an actual and real number. Total all of those actual and real numbers and you have an actual and real vote total, nothing hypothetical about it.

              Now whether that number has any value is another discussion.

              by 1918 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:04:21 AM PDT

              •  The entire popular vote discussion is...

                ...hypothetical, because the national system for Democrats is based on delegates, not national popular vote.  And it is precisely that there are zero votes for Obama in Michigan that makes it a sham.  An "actual and real" number that comes from an unsanctioned Potempkin vote hasn't any value at all.  That's not "another discussion," at the end of the day it's the only discussion.

                You want to shove zero votes in Michigan for one of the two remaining candidates down the Party's throat?  Fine, go ahead and try.  But don't complain about the blowback from all over the Party once it sinks in how antidemocratic that is.

                Prog

                by Progressive Witness on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:26:48 AM PDT

                •  The discussion is hypothetical ...

                  but the numbers are not. Simple math, the numbers exist, add them up. If you do not like the numbers for whatever reason then simply discount them, pretty easy.

                  And nothing is being shoved down anyone's throat, make what you will of the count, do not like it - ignore it. The fact that they are being discussed at all is purely for the benefit of the remaining SDs, so course at the end of the day it will still come down to delegates.

                  by 1918 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:07:46 AM PDT

                  •  Who counts?

                    "The discussion is hypothetical ...but the numbers are not. Simple math, the numbers exist, add them up. If you do not like the numbers for whatever reason then simply discount them, pretty easy." -- 1918

                    "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." -- attributed to Stalin

                    "...in Clinton and Jerome's world, Clinton is ahead in the popular vote only IF you exclude four caucus states, IF you include two unsanctioned states, and IF you "disenfranchise" every voter in Michigan who voted against Hillary Clinton." -- Markos

                    by Albanius on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:08:12 PM PDT

      •  cmon

        you cant count her Michigan votes and give him none. That is ridiculous. SO many more dems would have voted and the demographic are actually pretty good for him in Michigan. Bullshit

        by Pennypacker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:09:12 AM PDT

        •  Woulda, coulda.

          Of course is it ridiculous, and of course it is not fair. Pretty much the expected outcome when the Dems design a totally ridiculous nominating process.

          But if you are counting raw numbers then the only thing that matters is the raw numbers. HRC has numbers from MI while Obama does not. Pretty simple.

          by 1918 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:15:41 AM PDT

      •  kos wasn't serious about the MI totals

        because they are irrelevant, IMHO.

        If his analysis of MI popular votes was meant to be complete and/or serious, I'd have expected an estimate of best/worst cases - kos tends to be wonky with election-related numbers.

        I'm not sure about your point about "correcting" the caucus states.

        In the end, all this critique is Clinton campaign PR masturbation in public, which I consider relatively obscene: the noise over popular vote is inane, because it doesn't matter in this nomination run.

        Sen. Clinton attempting to sell herself as more "electable", despite losing in every major statistic (before they manhandle the relatively meaningless popular vote tally) is not only folly, it's an incredibly stupid, short-sighted waste of our party's time.

        by wader on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:38:43 AM PDT

•  If Kos and Jerome are the same guy

  there's gotta be a psychiatrist somewhere with a new BMW...

  by decembersue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:59:03 AM PDT

  •  Or a Strek Trek transporter malfunction

    by Bill White on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:10:47 AM PDT

    •  Which one has the goatee? (nt)

      by TJ on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:37:01 AM PDT

•  Dude is whacked.

  How can you not give obama any michigan votes?  

  by Gator1980 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:59:09 AM PDT

  •  You're not thinking clearly

    and should probably spend more time at mydd where you'll learn Hillary logic.

    You see, Obama didn't win any votes in MI, so it's just crazy, crazy, cra-zy to give him any votes. See how simple that is?  Clinton won votes, Obama did not. Simple (Hillary) logic.

    by casperr on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:10:35 AM PDT

    •  Well, it does sound simple

      For the record, Obama supporter.

      However, if the popular vote count is a total of all votes cast, then they must be actual cast votes. Not numbers that are "assigned" based on some sort of debatable logic.

      by 1918 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:25:07 AM PDT

•  Jerome Armstrong is an idiot

  by DarkOmnius on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:59:25 AM PDT

  •  very concise and accurate - Bravo n/t

    by Prison4Bushco on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:17:08 AM PDT

•  I believe 'attack' may be a bit strong...

  though Mr. Armstrong has certainly been a tad petulant of late.

  Its hard to insist that you are truly wishing for the good of the Democratic Party while supporting the antics of a candidate who's only purpose is to tear it asunder.

  by Morgan Sandlin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:00:19 AM PDT

  •  A petulant tantrum throwing asshole

    who has grown in full reverse mode into a dribbling infant- that's what sucky pollstrologer /political hack Jerome is.
    He is emulating every single quality of HR Clinton by being who he has become.

    by soms on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:03:07 AM PDT

    •  lol..

      Well, that is another way of putting it :)

      by Morgan Sandlin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:24:31 AM PDT

•  Did the anti-reality kool aid

  get served over there?

  What happened to reality?

  by jalapeno on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:01:08 AM PDT

  •  It's over there, in a box.

    by Quicklund on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:34:57 AM PDT

    •  as opposed to the koolaid

      that's been circulated around here for months?

      by akr nyc on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:58:23 AM PDT

      •  No. It's scrunched in alongside the Ambiguity.

        No there isn't room, the ambiguity has put on weight.

        by Quicklund on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:36:26 AM PDT

      •  Please -

        the complete disconnect from reality and facts demonstrated by Clinton and some of her supporters is unbelievable.  You know that if the situation were reversed, and Obama kept coming up with new and ever-more schizophrenic reasons why he should win and why the rules shouldn't count, then you would be just as upset and incredulous as we are.  

        by wethepeople on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:38:02 AM PDT

•  Lessee, FL and MI refuse to follow the rules

  because rules don't matter, right?  They've been paying too much attention to the Bush administration.  

  Obama followed the rules, so he deserves to be punished?  Gotta love the Bush era.

  by Tracker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:01:28 AM PDT

  •  Last time I checked Bush didn't make that rule...

    Check with John Dean on that one.

    by dgil on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:06:14 AM PDT

    •  John Dean? Naw, It Wasn't John Dean

      John Dean was the Nixon's chief counsel who warned him that "there is a cancer growing around the presidency."

      You are referring to Dr. Howard Dean, who was required to follow the rules set by the previous DNC chair, a certain awful Terry McAuliffe

      by Empower Ink on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:22:30 AM PDT

•  This schism isn't going away any time soon

  Perhaps I lack objectivity, but all of the Clinton campaign's remaining arguments about their viability seem to have at their core a willingness to ignore or re-write the rules.

  Not a great way to start a potential administration.

  by Pacific NW Mark on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:01:38 AM PDT

  •  A very accurate observation....

    The Clinton's campaign is reduced to a tirade about "woulda, coulda, shoulda'.

    My personal favorite.."If this were the Republican primary Hillary would already be the winner".

    Unfortunately for Clinton she chose to run as a Democrat, only using Republican tactics <g>

    by Morgan Sandlin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:06:26 AM PDT

    •  If-You America (Jon Stewart)

      by Bill White on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:10:18 AM PDT

      •  I believe that was FU America

        just a matter of how you heard it...

        by SnowItch on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:19:59 AM PDT

        •  Spelling, phonetics, implied meanings

          It is all so confusing . . .

          by Bill White on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:21:00 AM PDT

  •  I wonder what Hillary is thinking.

    Does she think she'll go back to the Senate and all her supporters will fall in line and everyone will kiss and make up?  She's at the point where she's damaging her future political prospects.

    by msanthrope on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:58:06 AM PDT

•  Jerome Armstrong is the most stupid

  analyst in the blogosphere right now.

  He does not have thick skin, he is continually wrong and has been through this primary race, and he let one of the leading progressive sites go down the toilet.

  Who is listening to him?  No one but the ones grapsing on non-reality than reality about Hillary Clinton.

  When this is over, who is going to be quoting or listening to him?  NO ONE.

  by icebergslim on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:02:04 AM PDT

  •  Remember his Super Tuesday prediction?

    He had Clinton winning Idaho. Anyone who made a phone call to an Idahoan, or checked an Idaho blog, could have told you that the super-organized, establishment-endorsed Obama campaign was going to win there.

    That crappy call, more than anything else he's blogged, convinced me that the 2008 Primaries iteration of Armstrong is a bitter fool who doesn't even check his facts.

    by daveweigel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:03:48 AM PDT

  •  I got temporary banned for pointing out

    that Poblano did much better on Super Tuesday than he did and I pointed out that there were polls and other signs such as offices opened, money raised from the state that pointed to Obama winning a lot of the places he did.  30 minutes later I was unbanned and his snide response was gone.

    by Student Guy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:04:37 AM PDT

    •  Wow

      that just says it all then doesn't it.

      by Drewid on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:22:57 AM PDT

    •  Again, he does not have thick skin.

      Who is listening to him?  Nobody of importance.  And his site has become a joke.  He did that, no one else did.

      If Obama was in the position as Clinton, I would have called for him to get out of the race, long time ago.  You have to be realistic of a candidate's chances and after losing 12 in a row, Obama would have BEEN GONE by now.  That is just a fact.

      Jerome's opinion about Obama is personal, read all his posts.  Not unbiased but biased.  That is the problem, he has let his personal feelings overturn the reality and fact.  And right now he is a running joke of the blogosphere.

      by icebergslim on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:28:31 AM PDT

    •  Fidel Armstrong

      That is who is running Mydd over there. He bans those that don't agree with him. Many black bloggers have been calling him out for his blatant bias. He has even mocked black bloggers at mydd.

      Unacceptable.

      by oak510 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:28:39 AM PDT

      •  He is totally unacceptable.

        I am AA and have been banned from there.  And don't give a shit, to be honest.  Most of the good posters have left that joint.  And he allowed it to stew into a race hating, baiting site against a democrat.  He is of no importance.

        by icebergslim on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:30:48 AM PDT

  •  Sad

    I actually feel really sad about that.  For some reason I can sympathize with these people a little.  I know they're feeling like shit about how this has gone for their candidate.  I wish there was a way to soothe the bad feelings and for them to remember to be GLAD that we had two really strong candidates for the race.  Regardless of preference, one of them inevitably becomes the nominee and will defeat McCain.  People can get really trapped inside their disappointments sometimes.  I hope things improve quickly after this tedious process is over. :(

    by Triscula on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:11:07 AM PDT

    •  Every one of the candidates I've voted for in the

      primaries has lost.  Every.  Single.  One.  I have never seen so many disappointed supporters with their heads spinning around in APRIL before.  This is not normal.

      by msanthrope on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:01:13 AM PDT

  •  Not to defend Jerome,

    but Dude, "most stupid?"
    Obviously you haven't been to Redstate, Free Republic, Little Green Footballs, etc., etc.

    by God loves goats on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:25:25 AM PDT

    •  I have drove by those sites,

      but for a progressive site to promote and elect DEMOCRATS, through this primary season, yeah he has been the most stupid right now.  He has not been right but wrong on Obama.  Again, read his posts, that says it all.

      by icebergslim on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:34:28 AM PDT

      •  Rephrase it to "most stupid progressive"

        and I'm right there with you.

        by God loves goats on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:23:15 AM PDT

    •  Or Taylor Marsh, Hillaryis44, or No Quarter.

      The refuge for people banned at myDD.

      by msanthrope on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:51:07 AM PDT

  •  Were it only so

    Unfortunately, I see a very good chance of a sunny future for Mr Armstrong and his MyDD.

    After the innauguration, there will be a substantial market demand for anti-Obama "progressive criticism". Everything Obama decides Hillary woulda decided better, sort of thing.  People who wish to bathe themselvs in that sort of rhetoric will need a place to go.  MyDD might well become that place.

    There will be significant demand for online Obama-hating bomb-throwing, at least in the immedeate future.  It will be a niche market, yes, but large enough to keep Mr Armstrong rolling in pagehits.

    by Quicklund on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:44:21 AM PDT

    •  Then he need to rename his site, if he is

      anti-Obama and he becomes the president.  For that, he need to go over to FOX NOISE.

      by icebergslim on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:52:00 AM PDT

•  Puerto Rico

  I'm dreading what would happen if Clinton moves ahead in the popular vote IF you add Puerto Rico. "She has more popular votes!" the Lanny Wolfsonstrongs will say. Ah, but only if you count an area that gets no vote for president in November.

  I'm not even going to address the Michigan nonsense. Superdelegates don't take it seriously. Only people like the alien who replaced Jerome Armstrong and blogs under his name.

  by daveweigel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:02:06 AM PDT

  •  That's right, PR doesn't count in the

    electoral map. It is a valid argument. Let's fight for its statehood and then hold their votes accountable and not before that please.

    by soms on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:04:42 AM PDT

  •  When I said back in March that PR would be her

    firewall, I was totally kidding.  This primary season has officially gone off the rails.

    by msanthrope on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:03:53 AM PDT

•  Engels never stabbed Marx in the back

  Nor, as far as I can tell, did Woodward ever do this to Burnstein.

  by Randian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:02:24 AM PDT

•  That's how Clinton supporters roll...

  They "attack" their own.  Don't think Kos gives two turds what Jerome thinks these days, "you know," seeing is how its mostly uninteligible drivel...

  by JTRicher on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:02:29 AM PDT

  •  Did you see the "my good friend, Jerome" phrase

    in a recent post by Markos?

    It made me laugh.

    by Bill White on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:09:28 AM PDT

    •  That must be the "flipped out"..

      part of the post JA mentioned.

      by God loves goats on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:27:57 AM PDT

  •  Though Marcos can certainly give us his

    opinion if he wishes to do so I believe that, yes, he probably does 'care'.

    Its always unfortunately to see an individual that you enjoyed and admired go down destructive and unreasonable paths.

    Mr. Armstrong is fast becoming a parody of himself.

    by Morgan Sandlin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:10:25 AM PDT

    •  'unfortunate'...

      My apologies..more coffee is obviously needed.

      by Morgan Sandlin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:15:08 AM PDT

•  Yeah, I am pretty much through with him.

  He cannot claim any progressive mantle at this point.  He is a defender of the DLC and he wants to rebuild the gates.  

  by Delaware Dem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:02:42 AM PDT

•  Easy folks...

  we'll be needed his and the site's folks soon.  Let Markos and him call each other out for a couple of weeks.  They've both been having a rather vigorous and public argument.

  by OdinsEye2k on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:04:38 AM PDT

  •  That is not a certainty

    I fully understand where you are coming from: the essential closing of the ranks before November.

    But keep in mind there will be some people who ordinarilly vote Democratic but will not vote for Sen Obama this November.  There will be an online niche market for anti-Obama bomb-throwing. These are the people who have no use for inclusiveness during the Obama administation.  MyDD might decide to be the site that caters to that niche market. We will see.

    by Quicklund on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:00:18 AM PDT

  •  I don't know, I think we're going to have to

    write off a certain amount of them and hope that we recruit enough new voters to make up for them.  Seriously,look at their posts.  How exactly is Obama going to convert people who think he consorts with terrorist (possibly because of his "Muslim inflences) and all his supporters are thuggish college kids?  That is one of the things that doomed Dean; luckily, Obama is a much better politician.

    by msanthrope on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:09:22 AM PDT

    •  80 million eligible voters didn't vote in 2004

      for President. more or less about 40% of eligible voters. (about 122 million did vote). That's a pretty deep pool to fish from! The popular vote margin in 2004 was only about 3 million votes.

      by jennifer poole on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:39:37 AM PDT

•  Arrrgh

  I'm hearing that Michigan argument more and more and makes me want to scream..  HRC supporters are saying "See Hillary was smarter to leave her name on the ballot and Obama screwed up by taking it off so Hillary wins MI"....  Can't. take. any. more..

  by ebbinflo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:04:38 AM PDT

•  He is so intellectually dishonest.

  Hilliary should get the MI votes because she was brave enough to stay on the ballot and take the "hits".  

  You're killing me.  It wasn't about "taking the hits". It was about agreeing to follow the party rules.  The rest did.  Ms. Clinton said she would.  Now that she needs those votes, everyone is supposed to forget what really happened and follow the story she wants to be true instead of the facts.

  IOKIYAR...but we aren't

  by real world chick on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:04:39 AM PDT

•  Wtf?

  Why is this "popular vote" now a way to decide?When did the rules change? it is still the delegates, stupid.

  by allmost liberal european on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:05:22 AM PDT

  •  It became part of the logic

    when the Obama campaign made it so. Everyone realizes that the winning number cannot be reached by either candidate. Obama's argument lately has been that he leads in states won, delegates and popular vote - so going into the convention he should get the nod.

    HRC is now claiming the popular vote, which certainly dissembles part of Obama's argument.

    by 1918 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:29:35 AM PDT

    •  Certainly? No

      Making a case is not the same as proving the case. The case the Clintons make is weak.

      And moot; Sen Obama's nomination will be assured well before the Denver convention.

      by Quicklund on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:04:29 AM PDT

      •  It would appear

        that at the moment, HRCs claim to the popular vote total is stronger than Obama's. To the degree that it matters Obama's argument for the nomination is indeed weakened.

        Hopefully in the end it will not matter once the SDs make up their collective minds.

        by 1918 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:10:45 AM PDT

        •  Hilarous

          that at the moment, HRCs claim to the popular vote total is stronger than Obama's.

          Only by cherry-picking unsanctioned and one-candidate ballots and under-estimating caucus participation.

          And no, the mere act of verbally making a case is not the same as realizing the intended goal.  

          The same appplies to both the Clintons' claim to the popular vote, and to your repetitions wrt same in this thread.

          by Quicklund on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:27:23 AM PDT

          •  Hilarious ?

            Nobody is cherry picking or under estimating, the vote totals are available at Real Clear Politics. You can choose to ignore FL and MI if you wish but is it not partisan to observe that votes were cast in those states and are available to be counted.

            And no, the mere act of verbally making a case is not the same as realizing the intended goal.  

            Absolutely true, but of course this cuts both ways.

            by 1918 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:46:50 AM PDT

            •  Disingenuty then

              The very picture of it.  Just re-define the terms until the result meets approval.  If certain sanctioned contests are overlooked, certain unsanctionsed contests are accepted, and the beneficial half of other unsanctioned contests are counted while at the same time the detrimental other half of the same contest is ignored, why then under these rules Sen Clinton has a miniscule lead in the popopular vote!

              But keep repeating your fable and maybe it will come true.  Don first your ruby slippers and click your heels. It can't hurt.

              by Quicklund on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:23:33 PM PDT

•  I dont care if he disses Kos

  but blatant lies just dont cut it. Esp. the one about Michigan

  by snowbird42 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:06:05 AM PDT

•  Rules do not matter to Kool Aid addicts

  by pd1969 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:06:17 AM PDT

•  Whaaaat???!

  He has got to be kidding?

  No one but Obama is to blame for his having no votes in Michigan. His campaign came up with the gambit to take his name off the ballot in MI

  Gambit? What?

  They all knew the vote was against the rules, it wasn't "going to count for anything" to paraphrase a senator from NY.  Suddenly, obeying the rules is a fucking gambit?

  The rip off Steven Colbert a bit- the only state that the Clinton supporters deserve to win with 100% of the vote is the State of Denial.

  These people have totally lost all sense of reality.  

  by oxfdblue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:06:41 AM PDT

•  asdf

  Armstrong's a court jester.  Who the fuck cares what he thinks?  Let him bitch and moan and keep up his little DLC shtick.

  by Drew J Jones on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:06:47 AM PDT

•  But even Hillary agrees with Kos

  Just last month, Hillary said, "[Obama's] supporters ran a very aggressive campaign to try to get people to vote uncommitted." 3.13.08

  See, even Hillary acknowledges a vote for uncommitted was a vote for Obama.

  Is she gonna flip-flop AGAIN and retract yet ANOTHER statement on Michigan?

  by Al Rodgers on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:07:18 AM PDT

•  The only good front pagers left

  Todd and Johnathon.  Johnathon has a reality bias and Todd has decent journalistic qualities of not letting his Clinton bias show too much.

  by Student Guy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:08:26 AM PDT

•  The Michigan popular vote argument is one of

  the most cynical, absurd claims the Hillary campaign has made to date.

  by jeepdad on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:08:33 AM PDT

  •  Taken from a long string of

    cynical, absurd claims.

    And, at times, outright lies.

    by wader on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:11:27 AM PDT

•  And the battle continues...

  by norahschronicles on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:08:50 AM PDT

•  that site has gone completely wacky

  Whenever I read one of his posts I picture Jerome using his famous astrology skills to pull even more astrological based denial out of his ass. What's really scary is how so many of the members over there are even more wacked out than he is.

  by Prison4Bushco on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:10:20 AM PDT

•  I've found

  that visiting mydd is much more tolerable if you treat the Armstrong posts as Onion articles with typos.  The other posters are generally fair.  Just avoid the nauseating Alegre diaries.

  by Settembrini on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:12:10 AM PDT

•  These Clinton supporters make the Bush supporters

  look like sane honest folk.
  I can't seem to recall Bush acting anything at all like this in either 2000 or 2004.
  Sure there was plenty of crap thrown around, and the media climbed right on board the Bush spin machine, but what they didn't do was constantly change and alter their spin. They seemed pretty consistent with regards to the nonsense they peddled.

  by pd1969 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:13:51 AM PDT

  •  But... we're the party of change!

    HRC is showing that she won't get caught in quagmires of old spin the way Republicans do.

    by Allogenes on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:52:42 AM PDT

•  J. Armstrong=Taylor Marsh=IDIOTS

  He has jumped the shark.
  Maybe he just can't get over Markos not wanting to be with him?...LOL

  by gaiilonfong on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:17:10 AM PDT

  •  Both Taylor and Jerome

    appear to be missing the big picture ...

    

    Read it and weep I say!

    by From a distance on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:24:58 AM PDT

    •  Yes, but . . .

      . . . how many visitors to each site are thoughful and arituclate?

      And how many are lunatics?

      This would be my concern.

      (BTW: I fall into Group 2.)

      by raatzie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:31:21 AM PDT

      •  One might assume that the

        quality of the diaries are significantly (though not solely) reflected in the visits - isn't that why people come back?  That's my experience and what keeps me visiting here daily, though I very rarely visit mydd, and only when to taylormarsh once - ugh.

        by From a distance on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:38:22 AM PDT

•  Once a Venal Integrity-challenged Shill

  ...always a venal integrity-challenged shill.

  But then, I was never able to understand why anyone defended the skeevy s.o.b. in the first place.

  by greenskeeper on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:17:20 AM PDT

•  Jerome says Hillary is an Moron

  Lets face it, if Barack lost both Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary would be cruising to the nomination.

  but as Jerome says

  His campaign came up with the gambit to take his name off the ballot in MI to score cheap points in IA...

  It didn't work.  Clinton took the hit of the political stunt and kept her name on the ballot in Michigan.

  Ummm, yes it did, Jerome.  

  Barack won Iowa, which allowed him to become the frontrunner.

  She gained in Michigan, but she lost Iowa and the nomination.

  Smooth move, Jerome Team Clinton

  by Al Rodgers on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:18:52 AM PDT

•  wow myDD's Jerome really is dishonest.

  I have never been a MyDD reader....  never even went to that site until the other day, when the hoopla infighting got so interesting I decided to go have a look-see for myself....  it was not as user friendly a website as DK so I kinda left almost immediately but I did read the Kos fp diary about Jerome's 'fuzzy math' when counting the popular votes for hillary so I decided to read this follow up and WOW Jerome really IS a hack.. and a dishonest one at that.  

  He has to know what he wrote about Obama and MI is a total fabrication...  yet he wrote it and posted it just the same.  who is his audience?  who did he write that lie for?  and WHY does he think the people who read his stuff are so stupid???

  were Kos and Jerome really 'good friends" at one time or was Kos being 'snarky' in his diary the other day???  oh and is Jerome an offical blogger for the HRC campaign????

  by KnotIookin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:19:11 AM PDT

  •  Similar story

    It is inaccurate to say I "never heard of MyDD" until recently. Like you, the recent brouhaha motivated me to check it out.  When I did, I realized I had seen the page layout before. Some years ago, before I "got" how this DKos site really worked, I had viewed links to MyDD on sites like C&L. Just like I had viewed links to scores of sites. I didn't anything about MyDD really, had no idea of the DKos-MyDD history.  But at least now that I've checked out MyDD, I understand who is this mysterious "Jeorome" person Kos occasionally mentioned. :)

    As for his audience ... for whatever reason he seems to be courting the hard-core Obama-hating erstwhile progressive voters.  He might well hope to capture a large share of the anti-Obama niche market, instead of competing for a tiny sliver of the mainstream progressive market.

    by Quicklund on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:19:21 AM PDT

•  I am thankful for MyDD

  in that it gives those ridiculous and out of touch with reality bloggers a place to commiserate. More importantly, with their "strike", it keeps them away from here.

  by Prison4Bushco on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:21:18 AM PDT

  •  The free market produced a solution!

    Adam Smith would be proud.

    by Quicklund on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:20:08 AM PDT

•  Wait a minute . . .

  . . . my God, that's Jerome Armstrong's music!

  STEEL CHAIR! STELL CHAIR! STEEL CHAIR!

  by raatzie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:23:11 AM PDT

•  Just wish I could understand it

  Maybe I didn't pay enough attention to the various blogger relationships..did I miss some sort of massive falling-out between Markos and Jerome prior to this primary?  I thought that they had been friends and colleagues who both supported advancing progressives and growing grass roots Democratic activism.  It just doesn't make sense to me how one of the people who wrote 'Crashing the Gates' ends up being a big booster for Hillary Clinton, a DLC Democrat against a grass roots supported, map changing candidate like Obama.  What happened?  Did I miss something important here?

  by Triscula on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:24:57 AM PDT

  •  Jerome doesn't like Clinton...

    he hates Obama.  

    He's been clear several times that Clinton was his third or fourth choice when it came to the election.  First he wanted Mark Warner to run, then he wanted John Edwards.  I think he was interested in Dodd or Biden or Richardson to some degree as well, but I could be wrong.  He settled on Clinton because Obama was at the bottom of his list.  

    To be generous to him, his stated reason for disliking Obama is he's pissed off at his conciliatory language, and despite her flaws, Hillary is closer to his own "fighting Dem" preferences.  

    That said, I pegged awhile ago that he became a "bad faith blogger."  He just doesn't care how objective his statements are anymore - he sees his own posts on the blog mainly as a cudgel which can sow doubts on Obama as the likely nominee.  He has no problem weaving his opinion into posts, selectively quoting data which supports his argument, and generally talking out of his ass about things he doesn't know much about.  

    MyDD is still worthwhile though.  Jonathan Singer is great, and Todd Beeton, while in the tank for Clinton as well, is more pro-Clinton than anti-Obama, and willing to call out Clinton's fuck ups when they happen.  And the diaries have been improving somewhat since the worst of the freeper trolls have been cleared out.  

    by telephasic on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:41:36 AM PDT

    •  I wonder when reality kicks in

      And the leadership at MyDD catch on to the notion that encouraging this division among Democrats only serves the interests of Republicans.  I realize one could lob that same criticism at DKos, except for one thing: Obama is going to be the nominee and Clinton is not.  Time to pull the plug, or at least start dialing down the hardened support for a doomed candidate.  Continuing to beat the drums for her doesn't accomplish anything useful.

      by Triscula on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:47:12 AM PDT

    •  Ummm

      the freeper trolls are still there with the exception of Universal...

      by Student Guy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:19:05 AM PDT

      •  Is Universal a freeper?

        For some reason I thought he was just an insanely zealous Clinton supporting Democrat.  Oh well, as I said, I haven't paid enough attention to the blogger personalities to have a good understanding of this schism.

        by Triscula on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:40:46 AM PDT

        •  Well he is a Hillaryis44 person

          but if you get your work linked to and well regarded at Hotair, freerepublic, redstate, you become a member of those communities, that and he joined those sites to discuss his work.

          by Student Guy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:50:21 PM PDT

•  Owning a rifle makes one not a marksman.

  Same deal wrt blogs/coherency.

  by Quicklund on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:30:59 AM PDT

•  That was a tirade?

  Victim much, Jerome?

  BTW, I also wouldn't call this an "attack". It's too defensive.

  What is it about some Clinton supporters? Do they so identify with her they have to adopt the mantle of her victimhood too? Not to mention the blatant lying, treating everyone like a rube (expecting us to buy this bullshit) and delusional statements that spew from them with ease.

  Jerome has just officially and probably irreversibly joined the partisan mouthbreathers. He's a DLC hack. Pretty much anything he says from this point on can be discounted by progressives and gatecrashers.

  I sure do hope all the reputations people are trashing in the name of their disgraceful candidate is worth it.  Personally, I'm finished with the lot of them. I refuse to waste my time with intellectually dishonest people.

  by mentaldebris on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:32:29 AM PDT

•  This is idiotic for a number of reasons.

  What if all those caucus states that Obama kicked the shit out of Hillary in were Primaries? He would almost certainly have beaten her in each of those primaries as well -- and his popular vote totals would have been even higher than they currently are.

  We can play sematic, "what if" games all we want. The bottom line is the only thing that matters is delegates.

  by Hesiod on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:33:42 AM PDT

•  Complimenting Clinton for playing a political...

  Stunt is the best they can do over there, eh?  Well, I've said since Super Tuesday that Clinton had absolutely no foresight whatsoever, but now that I think about it, Clinton did have a bit of foresight, even at the beginning of the race.

  She was already hedging her bets in the eventuality that she would be losing during the middle of the nomination fight