PDA

View Full Version : Newsweek: Even with the craziest of pro-Clinton assumptions, she loses to Obama


jAZ
03-06-2008, 11:44 PM
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

Hillary’s New Math Problem
Tuesday's big wins? The delegate calculus just got worse.

Jonathan Alter
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 6:48 PM ET Mar 5, 2008

Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless.

To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday--an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.

Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.

Hillary's only hope lies in the popular vote-a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee. (Wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

Projecting popular votes precisely is impossible because there's no way to calculate turnout. But Clinton would likely need do-overs in Michigan and Florida (whose January primaries didn't count because they broke Democratic Party rules). But even this probably wouldn't give her the necessary popular vote margins.

Remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot when voters there went to the polls. Even if he's trounced there (and Michigan, won by Jesse Jackson in 1988, has a large African-American vote in its primary), Obama would still win hundreds of thousands of popular votes. This is also an argument for why Obama may end up preferring a primary to a caucus in Michigan. (Obama has done better in caucuses).

Florida, with its heavy population of elderly and Jewish voters, might be a better place for Hillary to close the popular vote gap. But even if you assume she does five points better than her double-digit win there in the meaningless February primary (where no one campaigned), she would still fall short.

I'm no good at math, but with the help of "Slate’s Delegate Calculator" I've once again scoped out the rest of the primaries. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week. That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight. And this time I've assigned her even larger margins than I did before in Wyoming, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.

So here we go again:

Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Hillary's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.

Then on April 22, the big one-Pennsylvania-and it's a Hillary blow-out: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Hillary 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.

May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates.

Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 39 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. What happens then? Will Democrats come together before the Denver Convention opens in late August?

We know that Hillary is unlikely to quit. This will leave it up to the superdelegates to figure out how to settle on a nominee. With 205 already committed to Obama, he would need another 200 uncommitted superdelegates to get to the magic number of 2025 delegates needed to nominate. But that's only under my crazy pro-Hillary projections. More likely, Obama would need about 50-100 of the approximately 500 uncommitted superdelegates, which shouldn't be too difficult.

Jenson71
03-06-2008, 11:47 PM
It sounds like Obama has just about got this thing wrapped. It's just a secret the personality media is trying to hold back for ratings.

SBK
03-07-2008, 12:07 AM
Maybe I am wrong about this, but doesn't this nomination process this year show that especially on the democrat side it's really not up to the people? With all this talk of delegates and super delegates, skipping 2 states entirely---it just seems to me if I was a democrat I'd want to see some changes made to this process, and make sure that it's the people who decide the nominee...

orange
03-07-2008, 12:10 AM
"If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over."

The bolded part is the key. If she wins the popular vote - which will also mean she comes in with the momentum, and every big state except Illinois, and the do-overs in MI and FLA - no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters and vote against her.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 12:11 AM
It sounds like Obama has just about got this thing wrapped. It's just a secret the personality media is trying to hold back for ratings.
According to this article, Clinton gained 10 delegates (out of 444 total) this week. And she's getting a lot more positive press for winning both TX and OH, but the reality is, Obama will likely win more delegates in TX than Hillary does.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 12:14 AM
Maybe I am wrong about this, but doesn't this nomination process this year show that especially on the democrat side it's really not up to the people? With all this talk of delegates and super delegates, skipping 2 states entirely---it just seems to me if I was a democrat I'd want to see some changes made to this process, and make sure that it's the people who decide the nominee...

Superdelegates are stupid. On that it seems we all agree. I think this is the 1st year that almost anyone but the diest of the diehards have even heard of the superdelegates. I wonder if they will be eliminated in 2012.

SBK
03-07-2008, 12:17 AM
Superdelegates are stupid. On that it seems we all agree. I think this is the 1st year that almost anyone but the diest of the diehards have even heard of the superdelegates. I wonder if they will be eliminated in 2012.

Yeah, since this is an actual dogfight for the nomination we're seeing things that are rarely seen. The whole process just has an unfair or unjust air to it. Win the state, win the delegates, or boil that down to the county. Either way, our system works well for the general election, this nomination has seemed to me to be broken beyond repair.

Of course, democrats are good at doing that......:D (I just keeeding)

jAZ
03-07-2008, 12:24 AM
"If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over."

The bolded part is the key. If she wins the popular vote - which will also mean she comes in with the momentum, and every big state except Illinois, and the do-overs in MI and FLA - no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters and vote against her.

It takes the same sort of crazy math in order for her to gain the popular vote lead. Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in MI, so all the votes she got there are compared to his ZERO. He'll get a lot more than zero in that state.

And the reality is that the assumptions Alter uses here are batshit-crazy. It's entirely possible that Obama will win every state but PA, WV, KY and split those pretty closely. That's not assured, but it's also not a crazy assumption either.

Alter's best case scenario for Clinton is quite literally batshit-crazy.

patteeu
03-07-2008, 09:29 AM
It takes the same sort of crazy math in order for her to gain the popular vote lead.

No it doesn't. I'd agree that if they revote Michigan the odds are against her, but not nearly as long as they are in the race for pledged delegates. Barring a serious scandal (like Obama saying that the surge worked or something), she doesn't have a chance to catch up in the pledged delegate race. She's in the lead now and has a chance to finish ahead in the popular vote even if they take away her votes in Michigan and Florida and give Obama a do-over.

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 09:50 AM
No it doesn't. I'd agree that if they revote Michigan the odds are against her, but not nearly as long as they are in the race for pledged delegates. Barring a serious scandal (like Obama saying that the surge worked or something), she doesn't have a chance to catch up in the pledged delegate race. She's in the lead now and has a chance to finish ahead in the popular vote even if they take away her votes in Michigan and Florida and give Obama a do-over.

What I've read is that MI will hold a caucus rather than a primary. Given his outright wins in every caucus but Nevada (and the heavy black population), I like his chances of adding to his popular vote lead.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/06/breaking-michigan-caucus-likely-says-dnc-rules-committee-member.aspx

jAZ
03-07-2008, 09:53 AM
...give Obama a do-over.
Give Obama a do-over.

ROFL

patteeu
03-07-2008, 10:53 AM
What I've read is that MI will hold a caucus rather than a primary. Given his outright wins in every caucus but Nevada (and the heavy black population), I like his chances of adding to his popular vote lead.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/06/breaking-michigan-caucus-likely-says-dnc-rules-committee-member.aspx

I guess that if you take away over 800,000 votes from Hillary and replace them with a process that is unlikely to generate anywhere near that number of total votes, it works in Obama's favor. I doubt that Hillary will quit counting the 800,000 though when she pitches herself to superdelegates. And if she manages to beat Obama in the MI caucus and in PA, they're going to have to give her arguments some serious consideration.

chiefforlife
03-07-2008, 10:57 AM
Give Obama a do-over.

ROFL

I thought that was an interesting way to put it.:shake:

orange
03-07-2008, 11:10 AM
What I've read is that MI will hold a caucus rather than a primary.

I read that too this morning (in New Republic I think) but it was just a rumor.

Here's a quote from Clinton: On a "do-over" in Florida and Michigan, which held nominating contests that broke Democratic Party rules
I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/03/06/exclusive-interview-clinton-looks-ahead-to-mississippi.html

orange
03-07-2008, 11:16 AM
And the ball is definitely rolling in Hillary's favor as the Obama campaign implodes this week...

Goolsbee... Rice... Power...

Who's next?


.... and Rezko hasn't even gotten warmed up, yet.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 11:17 AM
Hillary wants those states to have a say and the will of the people respected, but only if the process works to her favor. Otherwise, f*ck the people of Michigan.

Since when can a candidate tell a state how to do their process?

jAZ
03-07-2008, 11:32 AM
I guess that if you take away over 800,000 votes from Hillary and replace them with a process that is unlikely to generate anywhere near that number of total votes, it works in Obama's favor. I doubt that Hillary will quit counting the 800,000 though when she pitches herself to superdelegates. And if she manages to beat Obama in the MI caucus and in PA, they're going to have to give her arguments some serious consideration.
You reach the level of Baghdad Bob if you give any credence to the value of an 800,000 net gain of popular votes for Clinton based on the results of the Soviet-Style MI primary.

A fair compairson discards such an unrealistic net gain in votes entirely. And once that's done, the massive gap in popular vote becomes clear. Which is the point.

orange
03-07-2008, 11:35 AM
It's a primary state. They had a primary. 600,000 people voted already. A caucus will exclude most of them.

"Since when can a candidate tell a state how to do their process?" It's politics - it's all about who has the power. If Clinton doesn't agree to whatever process Michigan comes up with, it will not fly. Period.

noa
03-07-2008, 11:43 AM
Maybe I am wrong about this, but doesn't this nomination process this year show that especially on the democrat side it's really not up to the people? With all this talk of delegates and super delegates, skipping 2 states entirely---it just seems to me if I was a democrat I'd want to see some changes made to this process, and make sure that it's the people who decide the nominee...

Its true. It really seems like a ridiculous process that should be completely revamped. I think the Dems will probably do that before the next election.

orange
03-07-2008, 11:45 AM
Its true. It really seems like a ridiculous process that should be completely revamped. I think the Dems will probably do that before the next election.

We can only hope.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 11:54 AM
It's a primary state. They had a primary. 600,000 people voted already. A caucus will exclude most of them.

"Since when can a candidate tell a state how to do their process?" It's politics - it's all about who has the power. If Clinton doesn't agree to whatever process Michigan comes up with, it will not fly. Period.
She will look like "a monster" who is "stooping to anything" if she tries to dictate to Michigan how Michigan should handle it's business.

She can get away with making her position known today. But as things finalize, she knows what I'm saying is true and will stop the posturing.

orange
03-07-2008, 11:59 AM
She'll look like a fighter going to the mat for ordinary working people who can't take time off in G W Bush's recession to waste half a day reaffirming choices they already made.

How about this formulation? Clinton keeps the delegates she won, and they have a caucus to divide up the "Uncommitted" vote.

Or they could do a mail-in primary for even less than the cost of a caucus.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 12:06 PM
She'll look like a fighter going to the mat for ordinary working people who can't take time off in G W Bush's recession to waste half a day reaffirming choices they already made.

How about this formulation? Clinton keeps the delegates she won, and they have a caucus to divide up the "Uncommitted" vote.

Or they could do a mail-in primary for even less than the cost of a caucus.

It is quite hilarious to see the Right coming to the aide of Hillary. Some of you really have no shame.

orange
03-07-2008, 12:08 PM
It is quite hilarious to see the Right coming to the aide of Hillary. Some of you really have no shame.

Dude, that is the most idiotic assumption. I'm a lifelong proud LIBERAL Democrat - and I think if you look up my prior posts in this forum, that will be obvious. Or just ask pattieeu or Mr. Kotter.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 12:10 PM
She'll look like a fighter going to the mat for ordinary working people who can't take time off in G W Bush's recession to waste half a day reaffirming choices they already made.

LMAO She's not fighting for ordinary people, she's fighting for her Presidential ambitions. She wasn't making a stink about Michigan and Florida not counting beforehand. She's doing it because she's desperate.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 12:13 PM
Dude, that is the most idiotic assumption. I'm a lifelong proud LIBERAL Democrat - and I think if you look up my prior posts in this forum, that will be obvious. Or just ask pattieeu or Mr. Kotter.

My mistake. I'm probably mistaking you for someone else.

orange
03-07-2008, 12:14 PM
And what will Saint Barack look like insisting FLA and MI voters be left out in the cold?

jAZ
03-07-2008, 12:18 PM
She'll look like a fighter going to the mat for ordinary working people who can't take time off in G W Bush's recession to waste half a day reaffirming choices they already made.

How about this formulation? Clinton keeps the delegates she won, and they have a caucus to divide up the "Uncommitted" vote.

Or they could do a mail-in primary for even less than the cost of a caucus.
If Michigan itself settles on a solution, she will backoff. Until then, she's going to push her agenda and that's fine. But don't confuse your spin of her spin today with reality.

Carlota69
03-07-2008, 12:19 PM
Anybody else on this board in a caucus state? They totally suck. If MI is a primary state, then the DNC should figure out how to finance a primary. Period.

And yes, the DEMS need to figure this crazy delegate bullshit out for next time, becuz this is ridiculous. No doubt, the REPUBS have it right when it comes to this part of the process.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 12:20 PM
And what will Saint Barack look like insisting FLA and MI voters be left out in the cold?

LMAO Yes, Barack took their delegates away.

Florida and Michigan were warned about moving their primaries and they did it anyway. Those are the rules. Barack knew it and so did Hillary. And she didn't have a problem with it until she needed the delegates.

orange
03-07-2008, 12:21 PM
If Michigan itself settles on a solution, she will backoff. Until then, she's going to push her agenda and that's fine. But don't confuse your spin of her spin today with reality.

Do you actually imagine that there are people in the Democratic leadership in Michigan who are not deeply involved in the presidential campaigns who are going to decide this?

jAZ
03-07-2008, 12:22 PM
She wasn't making a stink about Michigan and Florida not counting beforehand. She's doing it because she's desperate.
That's one thing I can't really believe that the media is letting Clinton and her surrogates get away with. Any bitching about this... whether by the state itself, the campaign itself or anyone taking up this "for the people" rhetoric... have ZERO credibility when they didn't fight this fight from the beginning.

The media is completely letting the Clinton camp get away with that nonsense at this point. It's rather pathetic.

HonestChieffan
03-07-2008, 12:24 PM
Dems have a problem...the leader going in on delegates is the one who has not won the popular vote...Not good. The one with ability to get popular vote is short on delegates...not good. They are in the old rock and hard place....watch old style party politics come to play, Hillary wins in the end.

orange
03-07-2008, 12:24 PM
LMAO Yes, Barack took their delegates away.

Florida and Michigan were warned about moving their primaries and they did it anyway. Those are the rules. Barack knew it and so did Hillary. And she didn't have a problem with it until she needed the delegates.

Florida Democrats had absolutely no choice in the matter. You must know that.

Michigan is a different case. If you want to punish Michigan's Democratic leadership for breaking the rules, how about letting the MI ELECTED delegates count, but not the MI SUPERDELEGATES (you know, the ones who actually broke the rules).

orange
03-07-2008, 12:26 PM
Dems have a problem...the leader going in on delegates is the one who has not won the popular vote...Not good. The one with ability to get popular vote is short on delegates...not good. They are in the old rock and hard place....watch old style party politics come to play, Hillary wins in the end.

I believe you are correct. But I also believe, based on how the winds are blowing now, that this won't be distasteful by the time the convention rolls around, because Hillary will have ALL the momentum and be the clear choice.

orange
03-07-2008, 12:30 PM
That's one thing I can't really believe that the media is letting Clinton and her surrogates get away with. Any bitching about this... whether by the state itself, the campaign itself or anyone taking up this "for the people" rhetoric... have ZERO credibility when they didn't fight this fight from the beginning.

The media is completely letting the Clinton camp get away with that nonsense at this point. It's rather pathetic.

The media is "letting her get away with it" because the Obama camp can't push that argument.

Sept. 30, 2007 - TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

"According to Sanchez and Tom Scarritt, Obama was asked during the event about making sure Floridians have a role in the nomination, despite the DNC sanctions and the pledge. Scarritt said Obama responded that he'll "do what's right by Florida voters.""

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 12:30 PM
Florida Democrats had absolutely no choice in the matter. You must know that.

I'm well aware of what happened with Florida, but the primary election was discounted beforehand and there was no campaigning in the state. Rules are rules.

Michigan is a different case. If you want to punish Michigan's Democratic leadership for breaking the rules, how about letting the MI ELECTED delegates count, but not the MI SUPERDELEGATES (you know, the ones who actually broke the rules).

Jesus Christ, he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Why do you have such a hard-on for Hillary and her desire to cheat the system?

jAZ
03-07-2008, 12:31 PM
Do you actually imagine that there are people in the Democratic leadership in Michigan who are not deeply involved in the presidential campaigns who are going to decide this?

What's going to decide this (and MI has come to grips with this reality) is $$$.

The state parties can't afford to fund $10-20M each to put on a full scale primary in each state. The DNC can't afford to piss away $20-40M that needs to go to support Senate and House candidates in the general. The states' legilatures can justify pissing away ANOTHER pile of money in order to meet the whims of a private nonprofit corporation that can't afford to pay for their own whims and don't like what the state bought them the first time around. The Clinton campaign likely can't pay for it themselves for all sorts of legal and financial reasons. Obama has no motivation + the same legal and financial considerations.

This is all just part of Clinton's efforts to look good. The reality is far different, and once she's gotten what she needs and can from this politically... she will particpate in whatever system the states can put in place.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 12:32 PM
The media is "letting her get away with it" because the Obama camp can't push that argument.

Sept. 30, 2007 - TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

"According to Sanchez and Tom Scarritt, Obama was asked during the event about making sure Floridians have a role in the nomination, despite the DNC sanctions and the pledge. Scarritt said Obama responded that he'll "do what's right by Florida voters.""

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

The Florida and Michigan delegates will end up being seated. The argument being made now is whether a discounted election will be used to determine them. And it won't. Either they'll re-do the elections in both states or both states will have their delegates seated after the nominee has basically been chosen.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 12:33 PM
Jesus Christ, he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
She cheated by leaving her name on when the others pulled them off. It's completely shady and the fact that the media is treating the context of this discussion as water under the bridge is absurd.

orange
03-07-2008, 12:35 PM
Anybody else on this board in a caucus state? They totally suck. If MI is a primary state, then the DNC should figure out how to finance a primary. Period.

And yes, the DEMS need to figure this crazy delegate bullshit out for next time, becuz this is ridiculous. No doubt, the REPUBS have it right when it comes to this part of the process.

Yes, CO is a caucus state. And we have a history of turning out for no-hopers on the Democratic side. Bad news for Obama.

orange
03-07-2008, 12:36 PM
Jesus Christ, he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Why do you have such a hard-on for Hillary and her desire to cheat the system?

He wasn't on the ballot AFTER he removed himself to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire.

Cochise
03-07-2008, 12:37 PM
He wasn't on the ballot AFTER he removed himself to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire.

Precisely

orange
03-07-2008, 12:38 PM
What's going to decide this (and MI has come to grips with this reality) is $$$.

The state parties can't afford to fund $10-20M each to put on a full scale primary in each state. The DNC can't afford to piss away $20-40M that needs to go to support Senate and House candidates in the general.

Which is why my two suggestions - caucus for the Undecideds or mail-in primary - are the most likely choices.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 12:40 PM
The media is "letting her get away with it" because the Obama camp can't push that argument.

Sept. 30, 2007 - TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.
I think you are speaking in thread with a deep lack of undestanding of what's going on here.

Ultimately once a nominee wins, both candidates would seat all delegates and those delegates would, in a show of unanimity vote unanimously for that nominee. That's how the showmanship of the conference works.

Everyone fully expects that FL and MI would get seated. That's long standing and not a "gotcha" for either candidate in the least.

It doesn't change anything from a media perspective. They are just choosing not to ask Hillary of any of her surrogates why they are only throwing this fit after they know what would benefit them politically.

Obama has really taken the high road on this. And I think to some extent he's reasonably sincere when he says basically that he's open to revotes, etc. Because he has a lot of confidence his his campaigns ability and his position WRT delegates.

She's hammering away at a politically favorable solution and given that, she should be called out for it by the media. They pass because they aren't the best at their jobs.

orange
03-07-2008, 12:40 PM
She cheated by leaving her name on when the others pulled them off. It's completely shady and the fact that the media is treating the context of this discussion as water under the bridge is absurd.

He pulled out because he was going to lose anyway. Come to grips with reality - you've shown you're capable on some posts.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 12:40 PM
He wasn't on the ballot AFTER he removed himself to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire.

LMAO Hillary left her name on so she could claim Michigan as a 'victory'.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 12:41 PM
He pulled out because he was going to lose anyway.

IT DIDN'T COUNT

orange
03-07-2008, 12:43 PM
LMAO Hillary left her name on so she could claim Michigan as a 'victory'.

Obama pulled out so he could claim he didn't run.

Have you ever heard of the word "polling?"

Why are Obama supporters fighting for a caucus if they think he could win a primary? That would be just the knockout punch he needs.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 12:49 PM
Obama pulled out so he could claim he didn't run.

He took it off just as the other Democratic candidates did. Hillary was in the minority on this, not Obama. Whether his name was on the ballot or not doesn't do anything to validate the primary. Michigan's in the same boat as Florida.

orange
03-07-2008, 12:50 PM
I think you are speaking in thread with a deep lack of undestanding of what's going on here.

Ultimately once a nominee wins, both candidates would seat all delegates and those delegates would, in a show of unanimity vote unanimously for that nominee. That's how the showmanship of the conference works.


So he promised to "do what's right" by Florida voters - but only if they voted for him. I see. ROFL

orange
03-07-2008, 12:51 PM
He took it along with the other Democratic candidates did. Hillary was in the minority on this, not Obama. Whether his name was on the ballot or not doesn't do anything to validate the primary. Michigan's in the same boat as Florida.

That's because she was WINNING. Surely you can see the difference!

jAZ
03-07-2008, 12:52 PM
Which is why my two suggestions - caucus for the Undecideds or mail-in primary - are the most likely choices.
The first primary didn't have any delegates to assign based upon the results. Clinton has ZERO delegates from that election. Same with FL. So your proposal is a complete non-starter. But it's flawed beyond that.

Your propsal, were it in theory possible... assumes that Obamas' supporters all bothered to vote that day and bothered to vote "uncommited". They surely didn't, so that uncommitted % is short of what he woudl have gotten were he on the ballot like Hillary. But even beyond that, you are suggesting to give Hillary all the delegates based an inflated % AND THEN you are suggesting to SPLIT THE REMAINDER along the caucus voting lines.

That would falsely inflate her delegate count even further.

Your suggestion is so deeply flawed on so many levels, I'm a little suprised you are presenting it with a straight face. Maybe you aren't.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 12:54 PM
So he promised to "do what's right" by Florida voters - but only if they voted for him. I see. ROFL
No. Only if he wins. Because she would do the same if she wins and he would no authority either way.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 12:56 PM
That's because she was WINNING. Surely you can see the difference!

That she wanted to be able to claim a meaningless victory? Yes, we can all see that. That was her intention all along. She's coupled that with downplaying states Obama has won that actually did award delegates.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 12:57 PM
Obama pulled out so he could claim he didn't run.

Have you ever heard of the word "polling?"

Why are Obama supporters fighting for a caucus if they think he could win a primary?

1) The candidates all agreed to pull out. Clinton lied and didn't.
2) CYA, just like Hillary pushing for primaries. Difference is she's behind badly and he's demonstrated delegate success even when she "wins" a primary state.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 12:57 PM
So he promised to "do what's right" by Florida voters - but only if they voted for him. I see. ROFL

He said he'd see that the delegates get seated. And they will. What you still have trouble understanding is that no delegates were awarded during the Florida primary. None. That was their punishment. You're acting as if they belong to Clinton and will be taken away.

orange
03-07-2008, 12:58 PM
The first primary didn't have any delegates to assign based upon the results. Clinton has ZERO delegates from that election. Same with FL. So your proposal is a complete non-starter. But it's flawed beyond that.

Your propsal, were it in theory possible... assumes that Obamas' supporters all bothered to vote that day and bothered to vote "uncommited". They surely didn't, so that uncommitted % is short of what he woudl have gotten were he on the ballot like Hillary. But even beyond that, you are suggesting to give Hillary all the delegates based an inflated % AND THEN you are suggesting to SPLIT THE REMAINDER along the caucus voting lines.

That would falsely inflate her delegate count even further.

Your suggestion is so deeply flawed on so many levels, I'm a little suprised you are presenting it with a straight face. Maybe you aren't.

Not entirely a straight face as far as the caucus for the Undecideds - I knew you wouldn't go for that - I threw it out there as a demonstration of why Clinton QUITE FAIRLY won't agree to a caucus.

As for the rest of your argument, you're wrong. Both Florida and Michigan chose BY LAW their delegates to the Democratic National Convention. It is the Democratic National Party that has ruled they won't be seated - but the delegates HAVE been elected.

orange
03-07-2008, 12:59 PM
He said he'd see that the delegates get seated. And they will. What you still have trouble understanding is that no delegates were awarded during the Florida primary. None. That was their punishment. You're acting as if they belong to Clinton and will be taken away.

See the reply I just put up to jAZ. If no delegates were awarded in Florida, just whom exactly was Obama going to seat?

Carlota69
03-07-2008, 01:01 PM
He took it off just as the other Democratic candidates did. Hillary was in the minority on this, not Obama. Whether his name was on the ballot or not doesn't do anything to validate the primary. Michigan's in the same boat as Florida.

I dont think it's the same boat.

In FL, they both were on the ballot, and neither campaigned. Yes, she had a fundraiser and he had some commercials run...I think FL should be counted as is (becuz there is no $$ to redo)

But MI is different...

He wasn't on the ballot, for whatever reason, and they should redo--but as a primary--if that's what the state is, a primary state. In the end, she'll take FL and he'll, more than likely, take MI and we move on from here...JMHO

alnorth
03-07-2008, 01:01 PM
He pulled out because he was going to lose anyway. Come to grips with reality - you've shown you're capable on some posts.

I dont believe thats true. He pulled out to get brownie points with the early voting states. According to the polls, Obama and Hillary are pretty close to tied in MI if a revote primary occurs.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 01:02 PM
Not entirely a straight face as far as the caucus for the Undecideds - I knew you wouldn't go for that - I threw it out there as a demonstration of why Clinton QUITE FAIRLY won't agree to a caucus.

Hillary would certainly agree to a caucus for the 'uncommitteds' as long as she got the other delegates. That's not even a question.

Her intention is to win a lot more delegates from the state. It's not about 'fairness' or 'working for the ordinary person' or whatever other false intention you want to give her credit for.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 01:03 PM
Not entirely a straight face as far as the caucus for the Undecideds - I knew you wouldn't go for that - I threw it out there as a demonstration of why Clinton QUITE FAIRLY won't agree to a caucus.
She doesn't have any authority to dictate ANYTHING. She has no veto on this process. This is communist Russia.

(as a side note, I don't see how your TIC example illustrates what you wanted it to... What did I miss?)

alnorth
03-07-2008, 01:04 PM
How about this crazy pro-Clinton assumption:

Aside from crushing Obama in Pennsylvania, which is basically expected. Suppose MI and FL reluctantly agree to re-vote, Clinton kills Obama in Florida, and edges him out in Michigan? At that point its a whole new ball game and she very easily could win the nomination.

These people who are relentlessly pounding the arguement that "the math doesnt work for Hillary" are just assuming that FL and MI wont count. That very well could happen, but its definitely not guaranteed. Rhetoric from the states aside, there is a lot of talk and movement towards a re-vote, and if that happens Obama could be in some pretty serious trouble.

orange
03-07-2008, 01:04 PM
I dont believe thats true. He pulled out to get brownie points with the early voting states. According to the polls, Obama and Hillary are pretty close to tied in MI if a revote primary occurs.

That's now. He was over twenty points behind then (maybe thirty).

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 01:06 PM
See the reply I just put up to jAZ. If no delegates were awarded in Florida, just whom exactly was Obama going to seat?

Florida has delegates. They just weren't awarded to anyone based on the results of the primary because the primary had already been stripped of them.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 01:08 PM
I dont think it's the same boat.

In FL, they both were on the ballot, and neither campaigned. Yes, she had a fundraiser and he had some commercials run...I think FL should be counted as is (becuz there is no $$ to redo)


So what about the people who didn't bother showing up to the polls because they knew their vote wouldn't count for anything?

orange
03-07-2008, 01:08 PM
She doesn't have any authority to dictate ANYTHING. She has no veto on this process. This is communist Russia.

(as a side note, I don't see how your TIC example illustrates what you wanted it to... What did I miss?)

No, and it's not the government we're talking about, either. It's a Political Party, and to the degree that she's the big cheese in the Political Party, that's what gives her a veto.

As for my example - Clinton supporters are every bit as outraged by the suggestion of cancelling the primary results and doing a caucus that will clearly favor Obama as you are outraged by my caucus for the undecideds.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 01:09 PM
As for the rest of your argument, you're wrong. Both Florida and Michigan chose BY LAW their delegates to the Democratic National Convention. It is the Democratic National Party that has ruled they won't be seated - but the delegates HAVE been elected.
You'll surely be able to demonstrate that authority by linking to meaningful documents that showing how state laws dictate inter-organizational policy.

You are wrong, but you obviously read something, so let's see it.

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 01:11 PM
I read that too this morning (in New Republic I think) but it was just a rumor.

Here's a quote from Clinton: On a "do-over" in Florida and Michigan, which held nominating contests that broke Democratic Party rules
I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/03/06/exclusive-interview-clinton-looks-ahead-to-mississippi.html

You're certainly right in that nothing appears to be set in stone. But we've seen Clinton give ground on a re-vote, which suggest to me that she'll eventually be forced to accept the method of the MI Dem party's choosing.

orange
03-07-2008, 01:12 PM
Florida has delegates. They just weren't awarded to anyone based on the results of the primary because the primary had already been stripped of them.

No. In each district, candidates - local politicos primarily, chosen by the campaigns - runs to be the delegate for that district. These delegate candidates are aligned with one or other national party. These are who you actually vote for. Just like in the general election, you're not voting for the presidential candidate, you're voting for electors who have declared for that candidate.

Hillary's candidates won the huge majority of those delegate seats in both Michigan and Florida, and ARE the delegates.

DaKCMan AP
03-07-2008, 01:13 PM
No, and it's not the government we're talking about, either. It's a Political Party, and to the degree that she's the big cheese in the Political Party, that's what gives her a veto.

As for my example - Clinton supporters are every bit as outraged by the suggestion of cancelling the primary results and doing a caucus that will clearly favor Obama as you are outraged by my caucus for the undecideds.

How can you be outraged about not counting something that everyone knew, and agreed to, going in would not count. It's ridiculous.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 01:13 PM
As for my example - Clinton supporters are every bit as outraged by the suggestion of cancelling the primary results and doing a caucus that will clearly favor Obama as you are outraged by my caucus for the undecideds.

The problem is Clinton has no higher ground here. She wants the people of those states to have their say. If a caucus is what Michigan decides is all Michigan can afford, then that's their decision. Either she thinks the people of the state should have their will respected or she doesn't.

Her distaste of the caucus process pretty much disrespects the will of the people in every state that does hold a caucus. It's why she discounts those particular states that Obama wins(except that she celebrated her win in Nevada, but go figure).

orange
03-07-2008, 01:15 PM
You'll surely be able to demonstrate that authority by linking to meaningful documents that showing how state laws dictate inter-organizational policy.

You are wrong, but you obviously read something, so let's see it.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/delegate.explainer/index.html

Carlota69
03-07-2008, 01:16 PM
So what about the people who didn't bother showing up to the polls because they knew their vote wouldn't count for anything?

Well, the problem, besides the overall **** up, is money. I was just trying to put out a solution to deal with that fact. Money is a very BIG issue in regards to this problem...just trying to find a fair way that is also penny pinching...

HonestChieffan
03-07-2008, 01:17 PM
I can see it now, Florida will again be accused of stealing an election. This time it goes to Hillary and the outrage on the Obama side will be delightful to watch. Bottom line is the powers that be in the party can see how weak the Obama appeal is when it comes under the slightest scrutiny and pressure.

orange
03-07-2008, 01:17 PM
You're certainly right in that nothing appears to be set in stone. But we've seen Clinton give ground on a re-vote, which suggest to me that she'll eventually be forced to accept the method of the MI Dem party's choosing.

Absolutely - but a majority of the MI Dem party leadership that will decide are HER partisans - or are local politicians who's constituents voted for her and will raise a stink. There's no way she'll be ignored.

orange
03-07-2008, 01:19 PM
So what about the people who didn't bother showing up to the polls because they knew their vote wouldn't count for anything?

What about the people who don't vote in any election? Tough.

...Although practically, I'm sure some ground might be given just to smooth things to a resolution.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 01:20 PM
No, and it's not the government we're talking about, either. It's a Political Party, and to the degree that she's the big cheese in the Political Party, that's what gives her a veto.

As for my example - Clinton supporters are every bit as outraged by the suggestion of cancelling the primary results and doing a caucus that will clearly favor Obama as you are outraged by my caucus for the undecideds.
You have so many things backwards that it's amazing.

First you say that state law in FL and MI mandate policies within the DNC. Now you are acknowledging the autonimy of the private party that is the state Dem Parties.

You've spun yourself so wildly you can't see straight, it seems.

But that aside... you also don't seem to know the difference between "veto" and "sway". Clinton has sway, but no veto.

Were she to object to the decision to hold a caucus (for example) in MI... what are her options. She has nothing but spin and bluster (same is true of Obama). The candidates have no authority. They don't "own" the party.

The best she could do is try to find some law that the caucus would violate... and use that authority to her favor. But even such a judge couldn't force one particular solution. Just block those that are illegal.

And he can't force the DNC to spend $40M on this revote. And he can't force the Dem voters to donate money to run the pro-Clinton system. And he can't force the legislature to spend money to fund a revote.

So even the legal avenue doesn't give her the authority to dictate outcomes. She can only sway. But at a certain point, the political cost of sway is more than the benefits of the tactic.

Though with her campaign, I'm not sure how far that line gets pushed beyond expectations.

Carlota69
03-07-2008, 01:20 PM
The problem is Clinton has no higher ground here. She wants the people of those states to have their say. If a caucus is what Michigan decides is all Michigan can afford, then that's their decision. Either she thinks the people of the state should have their will respected or she doesn't.

Her distaste of the caucus process pretty much disrespects the will of the people in every state that does hold a caucus. It's why she discounts those particular states that Obama wins(except that she celebrated her win in Nevada, but go figure).

Have you been to a caucus? They are the worst display of the democratic process I had ever, in my 20 years of voting, seen. If Michigan is a primary state, they should figure out a way to primary. I believe he will still win, no matter what, but the caucus system is VERY flawed.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 01:21 PM
Well, the problem, besides the overall **** up, is money. I was just trying to put out a solution to deal with that fact. Money is a very BIG issue in regards to this problem...just trying to find a fair way that is also penny pinching...

A caucus is nice and cheap, but Hillary's only going to be up for a representation of the people that is most beneficial for her.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 01:22 PM
What about the people who don't vote in any election? Tough.
Same could be said about those who don't vote in a June caucus in MI and FL. Right?

jAZ
03-07-2008, 01:23 PM
Absolutely - but a majority of the MI Dem party leadership that will decide are HER partisans - or are local politicians who's constituents voted for her and will raise a stink. There's no way she'll be ignored.
You are pretending like they have a choice. The don't really have one. It's about $$.

orange
03-07-2008, 01:24 PM
You have so many things backwards that it's amazing.

First you say that state law in FL and MI mandate policies within the DNC. Now you are acknowledging the autonimy of the private party that is the state Dem Parties.



No. State Law determines HOW and WHEN these elections are carried out in order for a Party to qualify to get their candidates on the State Ballot for the State Election of the Party's delegates at the State's expense.

orange
03-07-2008, 01:26 PM
Same could be said about those who don't vote in a June caucus in MI and FL. Right?

Except what you think doesn't matter.

What Hillary thinks matters A GREAT DEAL.

Carlota69
03-07-2008, 01:27 PM
A caucus is nice and cheap, but Hillary's only going to be up for a representation of the people that is most beneficial for her.

Well that's the name of the game isn't it? Obama wants what is best for him too, and I dont blame him, but dont be fooled.

Having said that, really the Caucus sytem is atrocious. I will NEVER participate in that again. If you ever participate, you may feel the same, you may not. However, IMO, what is fiscally and politically fair is a primary in MI (and let FL be becuz of $$). He'll win, but it needs to be fair.

Cochise
03-07-2008, 01:28 PM
A caucus is nice and cheap, but Hillary's only going to be up for a representation of the people that is most beneficial for her.

you mean the one where they actually all vote and they count up the votes to see who wins.

orange
03-07-2008, 01:28 PM
The candidates have no authority. They don't "own" the party.



That's so naive it's head-throbbing. Do I need to spell it out again? Most of the Democratic Party leadership in Michigan is aligned with Hillary and WON'T put forward any program that she doesn't sign off on.

Brock
03-07-2008, 01:28 PM
She will destroy this village in order to save it.

Carlota69
03-07-2008, 01:32 PM
A caucus is nice and cheap, but Hillary's only going to be up for a representation of the people that is most beneficial for her.

I just read on CNN about a Firehouse Caucus possibilty. It's a mix of primary and caucus. That could be fair and a good compromise.

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 01:32 PM
No. State Law determines HOW and WHEN these elections are carried out in order for a Party to qualify to get their candidates on the State Ballot for the State Election of the Party's delegates at the State's expense.

I'll leave it to the election lawyers, but my sneaking suspicion is that the state law doesn't address the possibility and mechanics of re-voting procedures.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 01:33 PM
That's so naive it's head-throbbing. Do I need to spell it out again? Most of the Democratic Party leadership in Michigan is aligned with Hillary and WON'T put forward any program that she doesn't sign off on.
They can put forward all the plans they want, but they deciding factor is money (see Ben Nelson, FL). MI and FL can't afford plans that favor Hillary.

HolmeZz
03-07-2008, 01:34 PM
you mean the one where they actually all vote and they count up the votes to see who wins.

Sure. You payin?

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 01:34 PM
She will destroy this village in order to save it.

"Winning. Winning. Winning. Winning. That's my measurement of success," she said. "Winning."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1719899-2,00.html

jAZ
03-07-2008, 01:35 PM
Except what you think doesn't matter.
Ahh, so you can tell past voters to shove it. But you can't handle hearing that your thoughts apply to future voters as well.

Got it.

orange
03-07-2008, 01:36 PM
You are pretending like they have a choice. The don't really have one. It's about $$.

Clinton raised $35 million in February. Obama raised $55 million. And that's with limits to contributions.

This primary won't have any limits to individual or corporate contributions. Politics is awash in money. The primaries could be financed.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 01:37 PM
No. State Law determines HOW and WHEN these elections are carried out in order for a Party to qualify to get their candidates on the State Ballot for the State Election of the Party's delegates at the State's expense.
Agreed, but that's not what you said before. You said state law in FL and MI assigned those delegates to Clinton. That's completely and totally false.

There are not delegetes in FL and MI to assign. Zero. State law mandated polls be open, but they were voting on thin air.

NewChief
03-07-2008, 01:38 PM
She will destroy this village in order to save it.


Should have said:

"She will raze this village in order to save it.";)

orange
03-07-2008, 01:38 PM
I'll leave it to the election lawyers, but my sneaking suspicion is that the state law doesn't address the possibility and mechanics of re-voting procedures.

Florida already sued the National Committees. Their case was thrown out - because the Parties have a right to set their own rules.

They can set their own rules for a revote - just not on the state's dime unless the state legislatures pass a law.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 01:40 PM
Clinton raised $35 million in February. Obama raised $55 million. And that's with limits to contributions.

This primary won't have any limits to individual or corporate contributions. Politics is awash in money. The primaries could be financed.
Tell me where the money comes from legally. You can't seem to seperate your desires from the reality of the moment.

Not everything you WANT to happen, can just magically happen just because you aren't aware of any limitations.

But explain to me who's going to give this money, who's going to agree to use it for this purpose and what laws permit it's use in that way.

You can't just say "money is out there" and leave the details to others to imagine away.

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 01:41 PM
Absolutely - but a majority of the MI Dem party leadership that will decide are HER partisans - or are local politicians who's constituents voted for her and will raise a stink. There's no way she'll be ignored.

Which idea do you think is more appealing to the MI electorate, counting their vote back in January (which wasn't originally going to be counted under the rules in place at the time) for the one major candidate left on the ballot or a May or June contest in which the whole country is watching and may decide the nomination?

There can't be overwhelming support for Clinton if 40% of the voters went with "other".

orange
03-07-2008, 01:42 PM
Agreed, but that's not what you said before. You said state law in FL and MI assigned those delegates to Clinton. That's completely and totally false.

There are not delegetes in FL and MI to assign. Zero. State law mandated polls be open, but they were voting on thin air.

I'm not going to go back and see exactly what I said. What I should have said is that Clinton-aligned delegates have already won most of the seats and are in fact the delegates of Florida and Michigan at this time.

Of course, the only reason I should have said that is so you couldn't parse every goddamned syllable and ignore the common meaning of "primary elections."

And you're simply wrong. Their are delegates. Not one single vote was cast in either state for Clinton or Obama - or McCain or any other presidential candidate for that matter. All the votes were for DELEGATES who had pledged to support one or another candidate.

Cave Johnson
03-07-2008, 01:46 PM
Of course, the only reason I should have said that is so you couldn't parse every goddamned syllable and ignore the common meaning of "primary elections."

Welcome to DC, orange!

orange
03-07-2008, 01:49 PM
Tell me where the money comes from legally. You can't seem to seperate your desires from the reality of the moment.

Not everything you WANT to happen, can just magically happen just because you aren't aware of any limitations.

But explain to me who's going to give this money, who's going to agree to use it for this purpose and what laws permit it's use in that way.

You can't just say "money is out there" and leave the details to others to imagine away.

DONATIONS. Soros could pay for this out of petty cash, for God's sake.

orange
03-07-2008, 01:50 PM
Welcome to DC, orange!

Thank you.

orange
03-07-2008, 01:51 PM
Which idea do you think is more appealing to the MI electorate, counting their vote back in January (which wasn't originally going to be counted under the rules in place at the time) for the one major candidate left on the ballot or a May or June contest in which the whole country is watching and may decide the nomination?

There can't be overwhelming support for Clinton if 40% of the voters went with "other".

I'm sure everyone would welcome another PRIMARY in Michigan - except Obama, of course.

She collected 55%, while "other" was everyone else* - Edwards, Obama, I think a couple others were still in.

*except Kucinich and Gravel I think, who were still on the ballot.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 01:53 PM
DONATIONS. Soros could pay for this out of petty cash, for God's sake.
Again, reality. Money doesn't fall out of the sky. People have to agree do donate, it has to be within campaign finance laws.

And those donors can only give so much, so this allocation of that money takes away from other allocations. Which is why the DNC is saying, you guys pay for yourself.

Because fundraising is hard, money doesn't just fall from the sky.

I'm asking you to think in terms of the details that exist in reality. Not the broadbrush thoughts of your hopes and desires.

orange
03-07-2008, 01:56 PM
Again, reality. Money doesn't fall out of the sky. People have to agree do donate, it has to be within campaign finance laws.

And those donors can only give so much, so this allocation of that money takes away from other allocations. Which is why the DNC is saying, you guys pay for yourself.

Because fundraising is hard, money doesn't just fall from the sky.

I'm asking you to think in terms of the details that exist in reality. Not the broadbrush thoughts of your hopes and desires.

Soft money: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/bigpicture2000/soft_money/index.ihtml

jAZ
03-07-2008, 01:56 PM
I'm not going to go back and see exactly what I said. What I should have said is that Clinton-aligned delegates have already won most of the seats and are in fact the delegates of Florida and Michigan at this time.

Of course, the only reason I should have said that is so you couldn't parse every goddamned syllable and ignore the common meaning of "primary elections."

And you're simply wrong. Their are delegates. Not one single vote was cast in either state for Clinton or Obama - or McCain or any other presidential candidate for that matter. All the votes were for DELEGATES who had pledged to support one or another candidate.
They are for delegate spots... to NOWHERE. Maybe the the FL and MI parties can get together and send them all to Orlando to see Mickey. Because those delegate slots aren't for anyting to do with this primary.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 02:00 PM
Soft money: http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/bigpicture2000/soft_money/index.ihtml

I'm sorry you've decided to stay broad brush on this. But it's good, because I am late.

Good to have another lib in this forum. Show up far more often. You have a lot to contribute here.

While I'm gone, if you have time to put together a coherent post addressing the financial, legal, opportunity cost and donor issues I mentioned, that would be great.

But FTR, I'm outa here for the weekend, so I might not see it monday.

jAZ
03-07-2008, 02:02 PM
I'm sure everyone would welcome another PRIMARY in Michigan - except Obama, of course.

She collected 55%, while "other" was everyone else* - Edwards, Obama, I think a couple others were still in.

*except Kucinich and Gravel I think, who were still on the ballot.
She can't win with a 55-45 split. She needs 65-35 from here on out.

orange
03-07-2008, 02:04 PM
I'm sorry you've decided to stay broad brush on this. But it's good, because I am late.




I'm sorry you chose to ignore that I answered your question. Soft Money - unlimited contributions.

orange
03-07-2008, 02:06 PM
She can't win with a 55-45 split. She needs 65-35 from here on out.

And again, you're ignoring (or perhaps forgetting) my very first post on this thread - forget the pledged delegates; Hillary is in this to win the popular vote, and with it, the superdelegates.

patteeu
03-07-2008, 02:27 PM
You reach the level of Baghdad Bob if you give any credence to the value of an 800,000 net gain of popular votes for Clinton based on the results of the Soviet-Style MI primary.

A fair compairson discards such an unrealistic net gain in votes entirely. And once that's done, the massive gap in popular vote becomes clear. Which is the point.

Well even this Baghdad Bob can see that what you are trying to do is disenfranchise (traditional democrat meaning) over a million Michigan voters, 800,000 of whom cast a vote for Hillary. The didn't have to vote for her, they could have voted for "uncommitted". As a matter of fact, Obama supporters were calling on them to do just that.

patteeu
03-07-2008, 02:27 PM
Hillary wants those states to have a say and the will of the people respected, but only if the process works to her favor. Otherwise, f*ck the people of Michigan.

True. Same for Obama.

patteeu
03-07-2008, 02:31 PM
Dude, that is the most idiotic assumption. I'm a lifelong proud LIBERAL Democrat - and I think if you look up my prior posts in this forum, that will be obvious. Or just ask pattieeu or Mr. Kotter.

orange is a full fledged liberal as far as I've ever seen.

patteeu
03-07-2008, 02:51 PM
LMAO Hillary left her name on so she could claim Michigan as a 'victory'.

Hillary had expected to have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday. Why would she have thought she needed a Michigan victory?

orange
03-07-2008, 02:57 PM
Hillary had expected to have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday. Why would she have thought she needed a Michigan victory?

To appease Michigan voters and make them think they matter to her in the general election perhaps?

orange
03-08-2008, 10:37 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3511833.ece

FRESH from her victories in three out of four states last week and surging back in the national polls, Hillary Clinton has crafted a new strategy for winning the Democratic nomination which she believes will legitimise her claim to be president.

Clinton thinks she can win a majority of the popular vote in primaries and caucuses, even if she cannot overtake Barack Obama, her rival, in the number of “pledged” delegates who will vote to choose the candidate at the Democratic national convention in August.

The New York senator has unnerved Obama, who has been left reeling by a series of errors from senior policy advisers. The two opponents face an ugly six-week battle in the run-up to a potentially pivotal primary in Pennsylvania next month.


Hillary Clinton sets her sights on three ways to win
Clinton aims to win the popular vote, secure reruns in Florida and Michigan and undermine Obama's credibility as the candidate to beat McCain


Goddamn, I'm good!

Remember, folks, you read it HERE first.

Logical
03-08-2008, 11:18 PM
I'm sure everyone would welcome another PRIMARY in Michigan - except Obama, of course.

She collected 55%, while "other" was everyone else* - Edwards, Obama, I think a couple others were still in.

*except Kucinich and Gravel I think, who were still on the ballot.
This is confusing to me, everything I have seen shows a Michigan revote coming out with Obama winning, now in Fla it is a different story. But when you look at the vote totals a revote is unlikely to swing the total vote to Hillary.

patteeu
03-09-2008, 11:38 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3511833.ece

FRESH from her victories in three out of four states last week and surging back in the national polls, Hillary Clinton has crafted a new strategy for winning the Democratic nomination which she believes will legitimise her claim to be president.

Clinton thinks she can win a majority of the popular vote in primaries and caucuses, even if she cannot overtake Barack Obama, her rival, in the number of “pledged” delegates who will vote to choose the candidate at the Democratic national convention in August.

The New York senator has unnerved Obama, who has been left reeling by a series of errors from senior policy advisers. The two opponents face an ugly six-week battle in the run-up to a potentially pivotal primary in Pennsylvania next month.


Hillary Clinton sets her sights on three ways to win
Clinton aims to win the popular vote, secure reruns in Florida and Michigan and undermine Obama's credibility as the candidate to beat McCain


Goddamn, I'm good!

Remember, folks, you read it HERE first.

I'll go ahead and share the credit with you even though technically I was pointing out that Hillary was aiming for the popular vote angle first. You fleshed it out and brought it liberal credibility, I guess. :)

patteeu
03-09-2008, 11:48 AM
This is confusing to me, everything I have seen shows a Michigan revote coming out with Obama winning, now in Fla it is a different story. But when you look at the vote totals a revote is unlikely to swing the total vote to Hillary.

First, I don't think a revote in Michigan is as likely to be an Obama victory as you seem to think it is. A lot would depend on what type of revote it is and I don't think Hillary will agree to a contest that she believes she can't win. Today on Fox News Sunday, a democrat official from Michigan said everything is on the table in terms of a revote but that it would only happen with the agreement of both parties.

Second, regardless of whether a revote happens and what form that revote takes, I doubt that Hillary will abandon her claim to the 800,000 popular votes she received in the first Michigan primary (unless she doesn't need them to make the argument for winning the popular vote). The votes were cast in her name afterall. To throw them in the trash at this point invalidates the effort of all those who made the effort to go out to the polls that winter day. It doesn't matter what you or I think about that argument. All that matters is what the superdelegates think.

Third, if she does find a way to win both FL and MI in revotes, and has a popular vote argument, she can argue to the superdelegates that she had more strength in most of the states the dem nominee will have to win in the fall. Superdelegates want to win in the fall even more than they want to respect the results of the pledged delegate contest. Of course, they will have to weigh Hillary's argument against the potential of a backlash against her so it's a tough decision for each superdelegate to make. Maybe it will come down to which candidate is willing to pay more for each superdelegate vote. :shrug:

jAZ
03-10-2008, 09:55 AM
orange,

This is the sort of specificity WRT the financial, legal, opportunity cost and donor issues I mentioned that I was asking you to provide.

Fla. mail-in primary plan gains traction

Consensus Builds for Mail-In Primary in Florida; DNC Chairman Calls It 'Very Good Process'

JOHN DUNBAR
AP News

Mar 10, 2008 05:55 EST

A consensus began to emerge Sunday that the best way to give Florida's Democrats a voice in electing a candidate for president lies with the U.S. Postal Service.

The Democratic National Committee stripped Florida and Michigan of all their convention delegates — a total of 313 — for holding their primaries too early, making both contests meaningless. New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won both states, but no delegates. Her rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, did not appear on Michigan's ballot.

But the disqualification of Florida and Michigan has created a headache for the Democratic party due to the unexpected closeness of the race between Obama and Clinton. Officials from both states are trying to figure out how best to resolve the issue before the national convention in August.

DNC Chairman Howard Dean said a mail-in primary is "actually a very good process."

"Every voter gets a ballot in the mail," the former Vermont governor said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "It's comprehensive, you get to vote if you're in Iraq or in a nursing home. It's not a bad way to do this."

As for who pays, Dean said, "That is a problem," reiterating that the party needs its money for the general election campaign against Republican John McCain.

He also ruled out the state of Florida, where Republican Gov. Charlie Crist has nixed the idea. Dean suggested the state Democratic party might foot the bill. Florida's political parties, unlike the DNC, can accept unlimited contributions.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., supports the mail-in solution, comparing it to an absentee ballot process. He also pinned his hopes on the state party to pay for it.

"Since Governor Dean has said he's not going to do it in the DNC, the Florida Democratic Party's going to have to go out and raise the money," he said. "We're looking at about $6 million."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., appeared to be amenable to a mail-in solution for his state, though with less enthusiasm.

Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Levin said doing the election again would be against state law. "That can't be changed, and that can't be paid for," he said. Levin also said caucuses would be difficult, with 500 potential sites.

"The one possibility would be some kind of a mail-in caucus," he said. "But there's some real problems with that, too. Not just cost, but the security issue. How do you make sure that hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or more ballots can be properly counted and that duplicate ballots can be avoided?"

Obama currently has more delegates than Clinton, but that could be eclipsed if Clinton were to win a large enough portion of Florida and Michigan's delegates.

orange
03-10-2008, 01:42 PM
So they're talking about a mail-in primary and soft-money...

Where have I heard that before?...

Oh yeah, I remember... IN MY PRIOR POSTS ON THIS THREAD.