Calling the Obama Camp's Bullsh*t

[Austinitis]

“’Jones would come back! Yes, Jones would come back! Surely, comrades,’ cried Squealer almost pleadingly, skipping from side to side and whisking his tail, ‘surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?’”

“Once again this argument was unanswerable. Certainly the animals did not want Jones back; if the holding of debates on Sunday was liable to bring him back, then the debates must stop.”

-George Orwell, Animal Farm

Possibly the most egregious example of the politics-of-fear being utilized by the Obama camp these days goes like this:

Regardless of whether they think he or she would make the best president, super-delegates must support whichever candidate takes the lead in pledged-delegates (however small that lead may be). To do otherwise risks a backlash by Obama supporters which would cost the eventual nominee the general election and lead to a return of Bush (in the form of McCain).

Repeated incessantly by Obama supporters and left unchallenged by Clinton supporters, this single piece of rhetoric is used a cudgel to silence debate and frame Obama’s candidacy as inevitable. And until those of us who support Hillary finally say no; until we refuse to be silenced and to have our candidate driven from the race; until we call this absurd bluff for what it is, we’ll always be handing Obama the nomination.

So it’s time to finally say what needs saying: Bullshit. There won’t be any backlash. And anyone who was half awake during the Republican primary should see that.

Calling the Bluff

A quick history lesson seems to be in order. If there was ever – and I mean EVER – a candidate for a political party in a political climate who might inspire a backlash it was John McCain for the Republicans in 2008. And if there has ever been – and I mean EVER – a party which could resist splintering after a primary, it’s the current Democratic party in 2008. So when the Republicans have managed to come together around John McCain, the idea that Hillary Clinton could somehow inspire some “killer-backlash” among the Democrats is at best an absurdity on its face.

Some Examples:

• Republicans in 2008: Are almost certainly going to lose. That means that the average Republican doesn’t really have a lot of motivation to support someone they don’t like in order to take the Whitehouse. They’re not risking much staying home, so why not use the 2008 election to send a message?
  Democrats in 2008: Have an excellent chance of winning. That means that the average Democrat does have a lot of motivation to support someone who isn’t their favorite in order to take the Whitehouse. If a Democrat stays homes and pouts they’re risking a lot and it’s unlikely they will.



• Republicans in 2008: Have been rocked by a series of scandals. Faith in their party leadership has been shaken (even a lot of the Republicans I know bought into the “Culture of Corruption” slogan from ’06). This means there’s not a lot of party loyalty to hold off a backlash.
  Democrats in 2008: Have largely avoided the crazy Republican scandal spree. Faith in the party and in party leadership, while never perfect, is certainly better than what the Republicans are working with.



• Republicans in 2008: Have a party platform that hasn’t really been working out too well. Tearing down government regulation? Doesn’t look too hot after the sub-prime crisis. Aggressive, unilateral foreign policy? The death toll in Iraq makes it glaringly obvious how stupid that is. Privatized health care? Not so attractive once people you know get sick. My guess is that even a lot of Republicans are feeling pretty sheepish about what they’re running on this year.
  Democrats in 2008: Represent at the very least the return of sanity to the Whitehouse. We’re pumped about our policies. We have a chance to make real changes and improve the world. I don’t know a single Democrat who would miss out on that in November so that they could pout about who was picked in August.

Yet the backlash argument gets dumber still. Because John McCain has every single one of the features which in Hillary Clinton are supposed to create a backlash. And once again, if those features didn’t cause a backlash against him, there’s no way there’ll be one against her.

• Argument: A lot of Democrats strongly dislike Hillary!
  Reply: Not nearly so much as Republicans disliked John McCain. I mean, seriously - right wing pundits brutalized John McCain in the media during the Republican primary. Nothing in the Democratic primary has gotten that nasty.



• Argument: If the Super-Delegates pick Hillary the election will seem stolen!
  Reply: It’s hard to see how super-delegates could “steal” an election by acting within party rules, but – more on point – John McCain faced the same charges and Republicans still rallied around him. Rush Limbaugh explicitly claimed that the media, through endorsements and friendly coverage, picked the Republican’s candidate for them. And a lot of Republicans felt that independents had crossed over and picked their candidate for them. And despite feeling that their primary was thus polluted, Republicans still got in line and backed McCain.



• Argument: A lot of Obama’s supporters really like Obama!
  Reply: A lot of Hillary’s supporters really like her (in fact, a recent Gallup poll suggests that her supporters would actually be the most likely to defect (not that we will)). Moreover, Democrats were excited about this election even before Obama was anywhere near the front. Obama may, then, be a vehicle for Democrat excitement, but here’s surely not exhaustive of it.
  
  And again, and more to the point, a lot of Republicans were enthusiastic about their favored candidate (or about “anyone but McCain”), yet they’re still backing their party. And once again, if they did it, so will we.

Finally, it’s worth stressing that McCain, unlike either of the Democratic candidates, actually diverges from his party’s base on a number of issues. McCain managed, let’s remember, to alienate large chunks of his base by pushing immigration reform and campaign finance reform. Nevertheless, at the end of the day Republicans still came together.

What the Republican primary tells us, then, is that, however divisive the primary, the far larger differences between the parties will, within a few weeks, get both sides back on the wagon.

And that’s why it’s important for those of us who support Hillary to call this nonsense for what it is. Because at the end of the day this absurd backlash narrative doesn’t represent a real possibility. It represents, instead, the calculated use of fear by the Obama camp to try to silence debate and force the hands of super-delegates.

Taking Back the Narrative

So we have our first step: When they say “backlash” we say “bullshit.” Those of us who support Hillary need to reject and denounce the narrative crafted by the Obama campaign and the fear mongering used to justify it.

Step two, then, is to cast the debate in terms which reflect the real purpose for which super-delegates were created. The job of super-delegates is to support the candidate who would make the best president of the United States. That candidate is Hillary Clinton.

And this is what makes this argument fundamentally a message of hope. Once we reject this “Hillary can never win” narrative; once we point out that both candidates need the support of super-delegates to win; once we drive home the message that the candidate most likely to win is the candidate most likely to make a great president, then Hillary becomes the front runner in this election.

One final point: There will be those who say that even if Hillary’s supporters reject the “delegate math” narrative, super-delegates will still find it compelling. This, I think, is what makes it so important that we Hillary supporters speak up and take back the narrative. The “backlash” narrative is only compelling when everyone repeats it like a mantra. The more we speak up, and the more we say no, the weaker that absurd meme becomes.

[Austinitis]

1. I have to go for about an hour

but I'll have it out with anyone who wants to dispute this as soon as I get back.

[surfermaw]

166. Obama always threating with their 11% is what makes me what to vote for someone else

[A-Schwarzenegger]

208. Uh, what?

[Austinitis]

2. I take it everyone agrees?

Or is this like that post from earlier today about people going quiet when you question them...

[A-Schwarzenegger]

12. You were only gone for 27 minutes.

:radio:

[VolcanoJen]

15. r o f l

}(

[Binka]

191. Not Nearly Long Enough

Jesus where do these bullshit people come from?

[CarbonDate]

153. First, welcome to DU.

Second, a somewhat less combative tone for at least your first couple of days might serve you well. Just sayin'.

[scrucon]

216. Yes, you take it correctly.

Not enough of us agree, but some definitely do.

[PseudoIntellect]

3. Well.

"Step two, then, is to cast the debate in terms which reflect the real purpose for which super-delegates were created. The job of super-delegates is to support the candidate who would make the best president of the United States. That candidate is Hillary Clinton."

Mostly wishful thinking. There is no evidence that the superdelegates intend to vote for Clinton by any majority. There is much more evidence that they will back Obama by majority. Saying that there is the slightest chance that they might not do that does not make it likely. Look to the dwindling superdelegate lead for Hillary. She had a lead of, what, 90 SDs before Super Tuesday. It is now closer to 34-36. She'll need a 70% victory in the final superdelegates, the way this is looking with the pledged delegates. These are the numbers.

SDs consider a number of things criteria for who they endorse. They have to consider electability, as well, because we are pushing a candidate toward the general election. Most of the voters have spoken, and for superdelegates, the electability of each candidate should be clear. Clinton will have to make an incredibly compelling set of arguments to win the superdelegates by a 40-point margin over Obama at the convention.

Obama's camp hasn't moved the goalposts a dozen times. I'd call it the more consistent campaign.

[Austinitis]

13. Not entirely

I think a lot of the reason that super-delegates are drifting to Obama is that Hillary's supporters have allowed him to frame the issue with "whoever gets the most pledged delegates should win." If start to challenge that framing, though, we can level the playing field a lot.

The main thing I'm trying to attack here is the reasoning that goes "Hillary can't catch up in pledged delegates so she can't win the nomination. She should, thus, drop out."

Maybe Hillary can't catch up in pledged delegates, but I don't think that puts her as far behind as people have been hinting it does.

[grantcart]

31. you are completely clueless super delegates like US Senators

are very experienced and are not influenced by poster's here framing anything. Hillary's numbers are soft soft soft.

Here is Super Delegate that is clearly going to vote for Obama that is still being counted for Clinton because technically he hasn't reached it yet. You are completely in denial of the facts of the results of the campaign, the lead in pledged delegates and the sentiment of super delegates

Wonder what Sen. Cantwell is discussing with former Clinton Super Delegate Rep. John Lewis



http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/03/03242008_Cantwell-supporting-Clinton--for-now.cfm
U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, one of Washington’s 17 Democratic super delegates, isn’t ready to shift her allegiance from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama — yet.

But in an interview with The Columbian’s editorial board Monday, she said the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season in late June will have the strongest claim to the party’s presidential nomination.

“I definitely don’t want the super delegates to be the deciding factor,” she said.

“If we have a candidate who has the most delegates and the most states,” the Democratic party should come together around that candidate, Cantwell said. The pledged delegate count will be the most important factor, she said, because that is the basis of the nominating process.

Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, in the popular vote and in the number of state primaries and caucuses he has won. Most political observers say the party’s rules of proportionality mean Clinton has virtually no chance of overtaking Obama in the pledged delegate count in the 10 primaries that remain.

[livingmadness]

138. She may not be ready but ...

the exciting news is that others are! The Wall Street Journal has a story online that Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minn. will endorse tomorrow, plus seven others in NC before the primary there. Apologies if this has already been posted, just thought it was relevant support to your argument :)

[latisha]

151. But doesn't it matter....

that Hillary won all the largest states and if given Florida and half of Michigan she'd be ahead in both the popular vote and pledge delegates? The DNC screwed her big time. Those two states have to get straightened out. People can't be disenfranchised because a few big wigs say they should be.

[dbmk]

168. DNC didn't screw anyone.

She had her people in DNC vote for the exclusion. And trust me she was all for it.

Grantcart has made an excellent piece on how this was in her favor to make as many states join up on Super Tuesday - which was perceieved to be in favor of the candidate with the best name recognition.

The only people screwing anyone, are the people responsible for moving the the dates in the two states.

[mkultra]

203. the issue with the Supers is that

If she takes a SD given victory over pledged delegates, it will represent a victory of power brokering over vote.


This could tear the party apart.

[Austinitis]

204. Once again

the whole point of the OP is that, regardless of how the super-delegates vote, the party isn't going to split.

Suggestions that it will are just fear monger used by the Obama camp to force the hands of super-delegates and suppress debate.

[mkultra]

207. any belief that it will not damage the party

is supposition.

[Austinitis]

209. Or an obvious truth

to anyone who managed to stay awake for the Republican primary...

I still say: "Damage the party" rhetoric is Orwellian fear-mongering.

[mkultra]

215. many thought her nomination was an obvious truth.

[scrucon]

217. Obama's camp repeats this lie interminably

that the party will split if Hillary doesn't quit. I'm sorry, but that's just not democratic. It's unAmerican. Let her stay. If she doesn't win, she doesn't win. What is up with you people hassling her to quit?!

[mkultra]

218. EVERYONE DOWN! SNIPER FIRE!

[verges]

247. It's a waste of resources and time.

There is only two months between the convention and the GE. This could be construed as a good point in that it doesn't allow the Repubs as long to target the eventual nominee. However, two months does allow enough time for an attack to be launched, but not adequately responded to. The two candidates need to start going after McCain NOW. That will make McCain have to campaign on two fronts and deplete his resources and limit the initial damage he can do, while at the same time damaging his campaign from two separate fronts as well.

But that ain't gonna happen. HRC and BO are going to continue to beat up on each other until one drops or one is chosen at the convention. If one drops, the other can then focus against McCain from that point (the point which the other candidate drops) until the GE. If they wait until the convention, several valuable months will have passed, not allowing enough time to win.

So, which candidate should drop? The one that leads in delegates, popular vote, states won and only needs to take 28% of yet undecided SD's? Or, should the candidate that needs to win every primary from this point on by at least 70% (something that candidate has only managed to do in their two home states)?

[jillan]

4. It's pretty quiet in here....

[SoCalDem]

5. Nice formatting

:thumbsup:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

10. Heh.

:daily: :bluebox: :weekly: :redbox: :tv: :graybox: :radio: :web:

[Cha]

41. That is totally the "Ultimate Irony", SoCal and

the best news for our country. :patriot: :bounce: :kick: :party: and our Par-tee!

[Adelante]

6. Welcome to DU, Austinitis

:hi:

[InsultComicDog]

7. So stating that people might find overturning the results of a series of contests as unfair is

nothing but a "mantra"?

Please.

[phrigndumass]

8. Rush, is that you?

:hide:

I am particularly fond of that formatting as well.

[JVS]

9. Ok, so you think that playing a superdelegate power play is viable. But WHY?

What makes you think that the supers want to play ball?

[Austinitis]

43. Well

Well, Hillary is going to have to make the case to them that she would be the best president. And if they end up deciding that Obama would be a better president then I'll accept that. But I object to the idea that Hillary doesn't even deserve to make that case; to the idea that everything should get decided by pledged-delegate leads (however small).

So the dispute here is over what should be the controlling issue in the super-delegates' decision making. Whether it should be delegate math or whether it should be candidate qualifications.

I think candidate qualifications.

[phrigndumass]

49. Candidate qualifications, yes. But not candidate qualifications alone.

I respect your opinion, but the will of the people should also be taken into consideration. Looking at candidate qualifications alone would be like looking at a person's resume without contacting their references, imho.

Is s/he qualified? Yes.

Well, what do others have to say about him/her? Impossible to know unless you actually give them a voice and let them weigh in. (Thus, the primaries and caucuses)

[OzarkDem]

131. Its a tie

and that's not likely to change anytime soon.

Both candidates deserve to have their say. No one needs to drop out ahead of the other.

[wileedog]

66. Her campaign to date

makes a strong case that she has no case.

A candidate up 30 in the polls, awash with cash and big backers and a media touting her inevitability.

3 months later she has lost the election, she is broke, she has not paid her bills, and she is pissing of half the party with her hostile rhetoric. Her future with the party is in serious jeopardy the more she continue to scorch the earth beneath her feet. She has made more complimentary remarks on the Republican nominee than the Dem probably nominee.

It is one of the worst, most incompetent campaign in primary history (NO PLAN after Super Tuesday? Are you friggin kidding me?) and it proves she has no business paying Mark Penn another couple of million dollars to let her screw up that election too.

Where is the case to let these people run the General Election that is strong enough to overturn the PD vote, or at all?

[redqueen]

173. That pretty much sums it up. (nt)

[merh]

95. Oh, so the delegates should just overlook the will of the people.

Who can get votes means nothing, who has the support of the people is insignificant, is that what you are saying?

[OzarkDem]

132. Its a tie

Clinton's supporters have as much right to representation as Obama supporters.

[JVS]

136. No ir's not a tie. It's a 140 odd delegate deficit against her.

[merh]

140. It's a tie?

erm, not really, but youze guys like exaggerating, so this post is not surprising. Even with those lusted after Michigan and Florida votes that Hillary is not entitled to because of the rules, she is still out of it 200,000 or so votes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Without those votes, she is really behind. Who knows what Pennsylvania will bring or North Carolina.

[scrucon]

219. Weird that we call ourselves Democrats

and our party the democratic party and we're trying to run Hillary out of the race. The superdelegates shouldn't even be there if their only raison-d'etre is to ratify the choice of the delegates. Come on!

[MadBadger]

11. Most Egregious kind of Politics of fear? Shame on you

You have no fuckin clue about the politics of fear than.

[Austinitis]

25. You have to be drinking from the deepest vats of Kool-Aid

not to see the parallels between the Orwell talk used to silence debate and the Obama camp's threats of a backlash bringing Bush back...

[anamandujano]

142. Truer words were never spoken.

[jettison]

179. your sig

Regarding your Frankenstein banner:

Don't get upset or put off when Obama supporters say stupid things like "Hillbot" and "Hillary" and post ugly photos of Hillary for effect. Once you stoop to that level, you're more of the same.

It's so interesting to me that this campaign has managed to turn the word "hope" into a bad word if you're a Hillary supporter. Talk about "drinking the kool-aid". Suddenly, for Hillary, "hope" has been made unfashionable. If Obama's signature word was "truth", then Hillary would certainly be mocking truth. Oh nevermind, she already does mock that word every day.

[anamandujano]

234. Thanks for noticing. You guys can dish it out but you can't f'ing take it.

I finally got sick of all the nasty Hillary photoshops. Mine is a reaction to months of that stuff.

And no, I don't get upset about the names. I use them myself. My new favorite is Obomba. Do you like it?

[jettison]

235. not particularly

So, if people act like little cretins, shop together some collages in poor taste, refer to a Hillary supporter as a "Hillbot", then everything becomes fair game for you? When in Rome, do as the Vandals? And what of all the posters who stay classy, never lower themselves into the mud, and don't have to employ pointless expletives like "f'ing" to get a point across that wasn't even very effective to begin with?

"You guys can dish it out but you can't f'ing take it."

That doesn't make your argument more effective. It just proves that you're easily angered, lose your cool on a dime, and argue out of rage and frustration rather then thoughtfulness. Using expletives on the internet is the domain of 14 year olds who post on Youtube. You look no better when you go down that road.

As for the Obama folks who act similarly, you do a disservice to Obama every time you act that way. How can you claim to admire a man for his classy demeanor when you're unable to follow suit?

[jettison]

176. reference

Do you think that you're the first person who ever thought of pulling out Orwell to back up an exaggerated opinion? Obama's threats? If you've been paying attention, Obama is the one that is saying that Hillary is a fantastic candidate, completely worthy of being the President. Hillary is the one saying that McCain would be the better candidate, that his experience would better serve our country. So what are you saying exactly?

Recalling Orwell isn't really that much more clever then calling someone a fascist because you don't get your way, or calling someone Hitler because they said something that you didn't like. No one is silencing anyone. Obama himself has said that Hillary should run for as long as he likes. It's two senators that are calling for Hillary to drop out. And even so, are you saying that their opinion should be "silenced"? I mean, you can take this metaphor as far as you'd like.

[Austinitis]

198. I think there's a pretty striking parallel

between the reasoning being put to use by the Obama camp and
the reasoning by the pigs in Animal farm to suppress debate. 
Saying "if you don't get in line [Bad Guy] is going to
come back!" is a fear tactic, regardless of whether it's
done in a novel or by Obama.  

[jettison]

221. scare tactics

And airing a commercial where you're woken up at 3am with an emergency and insinuating that Obama would surely just lose his head and freak out because he doesn't have 35 years of experience isn't a "fear tactic"? The Hillary campaign has been playing on fear tactics for months now. Hillary was asked very directly whether she thought that Obama was a Muslim, and she said that she didn't know. Didn't know? Of course she knew. She was playing to the fears and hysteria of a culture that has a definite bias against anything Muslim.

Obama has said many times that Hillary would make a great President. Hillary is not saying the same thing about Obama. Hillary offers Obama backhanded praise meant to make her look like a magnanimous, generous person, while also making it clear that he's not fit to lead the country. By contrast, Obama claims that Hillary is more then fit to lead out country, but he just happens to think he'd do the job even better. THAT is the high road. Hillary's is the low road. It's pretty clear cut.

[jettison]

225. Democratic Party

Wouldn't it makes sense for our party to make it very clear, very early on, that they feel like any of the front-runner candidates would make for a great president, especially in contrast to the republican? The worst thing about this contest, and the thing that makes so many people nervous and fear for the party, is the ugly campaigning going on by both sides. Both sides are guilty. That's why we have people whispering and then screaming "drop out". It is that they want to silence people... from utilizing potentially damaging rhetoric. If Hillary just ran a positive campaign, and took less aim at kneecapping Obama, no one would be asking her to quit. Everyone would be more then happy to let it play itself out. In fact, most of us are still happy to let it play out.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think that our candidates hold more disdain and contempt for each other and for each other's policies then they do for the repub. How does this make any sense? I never want to see the potential democratic nominee cozying up to "the enemy" pre-election.

There is an article on Foxnews right now about a "former Hillary hater" who met her in person, and realized what a terrific person/politician she really is. Is this high praise? If "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" then does this mean that Obama is such an enemy to Clinton that the repubs that would attack him are now her allies?

I really don't like the precedent that this sets at all. Likewise, I hate the swiftboat like tactics that some Obama supporters have employed on Hillary. It so closely mimics the attacks that my republican father has been bashing Hillary with for a decade. So tired of this nonsense. Both these candidates would be excellent for our country. Both would make fine leaders. It's the ugliness of each campaign, and I have to say it, mostly from the Hillary side (sure, I'm biased) that has people mouthing "quit".

[grantcart]

14. welcome to DU and thanks for your impressive first thread

it kind of reminds me of . . . well never mind

let me be the first to give you your first award of a straw man



There is no controversy about the super delegates.

There were a large number of super delegates who signed up before the campaign started, but since that time they have all gone one way



Not only has Obama passed her in 'elected super delegates (Gov/Sen/Reps) but there is a constant trickle of super delegates that will put Obama over the top before the convention starts.

There are 75 super delegates that are being added on by state conventions and to date Obama has 100% of the delegates added on who have announced their endorsement. And there is a growing number of 'Pelosi Club' Super delegates who have committed to endorsing the candidate with the most pledged delegates including many Clinton supporters who would like to find a way to move to Obama.

Have at it have fun with all of your carefully completely empty straw people - you can implement an entire straw village in here, but I will not respond to any further because this thread is just not the kind of thread that deserves to be kicked.

[Austinitis]

21. I think you're just making my point

that there's not a lot of controversy is the product of the fact that Obama's supporters keep repeating their new rules for super-delegates and Hillary's people haven't done a good job of challenging them. That's what I'm trying to change.

If enough Hillary people call out this backlash non-sense and demand that super-delegates vote based on who is most qualified, then Hillary's chances are pretty good. It's only when the Obama camp's fear mongering goes unchallenged that people decide Hillary's chances top out at 5%.

[grantcart]

33. you are completely clueless super delegates like US Senators

are very experienced and are not influenced by poster's here framing anything. Hillary's numbers are soft soft soft.

Here is Super Delegate that is clearly going to vote for Obama that is still being counted for Clinton because technically he hasn't reached it yet. You are completely in denial of the facts of the results of the campaign, the lead in pledged delegates and the sentiment of super delegates

Wonder what Sen. Cantwell is discussing with former Clinton Super Delegate Rep. John Lewis



http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/03/03242008_Cantwell-supporting-Clinton--for-now.cfm
U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, one of Washington’s 17 Democratic super delegates, isn’t ready to shift her allegiance from Sen. Hillary Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama — yet.

But in an interview with The Columbian’s editorial board Monday, she said the candidate with the most pledged delegates at the end of the primary season in late June will have the strongest claim to the party’s presidential nomination.

“I definitely don’t want the super delegates to be the deciding factor,” she said.

“If we have a candidate who has the most delegates and the most states,” the Democratic party should come together around that candidate, Cantwell said. The pledged delegate count will be the most important factor, she said, because that is the basis of the nominating process.

Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, in the popular vote and in the number of state primaries and caucuses he has won. Most political observers say the party’s rules of proportionality mean Clinton has virtually no chance of overtaking Obama in the pledged delegate count in the 10 primaries that remain.

[Austinitis]

36. I'm glad to see you're still responding! Twice even!

And I think super-delegates are just as susceptible to framing as anyone else. At the very least they seem pretty susceptible to this "party split" non-sense.

Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, in the popular vote and in the number of state primaries and caucuses he has won. Most political observers say the party’s rules of proportionality mean Clinton has virtually no chance of overtaking Obama in the pledged delegate count in the 10 primaries that remain.

It's the "delegate math" mantra! I was wondering how long that would take you...

[phrigndumass]

39. Mantra - A commonly repeated word or phrase

The delegate math information is repeated often here, yes. You can call it a mantra, but doing so doesn't make it any less true.

[verges]

249. So refute it.

Numbers don't lie.

[SwampG8r]

62. its Clinton Projection Syndrome at its finest

or CPS
it is evidenced by taking facts and reversing them to fit the argument
thereby framing it to your advantage

ie:
obama's supporters keep repeating their new rules for super-delegates = trying to game the rules at every opportunity to defy the democratic process and constantly move the goalposts
obama lies= snipergate
obama is in with the RW = press conference kissy faces with the MSM and Sciafe
obama is bad for the party = endorse the republican over obama
obama is tearing the party apart = tear the party apart with attacks on fellow dems by carville et al.


i think you see the pattern of CPS and probably have examples of CPS in action.
but
it isnt all bad,you can help
a small donation to obama 08 will help to return the center of this horrible dysfunction to chapaqua NY where hopefully it can be quarantined and cured.

:eyes:

[skater314159]

111. Great Post!

CPS

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Thanks for the awesome post!

[Archie_Leech]

144. hillary = "most" kwaliFIED?

And THAT kwalifikation is due to??????

TELLING EVERYONE THAT ONE IS kwalified?.....such as stating I'M KWALIFIED SIMPLY BECAUSE I SAY SO LIKE I SAY IN THE PLACES I DO......""""""......

[VolcanoJen]

16. I love the smell of astroturf in the morning

[RichardRay]

17. Fear is not the tactic I use to support Barack Obama...

Step two, then, is to cast the debate in terms which reflect the real purpose for which super-delegates were created. The job of super-delegates is to support the candidate who would make the best president of the United States. That candidate is Hillary Clinton.

I completely agree right down to the last part. If Senator Clinton were the candidate who would make the best president of the United States then the argument would be compelling. As I don't believe that to be true, you'll have to excuse me if I don't go along. I certainly agree that she would make a good president, and I'll be happy to support her in a contest against John McCain! But, I believe Barack Obama would make a better president. That means that behavior on the part of Senator Clinton that makes it harder for him to become president is, in my perception, counter to the best interests of the country. The super delegates will make up their own minds, I believe they will come to the same decision.

As Senator Obama has said, she has every right to pursue the nomination right down to the final slam of the gavel at the convention. Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

(edit for spelling)

[Austinitis]

38. As long as we agree that

super-delegates should vote for the person they think will make the best president. I'm mainly concerned with combating this nonsense about super-delegates being obligated to vote for the pledged-delegate winner.

[RichardRay]

42. As long as we agree that...

'most electable' in their estimate at this time DOES NOT EQUAL 'best president', or even 'most electable' once the Democratic nominee engages John McCain.

[Austinitis]

45. I think there's a threshold of electability

and that both candidates have passed it. Democrats will win in 2008. Fact.

So super-delegates need to be focusing in on who would make the best president. Others may disagree and that's the conversation we need to be having - not "delegate math."

[dansolo]

79. That is absolutely NOT the purpose of the superdelegates

The ONLY purpose of the superdelegates is to offset a potential electibility problem, e.g. a huge scandal that severely damages the presumptive nominee's chances to win. There are far more important concernsto superdelegates--things like fundraising ability, and "coattails". Remember, the superdelegates are largely elected officials. It is in their best interests to back a candidate that helps the party as a whole, and that, more than anything else, is what will guide them. If the belief is that having Hillary as the nominee will result in no change, or a net loss in the majorities in Congress, while Obama as the nominee results in net gains, then he will get their votes. It is all self-interest, and it has absolutely nothing to do with who they may think may be the "best" president.

Also, I fault your entire premise that the superdelegates even believe that Hillary would make a better president than Obama.

[skater314159]

113. Someone with 56% NEGATIVES is not a "threshold of electability"

[dbmk]

170. I think 95% agree with that.

But I think a lot of hillary supporters mistake analysis for threats.

In my eyes its not a threat to make the assumption that a lot of people who has been engaged in politics this time around - that haven't been before - would be very disappointed to learn that all their enthusiasm and work can be trumped by an inner circle of party members. They might accept a loss in terms of pledged delegates - but having a lead overturned by super delegates will potentially turn them off politics again. Not to be awakened the next time around. For whatever election.

And in my eyes its not a threat to make the assumption that a lot of African Americans will take it very badly, rightfully or not, if Obama has a pledged delegate lead overturned.

And I think that this is also on the superdelegates minds. I am willing to bet a fair amount that they will not overturn a pledged delegate lead. It being 1 or 150.

Thats not because I think it should be so. But because I think it will be so.

[Rob Gregory Browne]

183. The problem with this is

that super delegates will not vote for who they think will be the best president. They'll vote for who they think will win. And from all indications, that seems to be Sen. Obama.

[bhikkhu]

18. Ok, how about "the winner wins". Obama is winning. Relax.

and then a little footnote - no dirty tricks allowed. Relax again.

I don't mind an absence of drama; that is one thing that makes Obama my choice.

[NashVegas]

19. Considering Some Talk of an Irish Link, I Say It Should Be Called "O'Bullshit"

:hi:

[GoldieAZ49]

20. I trust the Super Delegates to exercise their political judgement

and vote for the most electable candidate to win in November without being intimidated by either candidate. They lose all credibility and integrity if they do otherwise.

Threats of riot, protest, fear mongering and black mail should be dismissed for the childishness that it is.

We will see the votes of all the delegates at the convention, as it should be.



If the base of the party chooses not to vote for the nominee then so be it.

[dogday]

22. Now there is a statement

that is exactly what they should do... We set these rules for a reason...

[tabasco]

23. *Y*A*W*N*

:boring:

You wrap up your opinions like it's some kind of argument, but it's just your opinions.

You state that Hillary supporters are more likely to not vote Democratic like that's something good. :eyes:

Just a load of crap. Go back to school and learn the difference between facts and opinions.

FACT: H. Clinton is the only candidate to consistently receive over 50% negative / unfavorable ratings in national polls.

You think that makes her the best choice? You think the super-delegates are going to go politburo on us for that??

[Austinitis]

26. You mean something I post is my opinion!?!?

No way, dude... No way...

[anamandujano]

24. We have been challenging them on this.

We had a snapshot about a month ago where Obama had pulled ahead and my friend, who is an Obamanut was trying to get me to agree that whoever is ahead by one (that's 1) delegate, should take the nomination. I'm sure they were pushing this crap on Air America because that's one of her main sources of information.

It is hard to keep track of the Obama stance on this, since they change it to suit their purposes.

[cali]

27. There are so many holes in your pontification, er, I mean OP

it's hard to know where to start, but randomly:

"Not nearly so much as Republicans disliked John McCain. I mean, seriously - right wing pundits brutalized John McCain in the media during the Republican primary."

That was then, this is now, and the pukes are swiftly falling in line. And that includes the repuke punditry. The dem party is split.


And clearly YOU are the one sorely in need of a history lesson. Contentious conventions lead only to weak nominees. Period. That's why if it goes to the convention, I hope hilly does get that poison pill. If you don't think McCain can win, despite all the dem advantages, think again.

"The job of super-delegates is to support the candidate who would make the best president of the United States. That candidate is Hillary Clinton."

It's merely the opinion of you, an anonymous new poster on DU. Obviously, many SDs think that's garbage. They believe that Obama would be a better president than Hill. Frankly, Pat Leahy's endorsement carries more weight than yours.

[Austinitis]

30. uh...

"Not nearly so much as Republicans disliked John McCain. I mean, seriously - right wing pundits brutalized John McCain in the media during the Republican primary."

That was then, this is now, and the pukes are swiftly falling in line. And that includes the repuke punditry. The dem party is split.

Uh... That's exactly what I'm pointing out! They fell in line, despite disliking him. And so will the losing side in our primary.

[cbayer]

40. As I pointed out in your OP, I need for you to clarify this statement:

"Contentious conventions lead only to weak nominees. Period."

The last nomination that went all the way to the convention, in either party, was in 1932. FDR won and went on to win the GE. Four times, actually. Perhaps, if history is to be used as a guide, going all the way to the convention really builds the party.

[Austinitis]

48. Kennedy fought LBJ at the convention

In fact, I seem to remember that LBJ didn't even really campaign before the convention... He just came in at the convention (and put up something of a fight...)

[cbayer]

53. LBJ never ran in a single primary.

He announced his challenge a few weeks before the convention and was able to raise a significant amount of support from delegates whose candidates were no longer in the race. But JFK won handily on the first ballot.

That one worked out pretty well for us, didn't it?

[Austinitis]

54. Exactly

there have been nominating fights at conventions which haven't sunk their party. This one won't either.

I think the reason convention fights correlate with losing nominees is that you have them where the president is about to lose anyways (e.g. Ford vs. Reagan or Carter vs. Kennedy)

[TheDoorbellRang]

65. Here's four contentious conventions since FDR

These nominees weren't selected until their party's convention:

1952- Adlai Stephenson received nomination over Estes Kefauver
1968- Hubert Humphrey received nomination over Eugene McCarthy
1976- Gerald Ford received nomination over Ronald Reagan
1980- Jimmy Carter received nomination over Teddy Kennedy

If history is to be used as a guide, going all the way to the convention really builds the opposition's party. :shrug:

[cbayer]

78. Good one, but they are substantially different in many ways.

1952 - Stevenson threw his hat in at the convention and had not been running.

1968 - Kennedy was shot in June, leaving the 2nd and 3rd place candidates to battle it out.

1976 - Ford was the incumbent and challenged from within is own party.

1980 - see 1976. His delegate count going into the convention outnumbered Kennedy 2:1

My point was mainly that a situation similar to this, two candidates running neck and neck, going to the convention for a decision. Not since FDR.

I really appreciate your bringing this up. It made me do my homework.

:hi:

[TheDoorbellRang]

90. Thanks, cbayer

These are the bits of history that are really making me nervous about this year's battle going to the convention. Even though the scenarios vary in all the examples I listed, the fact remains that the parties involved were not able to rally around a candidate until after the convention, giving the opposition plenty of time to solidify support for their candidate.

We're seeing the results right now, with McCain pulling ahead of both Obama and Clinton despite his numerous gaffes and past scandals and general nincompoopery. What will it be like if this continues until August?

[cbayer]

137. What about we make lemonade out of lemons

The rallying around the chosen one has it's advantages, but one could conceive of manipulating it to your advantage.

For example. Clinton and Obama platforms are very, very similar and worlds apart from McCain. What is to prevent the party from starting the campaign against him now?

This also leaves McCain in a conceivably very difficult position. The democrats know exactly who they will have to beat and what demographic they will need to woo in order to beat him. The Republicans, on the other hand, still don't know which demographics to target. This can be exploited to advantage.

My last point is that this primary race has elicited quiescent racism. Not surprising. I for one thinks thats good. It puts it on the table. It has also elicited quiescent sexism, up to now dismissed but IMO about to become the central issue. I also think that is good. It needs to be on the table. Pretending they don't exist has gone on long enough.

No need to respond unless you want. I have appreciated the conversation.

[joshcryer]

158. Excellent analysis!

[joshcryer]

157. No one is able to answer this, but if the SDs thought Obama was the best, they would have picked him

Period.

[PseudoIntellect]

240. She had a lead because Obama was not well-known before 2008.

Most of the superdelegates she has endorsed her very early. Remember, her lead was almost 100 around Super Tuesday. Now, it's under 35.

She has LOST SDs since then, in fact.

[joshcryer]

251. Yes, but they would end it immediately if they thought he was the best.

It would take them 10 minutes.

[Swamp Rat]

28. I disagree

Welcome back! :hi:

[Austinitis]

32. ?

Do you mean after I left for a little bit?

[Forkboy]

35. Beat me to it.

:)

[cbayer]

29. Welcome to DU. Your presence here is sorely needed.

It is wonderful to see someone elevate the conversation above it's current level. I would not anticipate much thoughtful response, because....well, you know.

You will be called names and bullied, but I encourage you to continue to post regardless.

Again, welcome. I am happy to see thoughtful and reasoned posts from candidates of both candidates and those still on the fence.

:hi:

[Austinitis]

34. Thanks!

I think I'm feeling a bit of that nastiness already... :9

[Austinitis]

37. And it might be nice

if maybe we tried to keep this civil...

[A-Schwarzenegger]

51. "Calling the Obama Camp's Bullsh*t"

Good start.

[redqueen]

175. Hah...

indeed.

[jettison]

185. exactly

First post, and you're throwing out the expletives. This is the "classy start"? By "Obama Camp", you're referring to anyone supporting him. Then, to complain that you've received "nasty" rebuttal is laughable. If you start out nasty, and hit below the belt, expect the same from some in return.

[Shakespeare]

196. YOU set the tone. Deal with it. n/t

[theredpen]

44. Welcome to *PLONK*

[leftstreet]

46. "Democrat excitement." You mean Democrat-ic, right? n/t

[Austinitis]

60. Dude, you *slayed* that typo...

[stevenleser]

69. Good catch. I always find it hard to believe a genuine Democrat makes that mistake.

I never say "Democrat Party" or "Democrat excitement" and I don't know any real Democrat that does.

[AZBlue]

117. I think you've hit the nail right on the head there.

I'm also a bit suspicious of a new poster who can format via DU's guidelines so perfectly on their very first post. Also, this poster certainly seems to know a lot about DU for someone so new. Just observations....

[Mezzo]

165. attacking the messenger is a sign of weakness.

but you already knew that, didn't you?

Besides, there are many, MANY cyber stalkers around here, and they have absolutely no problem with it.

[redqueen]

177. Not attacking the messenger. Just pointing out the OBVIOUS clues. (nt)

[skater314159]

118. True dat.

I consider it a slip of the subconscious - they can't keep up the front forever.

Like we don't know...

:eyes:

[Chimichurri]

193. always a dead give-away.

[Beregond2]

47. HRC

"Hillary can never win" isn't a narrative; it is a fact. It has been a fact since the day she announced her candidacy. There is no human being alive more despised by conservatives. That is why the right wing has been doing everything it can to see that she gets the nomination. They know their people will turn out in droves to defeat her. Why this obvious fact is so difficult for her supporters to admit is beyond me. All the other arguements are beside the point. She cannot win; period.

[Austinitis]

50. Not anymore

there was actually an article on RCP a few weeks ago talking about how the conservatives don't hate Hillary as much as they used to and how a lot of the old attacks they used against her have been put on Obama. Obama now gets the whole "limousine-liberal" attack and it would probably be easier for conservatives to run Obama.

[jettison]

188. that's just untrue

The former poster is write. Hillary is the most hated, period. Repubs have been hating anything Clinton for two decades. That doesn't just vanish over night. We haven't even begun to see the meaning of swiftboating until we've seen Hillary get the nomination, and then watched the Repubs take new aim at her. It will be unlike anything we've ever seen before.

[skater314159]

120. The used don't like to admit they were USED.

Esp. if it is by a bunch of corrupt, immoral losers like the Repugs are.

Here is a graphic about how impossible it is:


Enjoy!

[jettison]

186. Don't agree

I'm an Obama supporter, but this is pure conjecture and rhetoric.

[Mooney]

52. ...

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thevoiceofreason]

56. Welcome to DU - enjoy your stay.

And if you clip from other sources, please cite them.

If, instead, you were able to offer such a lengthy thread on your firat day here completely on your own, we are all impressed.

And try a little less flame when you are first starting off.

[phrigndumass]

57. Right out of the Clinton campaign playbook

Source: Slate.com, article dated March 5:

Read More: http://www.slate.com/id/2185819/

<Snip>

Hillary Clinton is trying to make the story matter more than the numbers, and what she won Tuesday were some good talking points for her narrative. She's got to make the case to the roughly 300 undecided superdelegates that they should overlook Obama's advantage among pledged delegates. Her argument has two parts: Obama doesn't represent the Democratic Party, and he is a flawed general election candidate.

How is Obama a flawed Democrat? He can't win big states, her aides will argue. Clinton has now won Ohio, Texas*, New York, California, and New Jersey. Obama has only limited appeal, they will argue, whereas Clinton wins the kinds of Democrats necessary to win in big, electorally rich states. But it's not that simple. Obama won electorally crucial swing states such as Missouri, Colorado, and Wisconsin, and he's won all across the country, so his appeal isn't that limited.

Clinton aides will also return to the argument that she captures bread-and-butter blue-collar voters. In Ohio, Clinton won 56 percent to 43 percent among voters with no college education. She also dominated among union households, though Obama had several unions working for him. The economy was the No. 1 issue in both states. Democrats who believe paychecks, jobs, and health care will be the dominant issues in the fall might be convinced by her argument that she is the only one who can deliver them.

Here again, though, Clinton's case isn't airtight. Obama won among the working class in Wisconsin, and he also won working-class white men in Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Hampshire. In the last three weeks, Obama had been making inroads in Ohio with those lacking a college degree, narrowing Clinton's margin from 26 points to eight points. This suggests that while Clinton won blue-collar voters in the end, their vote was more up for grabs than the Clinton folks claim.

<end Snip>

(emphasis mine)

-----------------------

*However, Obama has officially won Texas, not Clinton

My note: IMHO ... Either your OP was a cut and paste job straight from the Clinton campaign, or you have come back from the dead, as far as I know.

:popcorn:

[phrigndumass]

58. bumping to humbly request a reply ... nt

[Austinitis]

59. I'm obviously a Hillary supporter

so when the Obama camp spouts some absurd non-sense her campaign's going to challenge it and so am I. But that doesn't mean that I'm working with them or taking material from them.

After all, the Obama campaign's position is pretty clearly all about "delegate-math" and I don't accuse you guys of doing a cut-and-paste job when you recite that line...

[phrigndumass]

61. You spoke up-thread of candidate qualifications ...

... and I agree, but I add that looking at a candidate's qualifications alone without looking at the will of the people would be a mistake, imho. The will of the people can be seen from the results of the primaries and caucuses. When we speak of "delegate math," we are referring to the will of the people. I equated looking at candidate qualifications alone to looking at a person's resume without checking the references.

You also stated up-thread that you believe both candidates are qualified, and that either candidate can win the general election in November. I agree completely, without argument.

Qualified? Yes for both candidates.

Can win? Yes for both candidates.

Then what is the will of the people? Take a look at the delegate math and you'll find out. Since about 85% of the pledged delegates have been allocated so far, one can surmise that, unless it is a tie (which it's not), we can look at the data and project a winner.

On edit: Certainly winners have been projected in the past with less of the total results in.

Welcome back!

:hi:

[phrigndumass]

63. bumping to humbly request a reply ... nt

[Austinitis]

64. A few points:

First, I agree that both candidates are electable. I also agree that Obama and Clinton are both at least minimally qualified to be president (and both are more qualified than McCain). But I also think that the property of "being qualified to be president" is different than the property of "being electable." Once you reach a threshold of electability, you don't get extra value out of being more electable. After all, you either win or you don't win in November.

On the other hand, you can pick up lots of extra value by being more qualified. There's no upper limit on how much qualifications can pay off.

So if Hillary is more qualified than Obama - even if Obama is adequately qualified - then I think that's something the super-delegates should pay attention to. The US will get a lot out of that difference in qualification between Hillary and Obama.

Second, and this will be a bit of a tangent, I have a problem looking at the delegate lead because of a few things. First, a lot of Obama's delegate lead comes caucus states, which do weird things to their eventual delegate counts. For example, here in Texas Obama lost the popular vote by a substantial margin but somehow won in terms of delegates. And that's certainly strange if you're putting forward the delegate tally as a measure of support.

Moreover, I think caucuses favor a lot of people who support Obama (college students without jobs or kids) who can afford to take off and sit for three hours at a caucus. I mean, I went to the caucus but it was hard for me to take that time off from work, kids, etc. And I think other people may not have made it out because of those things.

Remember, every single person who voted in the Texas caucus also voted in the primary. So the difference between the primary turnout and the caucus turnout probably reflects those people who had enough time for a primary but not enough time for a caucus. And in Texas that was a pretty significant number of people.

[phrigndumass]

70. Thanks. I have a few points as well ...

I agree that superdelegates should pay attention to whether one candidate is more or less qualified than the other, but not exclusively, especially if they are both adequately qualified. If you are in human resources and are interviewing two candidates and determine that they both meet the qualifications for the job, and your boss tells you he prefers one over the other but you determine that the other may be more qualified, you're probably going to give your boss's preference some weight as well, right? (In this line of reasoning, the American Voters are your boss.)

To your second point, each state passes its own laws whether to hold a primary or a caucus (or both). The candidates themselves don't have a say in that process, but the candidates are expected to follow the rules set forth by the party, as are the states in setting up their state contests.

With some states choosing one way and other states choosing another way to determine the will of the people, the only common denominator that can possibly be used is a delegate system.

So when you say you have a problem looking at the delegate lead, what you are in fact implying is that you have a problem with either the party rules or with giving each state the right to choose how to determine the will of their people.

How would you best determine the will of the people if we didn't use a delegate system?

[Austinitis]

97. A reply

Second issue first:

Here's another way to phrase my argument:

You, and other people who support Obama, have basically been inferring from one fact to another. You've been going from:

(1) Obama is ahead in pledged delegates.

to

(2) Obama has widespread popular support.

And I'm saying that's not a good inference.

Pointing out that the caucus system was picked by the people (a while ago) does something to make the caucus system seem more legitimate, but it doesn't do anything to make your inference a better inference. There can be legitimately chosen systems (e.g. the electoral college) which don't accurately reflect the people's choice (e.g. the 2000 election).

And let me remind you that you need this inference to work in order to make the case you're making. You're saying that super-delegates need ratify the pledged-delegate count not because the pledged delegate count was arrived at by a procedurally legitimate system but because the count reflects the will of the people. And that case is seriously undermined by the fact that caucuses may not reflect what the people want.

[phrigndumass]

102. How does he NOT have widespread popular support? Look at this:

You saying Obama needs a pledged delegate lead to affirm that he has widespread popular support is a reversal of logic. He has support all over the country (see map).

Each state has a right to select the method to determine the will of their people. Are you saying that a caucus system is procedurally illegitimate to determine that? If that's what you're saying, then you need to argue that in your STATE, because the Obama campaign had nothing to do with picking your state's method; your state did.

[redqueen]

180. I think they'll be revising that map. TX is turning purple. (nt)

[atal]

184. fantastic map

it says it all...

Clinton doesn't have a chance

[Austinitis]

205. You know you're making a circular argument when

I say "delegate totals may not reflect popular support" and you reply by citing delegate totals as evidence of popular support.

But whatever. Let's go through this again:

Each state has a right to select the method to determine the will of their people. Are you saying that a caucus system is procedurally illegitimate to determine that? If that's what you're saying, then you need to argue that in your STATE, because the Obama campaign had nothing to do with picking your state's method; your state did.

I'm not - and let me emphasize this NOT - saying that caucuses are procedurally illegitimate. I'm saying that not all procedurally legitimate institutions reflect popular will. For example, the electoral college is procedurally legitimate but does not always reflect popular will (the 2000 election shows us this).

Caucuses then, despite being procedurally legitimate, can fail to reflect the sentiments of the people living in a given state. And because of this, it would be a mistake to take the results of caucuses as evidence for widespread popular support.

[AGirl]

72. Good post.

[stevenleser]

67. You are making this wayyyy too complicated, probably in an attempt to obfuscate the issue

It's this simple:

1. Hillary IS losing and has by admission of several members of her own campaign less than a 10% chance to win. Other observers suggest the possibility is much less than that.
2. The race is very heated.
3. There is a real concern that the race is so heated and may go on so long it will impact the ability of the eventual nominee to win.

You attempt to ridicule or explain away point #3 but it is not an unreasonable concern to have. When you combine points #1 and #3, the calls for Hillary to pull out seem pretty reasonable.

There, isn't that nice and succinct?

[Austinitis]

71. I'm contesting both 1 and 3

I think Hillary's only losing on the "delegate math" framework set up by the Obama camp. If we get rid of that, and if super-delegates can be convince to vote based on the qualifications of the candidate, then I think Hillary is actually the front-runner.

And about 80% of my OP attacked 3, so I won't repeat those attacks here. Democrats will win and I think the insinuation that they won't really just works to suppress debate.

[stevenleser]

74. You can contest them, but then it takes you out of the realm of reality...

You realize that my #1 is acknowledged by Hillary's campaign itself. When you paint yourself as more of a zealot than the candidate's own campaign staff, I would say you have reality issues.

And you dont have to share my #3 to recognize that it is a reasonable opinion to have. Contesting that is also a strong indication you have reality issues.

[phrigndumass]

77. The "delegate math" framework was NOT set up by the Obama camp.

It was set up by the party, and the states choose either a primary or a caucus to determine the will of their own people. The candidates are expected to conform to the party rules.

What you are implying is that Hillary Clinton is actually the front-runner if you don't account for the party rules, and if you don't account for each state's right to choose the method to determine the will of their own people.

That mindset is magnificently short-sighted.

[stevenleser]

80. Short sighted is too generous of a way of putting it....

It's like saying you reject the framework of the idea that the person with the most runs at the end of a baseball game wins the game.

We've all by now seen the calculations of what it would take for Hillary to overcome Obama's lead. It is insane for the OP to suggest it is a "Framework" to acknowledge that. Her own campaign staff put her chances at less than one in ten. That is not Obama or his campaign "framing" the situation.

[Austinitis]

86. I think a far better analogy goes like this

The Obama camp's claim that pledged delegate leads mean nomination is like the claim that more yards run in a football game means win. Granted, the two metrics usually go together, but certainly not always.

There's nothing written into the DNC rules to make super-delegates back Obama. You've been drinking too much Kool-aid when you think that Obama's framework is as set as the rules of baseball.

[stevenleser]

93. That must mean the Clinton campaign is drinking that same Kool-aid since they acknowledge that Obama

is ahead and that she has a 10% or less chance of winning.

[phrigndumass]

96. 36 posts, and you're already mentioning Kool-Aid?

There is no possible way, short of thwarting the rules of the party and/or the will of the people, that your analogy works.

Swamp Rat has some cookies for ya. You might wash it down with your own Kool-Aid.

[Qanisqineq]

68. Welcome Austinitis!

:hi:

Great post and here's a K&R for you.

:kick:

[stillcool]

73. I'm just an individual...not part of the herd...

but I don't know how the Super-Delegates could rationalize choosing the candidate who lost the popular vote and had the least amount of delegates. There are oodles of Democratic Party Officials who have come out and stated the race will be decided before the Convention. It is certainly not up to me. The "fear" of a backlash when the Super-delegates crown their favorite rather than the 'winner' is realistic I would think. But then again we've gone through Bush vs Gore, so what the hey?

[Evergreen Emerald]

75. Exactly!

The best post of the month.

[Austinitis]

83. Thanks!

[ProSense]

76. The Obama camp's bullshit is Hillary is losing? Isn't that called

reality?

[stevenleser]

81. Bingo

:applause:

[Austinitis]

82. No

The claim that Hillary's losing has two parts:
(a) The claim that whoever is leading in the pledged delegates is "winning" the race for the nomination.
(b) The claim that Hillary is behind in pledged delegates.

Given that both candidates can only win now by securing the support of pledged delegates, the only thing making (a) a "reality" is the fact that the Obama people keep repeating it over and over.

But if Hillary's backers can challenge (a) then (b) won't mean very much come August. That's why Hillary supporters need to get at it. If we take out (a) then I think Hillary will win the nomination.

[ProSense]

85. Yes

reality:

Actual Popular Vote Total
Obama 13,355,239 (+717,276)
Hillary 12,637,963

FL
Obama 576,214
Hillary 870,986
Total votes 1,447,200

Popular Vote (w/FL)
Obama 13,931,453 (+422,504)
Hillary 13,508,949


MI
Clinton 328,151
Uncommitted 237,762

Popular Vote (w/FL and MI)
Obama 13,931,453 (+94,195)
Clinton 13,837,258

Let's say Obama got the uncommitted MI votes

Popular Vote (w/FL and MI)
Obama 14,169,215 (+331,957)
Clinton 13,837,258

In these scenarios Obama is clearly ahead, even with no MI votes going to him.

Even if there were a revote in MI and FL she would not get more than 58% of the MI and 60% of the FL vote as indicated above. In fact, she stands to lose ground.


Hillary is losing!

[Austinitis]

87. You're still assuming that framework

which is what we're rejecting. No one disputes that Hillary will be behind in pledged delegates. But the idea that that means an automatic win for Obama is unfounded and exactly what's under dispute here.

[ProSense]

92. Is Hillary behind (also called losing) at this moment? n/t

[skater314159]

133. It's not "under dispute" here...

... you are trying to say it is, but it's not.

You just don't want Obama to win, are overly emotionally invested in Hillary winning (why I don't know), and you think that you can get us to change our views to suit you.

Since you're new here, here's a clue: Not gonna happen.

Welcome to DU! :hi: Hope you stick around after the nomination and remember to vote for the DemocraticCandidate in Nov. (And yes, its Democratic, not Democrat - in case you don't know our hip lingo here).

[stevenleser]

88. Wayyyy off once again...

The reason people keep emphasizing the fact that Obama is ahead in pledged delegates is because he is. People have a funny way of doing that, dont they? When sports teams are ahead, we talk about that too. If in the fourth quarter, Football team A has 21 points and Football team B has 14 points, we say that Football team A is ahead.

Do you think sportscasters do that because Football team A has somehow lobbied them to do that?

Do you think political journalists need the Obama campaign to tell them that Obama is ahead?

[phrigndumass]

94. But to do so, you have to throw out the rules of the party and the will of the people

Good luck with that. Senator Clinton doesn't seem to give a flip about either one, so we don't expect her supporters to.

[Austinitis]

100. What rules have you been reading?

I certainly can't think of any "rules" which say super-delegates have to go with the candidate who leads in pledged-delegates.

And I challenged the "will of the people" inference above in a reply to you (you may not have seen it yet).

[phrigndumass]

104. The rules about method of voting ... you have a problem with CAUCUSES

So new rules: Throw out all the results of the caucuses, and magically Senator Clinton is winning!

Does each state have a right to determine their method of voting, whether it be by primary or caucus?

Yes or no?

[madfloridian]

110. You are in denial.

Hillary is in denial.

It is hurting us all.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1915

[Rosa Luxemburg]

128. Hillary won't win the nomination

[skater314159]

129. Ding!!! You win the "Reality Prize!" nt

[redqueen]

181. Are we at the bargaining stage yet?

*sigh*

[phrigndumass]

84. Obama supporter here, recommending this entire thread as a whole

Not just the OP portion, but the whole thread. This thread goes to the heart of why the Clinton supporters here think that the pledged delegate count is unfair, and how the replies in this thread adequately refute those notions but constantly go unheard.

:thumbsup:

[stevenleser]

89. Yes, the literal indifference to reality is stunning...

... not sure if there is any other way to explain it.

[shenmue]

91. Thank you.

It's about time somebody started challenging these shitty tactics. None of this crap would be tolerated from anyone else.

[Austinitis]

101. It's nice to see

other Clinton people back me up.

[stevenleser]

98. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Story behind the story: The Clinton myth
By JIM VANDEHEI & MIKE ALLEN | 3/21/08 1:32 PM EST Text Size:


One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

.
.
.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

[Austinitis]

99. In a primary season full of upsets

I don't really think that means very much. Nothing is nailed down anymore.

We can take this back, and we do that by challenging Obama's framework.

[stevenleser]

103. You keep working on that "framework" while Obama keeps winning delegates...

Like I said earlier, when you paint yourself as more of a zealot than the candidate's own campaign staff, you and reality arent exactly on the same page.

[phrigndumass]

106. MANTRA: "Obama's framework" ... but NOT based in reality

Your candidate's framework is to take away the facts and leave everyone with spin.

Yours is a mantra not based in reality.

[TacticalPeek]

116. Another important rule:

Copyright violation. DU rules expect about four paragraphs and a link to the source. Works for everybody.

Please edit your post to conform to the man's rules. TIA.

[stevenleser]

121. Gotcha, done

[TacticalPeek]

124. You fast.

:)

[stevenleser]

126. I like DU and believe in the rules, what can I say? ;-)

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

119. hi stevenleser,

Please be aware that DU copyright rules require that excerpts of copyrighted material be limited to four paragraphs.

best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator

[stevenleser]

122. Understood. Done (n/t)

[Jim Sagle]

105. Fuckin' A.

[SoonerPride]

107. I don't have time to waste on nonsense. Plonk

Any thread about Hillary is a waste of time.

Obama is the nominee and McCain is the enemy.

Period.

[phrigndumass]

114. I agree, and with that, I'm outta this thread.

My new mantra: Obama is our nominee, and McCain is the enemy.

Thanks for the quote, SoonerPride.

:hi:

[stevenleser]

115. I should have just hit ignore and been done with it too. Why I wasted my time on this... well...

...let's just say I'm embarrassed.

[stevenleser]

125. And with that, *plonk*

[zulchzulu]

108. Hillary Clinton has about a 4% chance of being the nominee at this point

If you want to "reject the 'delegate math' narrative", be my guest.

It's like saying the Titanic was unsinkable. Get on board. The water's fine.

:rofl:

[OzarkDem]

134. More Obama "math"

:rofl:

[skater314159]

135. Here's a handy graphic for ya...

Currently it's at 10.3 ... earlier today (Sunday the 30th) it was at 12... it just keeps going down.

I think the OP is a member of Clinton's orchestra.

[davidinalameda]

139. certainly not a paid member of her staff

since her campaign is pretty much broke

:hi:

[Life Long Dem]

109. In a nutshell Hillary is saying...

the Super Delegates will go against the pledged delegates which will go against the voters which will go against the "will of the people".

OR - The "will of the people" = the pledged delegates = the Super Delegates = Hillary flip flopping.

Or - Hillary switching = the Super Delegates = the pledged delegates = "The will of the people" = Not a Fuc@ing chance!!

[virtualobserver]

112. more power to you in your quest to take back the narrative

but I say "bullshit" to your anti-backlash perspective.

It isn't even about Obama voters.

There will be some backlash from both Clinton and Obama voters even if the Superdelegates do not overturn the pledged delegate vote(and I believe they won't).

But if they do overturn the pledged delegate vote , either Clinton voters or Obama voters will feel betrayed if their candidate leads in delegates and/or popular votes and the prize is snatched away. and you are really kidding yourself if you think that the core supporters on either side will let go of that.

[LadyVT]

123. Good job. Superdelegates are not sheep.

[OzarkDem]

127. Bill tells them to "chill"

"Chill out."

In a spirited defense of his wife's vow to go on despite lagging in pledged-delegate counts, Clinton argued that continuing to campaign in the remaining states to cast ballots is "strengthening the Democratic Party."

He made his comments to about 3,000 convention-goers at San Jose McEnery Convention Center, most of whom gave the former president a loud and enthusiastic reception.


Clinton reminded the audience that by the time he wrapped up the nomination in June 1992, "I'd been so beat up, worked over and chewed out that I was running third" in national polls behind Ross Perot and President George H.W. Bush." But six weeks later, at the start of the Democratic convention, "Al Gore and I were in first place and we never lost it."





http://origin.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8750320

[TacticalPeek]

130. Thanks for the rational thought.

Absence makes the brain grow fonder etc.

[Austinitis]

143. Thanks for the thanks

[Firespirit]

141. Response

* Republicans in 2008: Are almost certainly going to lose. That means that the average Republican doesn’t really have a lot of motivation to support someone they don’t like in order to take the Whitehouse. They’re not risking much staying home, so why not use the 2008 election to send a message?
Democrats in 2008: Have an excellent chance of winning. That means that the average Democrat does have a lot of motivation to support someone who isn’t their favorite in order to take the Whitehouse. If a Democrat stays homes and pouts they’re risking a lot and it’s unlikely they will.

I don't know if you have looked at recent polls, but this is no longer the case. You can argue about the reasons, but the fact is that in recent weeks, the party has lost a stunning amount of ground. A month ago, it looked like states such as Virginia would be in play. Now, these polls indicate that blue strongholds like Massachusetts and Connecticut could be in danger, no matter who is nominated. To go from being competitive in red states to barely ekeing out wins in deep blue states is a truly stunning collapse. Even when the Republicans at their most divided, they never answered polls in such a way as to put deep red states in jeopardy. This WAS our election to lose, but it isn't anymore.

* Republicans in 2008: Have been rocked by a series of scandals. Faith in their party leadership has been shaken (even a lot of the Republicans I know bought into the “Culture of Corruption” slogan from ’06). This means there’s not a lot of party loyalty to hold off a backlash.
Democrats in 2008: Have largely avoided the crazy Republican scandal spree. Faith in the party and in party leadership, while never perfect, is certainly better than what the Republicans are working with.

Despite the scandals of 2006, which were unprecedented -- lobbyists, criminal convictions, a child molester -- 45 percent of Americans still voted Republican in their House race. That perfect storm was two years ago. We aren't going to get a repeat.

* Republicans in 2008: Have a party platform that hasn’t really been working out too well. Tearing down government regulation? Doesn’t look too hot after the sub-prime crisis. Aggressive, unilateral foreign policy? The death toll in Iraq makes it glaringly obvious how stupid that is. Privatized health care? Not so attractive once people you know get sick. My guess is that even a lot of Republicans are feeling pretty sheepish about what they’re running on this year.
Democrats in 2008: Represent at the very least the return of sanity to the Whitehouse. We’re pumped about our policies. We have a chance to make real changes and improve the world. I don’t know a single Democrat who would miss out on that in November so that they could pout about who was picked in August.

You'd be surprised how people vote against their self-interest. On policies, the nation wants out of Iraq, wants corporations regulated, and wants national health care, but will vote against all of this because of a "personal" component, whether they "like" a particular politician. It's about trust -- whether people think they can trust a politician to be strong. We let the media damage two good, strong, liberal nominees in 2000 and 2004 by painting them as untrustworthy and weak. This is WHY we have been losing elections. And after finally winning one, the 110th Congress managed to drive its approval rating below George Bush's within 1 year. That's about as impressive as going from challenging in Virginia to defending Connecticut within one month. We have a talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and that comes from PISSING PEOPLE OFF. The Congress has a low approval rating because it is perceived to have ignored the wishes of the people, and instead given in to powers in Washington.

And again, and more to the point, a lot of Republicans were enthusiastic about their favored candidate (or about “anyone but McCain”), yet they’re still backing their party. And once again, if they did it, so will we.

We are not Republicans. Just enough people stayed "out of the fold" and voted for Nader in 2000 to make Florida stealable. And whatever vitriol was exchanged in the GOP primary, it does not come close to what we've done to ourselves.

White vs. black
Women vs. men
Old vs. young
Working-class vs. Middle-class
"Old guard" vs. "new blood"

You are ignoring reality if you think this will be a cakewalk and "Dems will win, it is a fact." EVERY ONE of the aforementioned divisions has surfaced in this primary, every group has been pitted against the other group. You cannot honestly think that this will just heal itself if a candidate is selected who is not the people's choice. These core Democratic groups have been made to see each other as adversaries, even enemies, and if you pick someone who hasn't got popular support, then these rifts will not heal, but will just get worse. It's unfortunate, but it is NOT "bullshit" and it is NOT "fearmongering" to acknowledge basic human nature.

People DO have a sense of fairness, though, and can look past their own preferences if they recognize it would be unfair to grant them what THEY want ahead of what a majority of other people want. The only way people would stand for their will to be overturned is if the popular vote leader had been hit with a truly unrecoverable scandal.

You say that "the math framework" is meaningless and what should count is who makes the best president. Given the damage that has been done and the divisions that have been created between so many groups, it's not rational to ignore "math" in determining who would be the best president. You are counting on people to put aside the enmity they've been made to feel, put aside the sense of being robbed, and vote strictly pragmatically, on the issues. It might get Hillary into the White House, certainly, but it'll be an unenthusiastic, "lesser of two evils" vote. A vote against McCain, not for Hillary -- just as in 2006, which was a vote against the GOP and its warmongering and corruption, not for Democrats. And look where that led us. 13 percent approval rating for Congress.

I don't want to merely vote against someone.

[Austinitis]

199. Thanks

for your thoughtful reply. I'm on lunch now and can't respond to anything this long, but I'll try to address what you've said when I get off tonight.

[Eric Condon]

145. The only thing that's "driven Hillary from the race" is the will of the voters, who have spoken.

Democracy's tough when you're expecting a coronation, huh?

[intaglio]

146. Taking back history - to make Clinton look better

First The original "X will loose the GE" comments that I saw were from the Clinton supporters on this board, ie the politic of fear was begun by supporters of the Hillary campaign. Does the OP remind anyone that, of all the candidates, Hillary has the highest negative ratings amongst all classes of voters, Democratic and Republican?? What is more the Obama campaign has not crafted those negatives they have been with Hillary from day 1.

Step 2 "The job of super-delegates is to support the candidate who would make the best president of the United States. That candidate is Hillary Clinton" In what fantasy world is Clinton the "best" candidate? The best candidate is the one most likely to win the GE; that candidate is the one who appeals to people that have previously voted republican to become supporters of the Democratic candidate; the one who can also bring out the young voters. Is that candidate going to be the one who has insulted the US by lying about being "under fire"? the one who has mismanaged her campaign from day 1? who voted for the IWR and claims, now, either to have been "fooled" or to have not realised that the authorisation to use force actually authorised the use of force?

Perhaps the narrative that the OP speaks so blithely about taking back is the fiction that "America is not ready for a non-white candidate,"

[latisha]

152. Here we go again

Okay, so everything you said boils down to if you don't support Obama you're a racist. Oh please, that's using the fear of being labeled a racist to get Obama elected. As far as Hillary's fib, compared to the outright lies of Obama, Hillary's gaff looks like a childish exageration of what I did on my vacation. If people don't vote for Obama it's because they see him for the strawman he is.

[intaglio]

229. I observed that there was NO narrative to take back

I observed that Hillary lied, not fibbed (what a demeaning word to use about an adult), not misspoke, not embroidered but L-I-E-D. She told a deliberate untruth that has infuriated an ally of the US. She told that untruth 3, count it three, times. She could have consulted her military advisers, Sherryl Crow or even her daughter before she broadcast her lie. Of course she did not consult because she is guilty of hubris and she has is paying the price.

I note that you ignore the financial and managerial disaster that her campaign became in February and has continued to be into these succeeding months. She has abandoned small businesses because she cannot meet her debts and her staff have alienated supporters by "double dipping" their credit cards. The only responses I have seen to this Grand Guignol have been whimpers of "Obama does it more" and "Rezko, Rezko" like some badly scratched 78 recording.

Look at the truth - Hillary is unelectable, she does not gather new support, just enthuses loyalists and, even if her past life is ignored, has accumulated do much baggage over the past few months I think even Chimpy could run against her and win

[McCamy Taylor]

147. If the election was meant to be decided on a simple plurality, SD would not exist.

We would just have Dems cast votes and add them up in a room somewhere and not even bother with a convention.

However, the press is playing an RNC game call "Brokered Democratic Convention" and they want to achieve this







And bless their naive little hearts, the Obama camp is helping them by attempting to invalidate the system which Democrats put into place after 1968 and 1972 to keep this kind of disaster from happening again.

[joshcryer]

159. Indeed, a brokered convention is the presses biggest desire, above all.

I have no doubt that somewhere in some dark room press people are talking about how a brokered convention would be the best thing ever.

[McCamy Taylor]

148. But don't forget Dems who won't impeach or end the war who think an Obama vote makes up for it.

People like Pelosi. I am convinced that a number of our do nothing Democrat Congresspeople who have resisted the call to impeach and the call to defund the war are now substituting a vote for Obama as a symbol for their opposition for Bush and the War in place of any real action.

That is not the Obama camp's fault. That is the fault of the spineless Congress. I would like to hear Obama call upon his Democratic superdelegates to defund the war and to start impeachment. If he did that, I would support him wholeheartedly and I think a lot of Dems would.

[Radical Activist]

149. Each day spent running against Hillary is a day not spent running against McCain.

Each dollar raised to run against Hillary is a dollar that won't be spent against McCain.

You have a long post but it usually takes a lot of tortured logic to muddle a simple, obvious truth.

[Austinitis]

167. We're going to win anyways

You're assuming that Dems need those extra dollars and days to win. I think that's pretty clearly not the case.

[Radical Activist]

228. That's a very dangerous assumption I also heard in '04.

[latisha]

150. I agree

I hope Hillary goes right to the bitter end and shows up at the convention and let them duke it out there. It won't be the first time a candidate went to the convention to fight it out and this time it will be no different. Hillary is tenacious - that's for sure. I really hope she gets the nomination because she has been really sidelined by the media in favor of a candidate who has no credentials, except those he made up, to support him being the nomination. Nor do I feel that he will get elected in the GE, not because of the Wright incident, but because his whole presidencial bid is built on a house of cards, which is sure to colapse when under intense scutiny. BTW - If you notice, Obama doesn't do to well without a teleprompter. Just wait until McCain gets him in a one to one and shows the world what Obama doesn't know. At least Hillary will be able to hold her own against McCain.

[jonestonesusa]

220. Some DUers have a very high opinion of McCain

just as Hillary does.

Plus...

Did Obama make up being in the Senate or the Illinois legislature?

Did Obama make up being an honored Harvard graduate and a student/teacher of Constitutional law?

Did Obama make up leaving a higher paying corporate job to organize in the African American community in Chicago?

Did Obama make up having built a national organization that has helped him rise from relative obscurity to being the front runner for the Democratic nomination for president and being consistently competitive against the presumptive Republican nominee?

Did Obama make up re-energizing the party by gaining over one million small donors, to the point where the Republican candidate is asking for public finance limits?

Or more pertinently - did Obama make up a story of being under fire, repeat it, and say when caught that it was "sleep deprivation" that made him do it?

You don't have to vote for Obama - no one here does. But it is intellectually dishonest to say that he has done nothing to gain his status as a national figure and a leading candidate for the nomination. I enjoy discussions of the merits of Clinton and Obama with reason, facts, and thoughtful opinions. But your opinion is one sided, and doesn't even account for the fact that Obama's Gallup polls are up since the so-called "Wright incident," a tempest in a teapot that even McCain and Huckabee have declined to exploit for political purposes. But for Hillary Clinton, it's another campaign "issue" to be exploited, even as it alienates African American voters, a core constituency for electing Democrats.

[susankh4]

154. Brava!

K&R

[JTFrog]

155. Hillary IS winning.

[joshcryer]

156. Welcome to DU, excellent post.

The responses, not so much, but what can you do.

[InfiniteNether]

160. Don't misunderestimate the support that McCain has

I don't believe for one second that the Rapture Cultists will not support him wholeheartedly. After all, Rush said "It's all about winning, folks. I want our party to win." I believe Obama can landslide McCain. I don't think Clinton will, not with McCauliffe's beloved 50.1% strategy that her campaign clings to. The 50 state strategy is much better. It forces McCain to spend money and time in states that are "supposed" to be red, while Obama easily raises cash and excitement in those same states to help override the rapture cult vote.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

161. rarely has anyone with so few posts taken so much space to be so comprehensively wrong.

[Eurobabe]

162. Which reincarnated troll are you? Nice formatting for 41 posts

Mods ALERT.

[Austinitis]

194. HTML script is the same everywhere

we use square-brackets here (and I'm used to angle brackets) but that's not a hard change to get used to.

[Mezzo]

163. k&r nt

[Austinitis]

195. What does that mean?

I visit a fair number of web forums and I've never seen either of those phrases...

[A-Schwarzenegger]

211. kangaroos&roaches ... non terminus

It's an old Austrian spell.

[Austinitis]

212. What!?! Really???

[A-Schwarzenegger]

213. kick&recommend ... no text

:-)

[Austinitis]

214. That makes far more sense

Thanks

[kevinmc]

164. Obama will Win the Nomination and the Presidential Election. n/t

[dbmk]

169. Important distinction

"the idea that Hillary Clinton could somehow inspire some “killer-backlash” among the Democrats is at best an absurdity on its face."

Might be in terms of selfprofessed democrats. But that large middle and the large group of young people that have been drawn out of the woodwork might be VERY tempted to go back there, if they are given reason to believe that their enthusiasm and work was just overruled by a party elite. They might accept outright defeat - but dimissal...

[SOS]

171. There are no Republican SDs

Argument: If the Super-Delegates pick Hillary the election will seem stolen!
Reply: It’s hard to see how super-delegates could “steal” an election by acting within party rules, but – more on point – John McCain faced the same charges and Republicans still rallied around him.

1. The 2000 "election" of Shrub was "within the rules".

2. McCain got 1191. No super delegates.

[Austinitis]

192. It doesn't matter

The claim of the Obama people is that the appearance of illegitimacy will cause the backlash (there won't actually be illegitimacy since super-delegates can do what they want within the rules). And that appearance of illegitimacy was present in the Republican primary. Republicans thought the media had manipulated the vote for John McCain. They thought independants had poluted their party's choice. But they still fell in line.

So maybe Obama people will think the result is messed up, but they'll still vote with us.

[SOS]

201. Must disagree

The media was mocking McCain last Fall. They said he was broke and washed up as a candidate. Cartoons mocked his Straight Talk Express as bus with no wheels.
Yet he got the needed 1191 to win.
That's very different from a situation where, theoretically, Obama has more votes and delegates but loses the nomination due to SDs.
McCain got the most votes, the 1191 delegates and won.

[Yotun]

172. Calling your bullshit, Clinton supporters double standards, and your arguments fault

I’ve been watching this forum on and off since the primaries started but never bothered to vote since I already waste too much time in other boards. But this is going too far and the pathetic back-slapping and high-fiving by Clinton supporters whenever somebody makes another ridiculous, illogical, and non-realistic post, is funny and disheartening at the same time.

You seem to be missing a key point in this whole rant.

-Yes Conservatives didn’t want McCain, and they didn’t want him to be the nominee. Yes the hated him. Yes they did anything to have somebody else, and yes they eventually fell in line.

-WHY did they fall in line? Can you guess why? Because McCain WON! And he WON by winning the most PLEDGED DELEGATES. And even Republicans have the decency apparently to respect democracy and put the will of the people of their party above their egos, something SOME people in the democratic party seem incapable to do.

-Your argue by using the GOP as example, and fail to realize that this example is exactly proving the opposite of what you want to say! The elite of the party eventually fell in line to the candidate with the most pledged delegates, even if they didn’t want him, felt him unelectable, or against their views. The party elite did not overturn the will of the people. Despite all the animosity, and all the hatred, and all the negatives that they felt about McCain, they eventually supported the person who won in pledged delegates- had they done the opposite would be the case where your example supports what you want done with the democratic primary.
-And here’s another thing you are missing. As has been my experience with many Obama supporters, they d say indeed that they would vote for Hillary were she to be the nominee. They would have voted for her if she won the primary, and they would prefer her to McCain. That is what the polls show when they show Obama supporters are more willing to vote for Hillary than Hillary Obama, since Obama supporters are more mature and less stuck on a personality cult of the perfect queen who simply-can’t-lose.

-BUT, they will vote for her IF CLINTON WINS THE CONTEST. If Clinton LOSES the pledged delegate count (as she mathematically has), and thus LOSES by the will of the people, and yet a party elite overturn the decision of the people and make her the nominee, effectively stealing the election from Obama, then a lot of Obama supporters who would have voted for her otherwise, will NOT vote for her. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD. And shame to any idiot who will vote for her if she is the nominee with a minority of the pledged delegates, for he cares for neither his nation nor his party.

-If the super-delegates were meant to overturn the will of the people, and be the eventual deciders according to ‘electability’ (in which your candidate loses as well by the way), pledged delegate count be damned, what’s the point of having a primary season in the first place? Why not have the candidates compete with each other for months, and then carry out polls showing performance against the opponent at the last week and decide by themselves? This would remove the problem of ‘buyers remorse’ of the first states (another stupid argument used by Clinton supporters).

-No the fact is, super delegates have the OBLIGATION to vote according to the wishes of pledged delegates, even if that is not specifically set down in the rules. THAT is what democracy is all about. Those super-delegates and party elite have a party because people VOTE for that party to exist. If the people vote that the candidate which best represents them is a certain person, then the party elite has the obligation to accept that candidate however they may feel about him. For one thing, it is tyrannical to assume that 800 elite super-delegates have a greater knowledge and can judge better who people will vote for than the MILLIONS of Americas who have actually voted for their preference. Secondly, even if the feel that the candidate is genuinely unelectable, SO FUCKING WHAT? That is the nature of democracy, that the majority candidate wins and the minority must go along with it. If the people of the democratic party, weighing in the flaws and the positives of an Obama candidacy, decide that Obama is the person they want representing them, who are the super-delegates to decide otherwise, whatever the reason, and overturn their will?

-Would you accept your candidate winning the November election CLEARLY, and a political elite deciding to give the presidency to the candidate who loses, because they have special knowledge and realize the losing candidate is better suited for the presidency, despite what the voters say? Would you accept accept a political elite overturn the will of the people in the actual election because the losing candidate is judged by that same elite to possess an arbitrary quality- whether it is electability in 2012, or knowledge of economics- that the other candidate does not? THIS IS NOT DEMOCRASY! This is tyranny, and monarchy.

-If Clinton loses the pledged delegate count, but is given the nomination by the super-delegates, then YOU MUST NOT VOTE FOR HER. I cannot stress this enough. There is too much at stake to vote for her if she wins like that. Yes she may agree with you more on the issues than McCain, but what will be at stake will be democracy itself. For, for all his flaws, McCain won his nomination fairly and democratically. By electing Hillary you will be telling the political elite of the country that they can over-turn the will of the voters, they can pick candidates that are NOT who the people chosen, and that you will STILL go along and vote for them. It will set a far too dangerous precedent for the future, and will consolidate power no on the hands of the people but on the hands of an insider few with the better connection in the political elite. Next election, somebody else will steal the election from the proper winner, with an other excuse. The next election, it will be another excuse, and in the end they won’t even bother to give excuses to you. If you want democracy to mean something, and your vote to be important, do NOT vote for Hillary Clinton.

-And yet look at Hillary and her supporters speak about, not disenfranching states, when she has mathematically lost the pledged delegate count, and when almost all past conventions were decided far before the convention. When with the same voice she used to say the election would be decided in February, or March, and had no plan for campaigning before that. When with the same breath she condemned Ralph Nader because ‘his supporters won’t be voting for McCain anyway’ so he will be taking votes from the democrats. What happens to voter enfranchisement then Hillary huh? Double speak, and saying onething when it supports her, and another when it doesn’t.




- Look at Hillary with one breath say that the Florida delegates should be seated, because they were gained in an election run on an ‘even playing field’, even though it clearly disenfranchised many voters by telling them their vote wouldn’t count so they didn’t bother, and with the same breath say she won’t accept a Caucus to repeat the Florida election, because it disenfranchises voters EVEN THOUGH A CAUCUS IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR BOTH CANDIDATES. If using the same rules on a caucus for both candidates, Obama wins, its suddenly not ok because it disenfranchises voters. When the whole Florida election disenfranchised everyone, its ok, because it was a level playing field. WHY ISN’T ANYBODY CALLING HER OUT ON THIS SHIT?

- Look at Hillary and her supporters, with one breath say that the super-delegates should get to vote despite the will of the people, and that Obama hasn’t won because he hasn’t reached the 2000 something delegates needed, and that’s what the rules say, and then with the same breath proclaim that Obama HASN’T won Texas, and that Florida and Michigan should be seated, DESPITE WHAT THE RULES SAY. Again, double standards for the queen.

-And finally to the pathetic and frankly idiotic argument, of if Obama is so certain to win, why haven’t super delegates come out for him then:
1) If you haven’t noticed a lot of them HAVE, and a lot of them ARE calling for Clinton to quit the race.
2)Because they know that despite the fact that Obama HAS won, if they do decide to support him now and end this without Clinton first quitting by herself, she will proclaim that the rest of the states and herself were disenfranchised, and that the primary should have been left to conclude, and they know, that if they do so, they will fracture the party (because a lot of stupid Clinton supporters will apparently lap that up and are already saying they won’t vote for Obama even if he fairly wins), and this will cost them the November election. THAT is why they aren’t coming for Obama now, because they know that Hillary’s actions have made it so that they party will be fractured if we do not pander to her every wish and do not support the guy who has won, and instead must wait for the convention to satisfy her vain pride.

AND NEXT TIME, USE YOUR DAMN HEAD BEFORE POSTING

[knixphan]

178. wow

"By electing Hillary you will be telling the political elite of the country that they can over-turn the will of the voters, they can pick candidates that are NOT who the people chosen, and that you will STILL go along and vote for them."


-That's deep. And something to seriously think about, party loyalty aside...

[Yotun]

187. its also common sense and logical

Have you never considered that? I know people who feel just the same way.

The problem in the US is that so many people think about NOW, and not the precedents you set in the future:
1) In 2000 a precedent was set when Bush was made president despite losing. If it ever happens again in 4 years, the pundits will be saying 'Its not something that's never happend before, its just like the Bush election in 2000.
2) The last couple of years, by NOT impeaching Bush, the precedent was set that you can start a war, lie to the nation, get your soldiers killed, and nobody will do anything about it. What a lot of democrats failed to realise in Congress, (or perhaps they did realise it, and had their position against impeachment for the very same reason), is that its not about the fact that Bush will be leaving in 2 years anyway. Its about what you are telling every future president he can do and get away with.
3) And now, its not just about getting a democrat elected in 2008, or what happends now. Its also all about what's acceptable in all other future primaries, and whether ANOTHER arbitrary characteristic will be chosen as the one thing the candidate the people want DOESN'T have, allowing the candidate who lost but has better connection in the elite to get the nomination.

So think very carefuly where you place your vote, and what you are telling to the people running this nation...

[Usrename]

232. Welcome to DU, Yotun!

Your words might be wasted on some folks here, but not on everyone. I think if Hillary gets the nod at this point, it will probably become the opening for a new political party. A whole lot of people, of all stripes, might like that a lot more than we know. So this is the primary reason she is no longer in the running. The party must survive, especially if it can be reduced to a very weakened state.

[Yotun]

254. Thanks but

I don't think it will be the start of a new party, because I don't think there's space for a 3rd major party in the US. At worse it will mean a GOP majority for another decade. I fear that if Clinton wins the nomination, either McCain will win, or to me even worse, people will go along with it and vote for her, reducing the meaning of democracy to nothing, and setting a far too dangerous example for the future.

Fortunately I find the possibility of Hillary winning far too remote.

[redqueen]

182. Hi Yotun...

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Austinitis]

200. Thanks

for your thoughtful reply. I'm on lunch now and can't respond to anything this long, but I'll try to address what you've said when I get off tonight.

[Yotun]

223. Some facts to consider before you reply

Some facts to consider before you reply:

1) There is no feasible way for Hillary Clinton to overtake Barack Obama in the pledged delegate count in any way whatsoever.

2) The only way for Hillary to win the nomination is if superdelegates overthrow the majority count of the pledged delegates.

3) Hillary, by stating that super-delegates are not forced to follow the vote of the pledged delegaets has made this 'appear' a viable strategy for her.

Analyzing these, and the conclusions we can reach from them:
1) In ANY primary or election, had the votes been counted to the 80 something % level, and one candidate had won the majority of the delegates, the popular vote, and the majority of states by the margin that Obama has, he would be called the winner, and the election ended. Even the strongest Hillary supporters MUST face that there is no possible way to overtake Obama in the pledged delegate count. The political futures market at intrade.com have Obama at 80.4 and Hillary at 17.3 to win the nomination. The markets don’t lie, and the don’t care for political partisanship. Traders set the prices according to all current information, and all information shows that Hillary has a miniscule chance of winning.
The argument is made that she may win the popular vote count. Even if she does, which is highly unlikely, that vote is undemocratic unlike the pledged delegate count. May of Obama’s victories were in states with caucuses, and they were won by VERY large margins. He would not have lost those states, even were they to be a primary- but because they were caucus states, they drive his popular vote count down- even so, he is still, again, above Hillary.
The argument is also made that he can’t reach the final count needed to secure the nomination without super-delegates. That is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether he has the democratically chosen majority in elected delegates over his opponent, and is thus the candidate the majority of the people have chosen as best representative of their views.
2) It is true that super-delegates are not forced by the rules to vote according to the pledged delegate count. They are also not forced to vote by who is so called ‘most electable’. The rules merely say they can vote as they wish. They therefore have a choice- they can vote for who the pledged delegates vote for, or they can vote for any other reasons. It is certainly their right to vote for the minority candidate- but they have no right then calling the process democratic, or the party the democratic party. As long as the majority candidate hasn’t completely imploded upon himself in a dramatic fashion, to CHOOSE, according to the rights granted to them by the rules, yes, NOT to give the nomination to the majority candidate, is to CHOOSE to go against the will of the people, and put the will of the political elite above the will of the people.
To vote for the good of the party is to vote according to its principles and values, the values of democracy and equality of vote. If the super-delegates CHOOSE to go against those values, the rules may allow them to do so, but they also give ME and everybody else the CHOICE to want nothing to do with that party and that candidate.
Whether the ELITE MINORITY feels that a candidate is unelectable is absolutely meaningless when the majority of the people have chosen he is the person that best represents them. In a democracy the elite has to suck it up and go with the will of the electorate. They can make the argument that its an internal decision by a private party, not a national election, so we have no right to complain- yes, but I will certainly then know that the internal decisions of that party do not value democracy and do not value what the majority of the people who vote for that party actually want. Ever since the decision was made to have primary races for candidates, then the party owes it to its ideals to do the democratic thing, even if the elite doesn’t like it.
As has been posted by others, there wasn’t in the past a case where a viable, majority preferred candidate was so blatantly rejected by the party elite- and if there HAD been, then the party should be ashamed of it, and ensure it doesn’t happen again. Even if the race was close (it isn’t, see point 1), then again it would be THEN that the party should show its true values, and nominate the person who has but 1 pledged delegate over the other.
As I said, Obama supporters will vote for Hillary if she were to somehow win the election. They will not if she LOSES, but is given the candidacy by a political elite. And if you truly think that the majority white political elite of the party will steal the election from a black candidate who has won the majority in the primaries, to give it to a white woman who has lost the contest, and that people are still going to vote for her- you are sadly living in a different world than I my friend.
And finally, if they do so, they set a very dangerous example for the future. It will tell all future politicians, that they can override the will of the voters and you will still vote for them anyway. Think very carefully what you vote for. Because your choice may decide whether politicians feel that its more important to build political alliances and become members of an elite political system, rather than winning the votes of actual people. Look at the history of your country in recent years. And look at the precedents set by allowing politicians to do things that violate democracy and equality. The 2000 elections, the Iraq war… do you really want to make your vote worthless? If Obama is deemed by the elite unelectable because of patriotism, then what stops them in 2012 from blocking another majority elected candidate that they do not favor because he is unelectable because of his religion, or anything else? Democracy has no place for higher class elites with greater voting power, and the ability to override the will of the majority.
3) Despite all that, Hillary has made it seem that she can legitimately get the super-delegates to nominate her. That is why they will not switch to Obama to drive her out. They know there is no way for her to win. But they are afraid. They see the polls about 22% of Hillary supporters no voting for Obama. If they force her out, her support which has been duped into thinking she has a chance will rebel, and will see it as disenfranchising her, and may cost the democrats the election on November. Why should the super-delegates risk running her out, when they know that she will leave regardless if they let the thing run its course? There is of course the fear that the infighting hurts the candidate in November- which is why many are calling to her to get out on her own- but as described above, they will not dare FORCE her do so. And the Clinton name and connections still carry a lot of power as well in the inner circles of the democratic party.


To finish off- if she does do get the nomination by overriding the will of the pledged delegates she will certainly lose the election. The Republicans have two strengths in McCain, his perceived honesty, and his perceived national-security credentials.

What will they do against Obama? He is younger, he turns out more votes, he is more electrifying. The only thing they can see to attack him on will be patriotism to play against war-hero McCain- the flag pins, hands on hearts and ‘proud’ comments by Michelle. But they will fall flat on their face. The polls showing the candidates head to head mean nothing now, for the candidates haven’t started sparring and drawing their differences yet- that Obama is so close to McCain when McCain is getting such a free ride shows his strength. And when they attack him on patriotism they will implode, because Obama need only make a speech about patriotism and how the so-called patriots lied to the nation, got it in a war, and led to the death of thousands of soldiers and the strengthening of Al-Qaida. The patriotism charge won’t work when you and your party support a massively unpopular war that costs innocent lies. The GOP wants to take the war far away as possible. When they attack Obama on patriotism he is too good a speaker not to turn the issue in a referendum on the war, and he can’t lose that.

If you nominate Clinton? They will attack on another angle. They will contrast her with straight talker, honest McCain. Hillary Clinton who lies about being in sniper fire. Hillary Clinton who lies about how she was named. Hillary Clinton who has the lowest trustworthiness rating of all the candidates. HILLARY CLINTON WHO IS SO MAD FOR POWER THAT SHE STOLE THE ELECTION FROM A DEMOCRATICALLY SELECTED CANDIDATE OF HER OWN PARTY! Can’t you just see that? Can’t you see how the independents will hate her, how this will be, rightfully, used against her, and a narrative formed that she has no way to overcome? She was for the war, but no she is against, but she won’t apologize. She was against NAFTA, but was holding events in support of it, but was secretly in the back scenes against it. She laughed at Sinbad, and really was in danger in Bosnia, but actually she was not, and she just misspoke, and it just so happened to be 4 times. How can she fight this? She has no way to turn the narrative like Obama. And she has no way to turn McCain strength of honesty into an weakness, like Obama will do with his national-security credentials when he brings the war up front and points McCain’s support of it.


Be honest to yourself, look at the FACTS, and think about what you must do.

[Austinitis]

237. Reply

Your reply is a bit disorganized and all over the place, so you'll have to forgive me if my response is also a bit erratic:

Intrade.com
I think it would be a mistake to read too much into Hillary's current ranking on intrade.com. If you look at http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=175729">John McCain's intrade page you'll see that his shares were selling for less than ten cents for most of the fall and summer of 07. August is a long way off, and it's hard to say how perceptions will have changed since then.

Popular Vote:

The argument is made that she may win the popular vote count. Even if she does, which is highly unlikely, that vote is undemocratic unlike the pledged delegate count. May of Obama’s victories were in states with caucuses, and they were won by VERY large margins. He would not have lost those states, even were they to be a primary- but because they were caucus states, they drive his popular vote count down- even so, he is still, again, above Hillary.

Actually, the caucus thing favors Obama pretty heavily and makes it look as if he has more support than he does, even in the popular vote. A lot of Hillary's supporters are older and have kids and jobs. They can't afford to spend hours at a caucus like Obama's supporters (childless college students) can. So the voting mechanism acts to "filter out" Hillary's support and give Obama a boost. Many of those states would have been won by Hillary had they held primaries and Hillary would also have picked up a substantial number of votes in them.

The argument is also made that he can’t reach the final count needed to secure the nomination without super-delegates. That is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether he has the democratically chosen majority in elected delegates over his opponent, and is thus the candidate the majority of the people have chosen as best representative of their views.

I hardly see how this is irrelevant. Obama is in this situation now because he failed to score a decisive win, despite having 50 states to do so in. If Obama hadn't performed in a weaker fashion than any single leading candidate in recent memory then the super delegates wouldn't even matter. We wouldn't be talking about them, and he wouldn't need their support. It's only because the American people haven't fully endorsed him - because they're not sure - that we're in this situation. And in a case like that - where voters haven't spoken decisively in favor of any candidate - I see nothing undemocratic about super-delegates exercising their discretion.

It is true that super-delegates are not forced by the rules to vote according to the pledged delegate count. They are also not forced to vote by who is so called ‘most electable’. The rules merely say they can vote as they wish. They therefore have a choice- they can vote for who the pledged delegates vote for, or they can vote for any other reasons. It is certainly their right to vote for the minority candidate- but they have no right then calling the process democratic, or the party the democratic party. As long as the majority candidate hasn’t completely imploded upon himself in a dramatic fashion, to CHOOSE, according to the rights granted to them by the rules, yes, NOT to give the nomination to the majority candidate, is to CHOOSE to go against the will of the people, and put the will of the political elite above the will of the people.

Again, there basically is no will of the people right now. If there was we wouldn't need to talk about super-delegates.

As I said, Obama supporters will vote for Hillary if she were to somehow win the election. They will not if she LOSES, but is given the candidacy by a political elite. And if you truly think that the majority white political elite of the party will steal the election from a black candidate who has won the majority in the primaries, to give it to a white woman who has lost the contest, and that people are still going to vote for her- you are sadly living in a different world than I my friend.

They'll vote for whoever wins the nomination, regardless of what role the super-delegates play. So can we finally put these scare tactics to bed? Please? I don't think many people here buy them any more.

Text

[Yotun]

253. reply to reply

'''' I think it would be a mistake to read too much into Hillary's current ranking on intrade.com. If you look at John McCain's intrade page you'll see that his shares were selling for less than ten cents for most of the fall and summer of 07. August is a long way off, and it's hard to say how perceptions will have changed since then. ''''


Markets base their number on all current information. As new information comes out the numbers change. When the elections started and McCain got more votes, the new info was translated to new votes.

Based on everything we know now (including information on potential future movements), Hillary stands no chance, and the mathematics reflects on the market numbers. There may be new unexpected info coming up, but at 80+% of the race, its unlikely to change really much.

'''' Actually, the caucus thing favors Obama pretty heavily and makes it look as if he has more support than he does, even in the popular vote. A lot of Hillary's supporters are older and have kids and jobs. They can't afford to spend hours at a caucus like Obama's supporters (childless college students) can. So the voting mechanism acts to "filter out" Hillary's support and give Obama a boost. Many of those states would have been won by Hillary had they held primaries and Hillary would also have picked up a substantial number of votes in them. ''''


Yet with the same breath, you people go and talk about sitting the Florida delegates, because it was 'a level playing field'- even though voters were disenfranchised by basically voting for a different contest, on in which their votes wouldn't count and many didn't bother to show up!
Let's be real about this for a moment. Caucuses are a level playing field. Both candidates walk into the SAME system. If on that field Hillary can't draw the necessary support, and the enthusiastic voters likelty to caucus and work for the nominee on November, then TOUGH LUCK, and that's another reason not to support her. Its not the system that favours Obama. Its the fact that he's a much better candidate, and on an even playing field, does better than Clinton.
And secondly its disingenious to argue that caucuses do not bring down Obama's popular lead. He would have won many of the caucus states he won by double-digit leads anyway. But the fact that its a caucus where fewer people vote means his popular vote lead gets squeezed.

'''' I hardly see how this is irrelevant. Obama is in this situation now because he failed to score a decisive win, despite having 50 states to do so in. If Obama hadn't performed in a weaker fashion than any single leading candidate in recent memory then the super delegates wouldn't even matter. We wouldn't be talking about them, and he wouldn't need their support. It's only because the American people haven't fully endorsed him - because they're not sure - that we're in this situation. And in a case like that - where voters haven't spoken decisively in favor of any candidate - I see nothing undemocratic about super-delegates exercising their discretion. ''''

Regardless how Obama has performed, his principal opponent has performed WORSE. The voters HAVE decided decisively on a candidate, and they would have done so even if his lead was 1 pledged delegate more. You seem to have a misunderstanding of what democracy is. Its exactly at points of close elections (which this one isn't by the way) that one's respect for democracy shows, when you accept that just 1 vote more means the candidate wins. There is no way you can spin this.

YES ACCORDING TO THE RULES OBAMA HASN'T REACHED THE FINAL NUMBER NEEDED- BUT IF THAT RULE IS USED TO GIVE THE NOMINATION TO HILLARY THEN THOSE RULES ARE UNDEMOCRATIC!

You seem to confuse the written-down rules of the democratic party, with the universal ideals of democracy and equality- the rules of the democratic party may have super-delegates that override the will of the people- but in democracy there is no rule of 'magic numbers'. Its a simple concept, the one with the more support wins, and if the rules of the democratic party allow for the party elite to overrde the candidate who has won the most support, then they are undemocratic, and you bet your ass I WON'T vote for them, and neither will a LOT of other people.


Everything you say is merely an excuse to override democracy, and tell us that the will of a party elite can override the will of the voters. It doesn't work.

[Austinitis]

257. Reply to Reply to Reply

Markets base their number on all current information. As new information comes out the numbers change. When the elections started and McCain got more votes, the new info was translated to new votes.

Based on everything we know now (including information on potential future movements), Hillary stands no chance, and the mathematics reflects on the market numbers. There may be new unexpected info coming up, but at 80+% of the race, its unlikely to change really much.

That still doesn't address the fundamental problem with what you're saying. You're arguing that these markets are somehow good indicators of future events, but at the very least you've yet to tell us when the markets become good indicators. Is it six months out from the event? Is it two months out? Three weeks? A day? Market predictions at one time contradict market predictions at later times and you've given us no reason to think that right now is the period in time during which markets are correct.

And even if the market was correct right now, it's still assigning Hillary a one in five chance of being president. Certainly those odds aren't so bad that HIllary should drop out. Lots of people apply to multiple jobs expecting only to get offers at one in five of them.

So even in your best-case scenario (where the markets are accurate right now), you don't have that strong a case for your pretty extreme claims. And I see no reason to think this is your best case scenario.

Yet with the same breath, you people go and talk about sitting the Florida delegates, because it was 'a level playing field'- even though voters were disenfranchised by basically voting for a different contest, on in which their votes wouldn't count and many didn't bother to show up!

That's a bit unfair. I personally supported a re-vote in Florida, but Obama killed that.

Let's be real about this for a moment. Caucuses are a level playing field. Both candidates walk into the SAME system. If on that field Hillary can't draw the necessary support, and the enthusiastic voters likelty to caucus and work for the nominee on November, then TOUGH LUCK, and that's another reason not to support her. Its not the system that favours Obama. Its the fact that he's a much better candidate, and on an even playing field, does better than Clinton.

Look, the fact that it takes three hours to vote at a caucus presents a barrier to voting just as much as a photo-ID requirement does. And until they started benefiting half of us, out party used to be the one that was opposed to that sort of thing - the party which recognized the insidious ways in which barriers to voting can disenfranchise citizens who have every right to be heard.

And secondly its disingenious to argue that caucuses do not bring down Obama's popular lead. He would have won many of the caucus states he won by double-digit leads anyway. But the fact that its a caucus where fewer people vote means his popular vote lead gets squeezed.

A caucus voter's vote counts just as much in the popular vote as anyone else's. Granted, the state gets less sway in the popular vote than it otherwise would, but I think we dropped the "nation of states rather than people" thing back in the 18th century.

Regardless how Obama has performed, his principal opponent has performed WORSE. The voters HAVE decided decisively on a candidate, and they would have done so even if his lead was 1 pledged delegate more. You seem to have a misunderstanding of what democracy is. Its exactly at points of close elections (which this one isn't by the way) that one's respect for democracy shows, when you accept that just 1 vote more means the candidate wins. There is no way you can spin this.

A single delegate/vote lead isn't a "decisive" lead at all. It's a tiny lead. There's no way you can spin this into a "will of the people" thing. There is no will of the people when there's this much division.

YES ACCORDING TO THE RULES OBAMA HASN'T REACHED THE FINAL NUMBER NEEDED- BUT IF THAT RULE IS USED TO GIVE THE NOMINATION TO HILLARY THEN THOSE RULES ARE UNDEMOCRATIC!

You seem to confuse the written-down rules of the democratic party, with the universal ideals of democracy and equality- the rules of the democratic party may have super-delegates that override the will of the people- but in democracy there is no rule of 'magic numbers'. Its a simple concept, the one with the more support wins, and if the rules of the democratic party allow for the party elite to overrde the candidate who has won the most support, then they are undemocratic, and you bet your ass I WON'T vote for them, and neither will a LOT of other people.

If having one extra vote meant you got whatever you wanted, then we wouldn't have the plethora of minority protections that we enjoy in this country. The existence of things like filibusters shows that democracy isn't just about "one more vote gets you whatever you want."

[Yotun]

268. Reply to reply to reply to reply

'That still doesn't address the fundamental problem with what you're saying. You're arguing that these markets are somehow good indicators of future events, but at the very least you've yet to tell us when the markets become good indicators. Is it six months out from the event? Is it two months out? Three weeks? A day? Market predictions at one time contradict market predictions at later times and you've given us no reason to think that right now is the period in time during which markets are correct.

And even if the market was correct right now, it's still assigning Hillary a one in five chance of being president. Certainly those odds aren't so bad that HIllary should drop out. Lots of people apply to multiple jobs expecting only to get offers at one in five of them.

So even in your best-case scenario (where the markets are accurate right now), you don't have that strong a case for your pretty extreme claims. And I see no reason to think this is your best case scenario.'

The market gives figures based on all known information NOW, about expectations forfuture events- i.e. according to everything you can possibly know now, about the probabilities of events going one way or another, Hillary has a less than 1 in 5 chance of winning the nomination. The numbers can change if new UNEXPECTED info comes up, but with more than 80% of the contest done, its unlikely it will change things dramatically. Since you mentioned McCains figures for example, those figures were from before the start of the primaries, and a lot of unexpected events happened since that time that the figures would have no way of incorporating.
The thing I'm trying to say is, unless you have priviledged information now that people trading don't have its ridiculous to say that, with all we know now, Hillary has a better than 1 in 5 chances to win this. (actually having just checked she's now at 15.3 which is more like... 1 in 6.5).


Secondly, Obama didn't 'kill' the Florida revotes and you know that so cut the spin.


Thirdly, whatever the difficulties in voting for a candidate in a caucus, its something that both candidates have to face. If in a level playing field Hillary can't draw the votes, tough luck to her. The fact is, in a contest with both primaries and caucuses, the popular vote is not a good indicator of the will of the people, because one candidate may create far more of a gap by winning a primary than a caucus, merely due to the nature of the systems, even though the other candidate might in reality have a much greater gap in the caucus state.


Finally one more vote IS a majority. This is not a case of protecting a minority from a majority. The majority cannot do as it wants when it stops the rights of the minority, but in an election the minority doesn't have a 'right' to be elected. There is no two ways to spin this. If a candidate has a single vote majority over another candidate, and the election is taken from him by a decision by an elite class, because they think the candidate with the majority in the vote doesn't fit some criterion that that elite has chosen, that is going against the values of democracy. THERE IS NO WAY TO SPIN THIS, AND NO WAY TO EXCUSE IT.

[Austinitis]

269. Replies

The market gives figures based on all known information NOW, about expectations forfuture events- i.e. according to everything you can possibly know now, about the probabilities of events going one way or another, Hillary has a less than 1 in 5 chance of winning the nomination. The numbers can change if new UNEXPECTED info comes up, but with more than 80% of the contest done, its unlikely it will change things dramatically. Since you mentioned McCains figures for example, those figures were from before the start of the primaries, and a lot of unexpected events happened since that time that the figures would have no way of incorporating.
The thing I'm trying to say is, unless you have priviledged information now that people trading don't have its ridiculous to say that, with all we know now, Hillary has a better than 1 in 5 chances to win this. (actually having just checked she's now at 15.3 which is more like... 1 in 6.5).

I don't know that there's any way for us resolve our disagreement about the accuracy of the markets, but we can say something about the likelihood of events which could change the outcome of the race.

Several things could happen between now and August to pull Hillary to the lead. Most prominent among these, Hillary could take the lead in the popular vote. In fact, if you include Florida and Michigan, there's a good chance that she'll lead the popular vote after Pennsylvania. Once/if she does that, she'll have a pretty effective case to pitch to super-delegates.

Another possibility is that Hillary could finally, as I suggest in my OP, get around to disputing Obama's framework. It'll take a few weeks in the news cycle before that framework gets torn all the way down, but certainly that's not an impossible scenario.

Or more Jeremiah Wright tapes could come out. Or someone from the church could come out and insist he was there for some of those sermons (which would pound Obama like Hillary's Bosnia nonsense pounded her). If the timing is right on that, it could make super-delegates panic and shift to Hillary.

In any case, six months is a political life-time. I mean it seems crazy looking back, but this whole primary only started about three months ago. So the time between now and August will run twice the length that the primary has run now. And if you think about the way perceptions have changed since early January, it seems a bit absurd to think people will be looking at this race the way they are now in six months.

Secondly, Obama didn't 'kill' the Florida revotes and you know that so cut the spin.

Yes he did. He kept raising objections to the proposed procedure. Granted, there were legitimate problems with the plan, but Obama's still the one who decided that no vote at all was better than an imperfect one.

Thirdly, whatever the difficulties in voting for a candidate in a caucus, its something that both candidates have to face. If in a level playing field Hillary can't draw the votes, tough luck to her. The fact is, in a contest with both primaries and caucuses, the popular vote is not a good indicator of the will of the people, because one candidate may create far more of a gap by winning a primary than a caucus, merely due to the nature of the systems, even though the other candidate might in reality have a much greater gap in the caucus state.

You're still cold-dropping my response that each individual who votes gets the same weight in the popular vote count, no matter where they're from. There aren't any individuals who would get less representation than they deserve in the popular vote.

The delegate count, on the other hand, has all sorts of crazy problems. For example, to pick up one delegate in California it takes Hillary 20,000 votes. To pick up one delegate in Wyoming it takes 1,000 votes. Can you think of any reason that someone in Wyoming should have twenty times the voice that someone in California has? Certainly I can't.

Moreover, the pledged delegate count has been polluted by the results of county conventions which revert the will of precinct conventions. Obama has picked up extra delegates in several states (including my own state of Texas) which exceed the support he actually received from voters in those states. I see no reason to think that a system thus polluted represents popular will better than the popular vote.

Finally one more vote IS a majority. This is not a case of protecting a minority from a majority. The majority cannot do as it wants when it stops the rights of the minority, but in an election the minority doesn't have a 'right' to be elected. There is no two ways to spin this. If a candidate has a single vote majority over another candidate, and the election is taken from him by a decision by an elite class, because they think the candidate with the majority in the vote doesn't fit some criterion that that elite has chosen, that is going against the values of democracy. THERE IS NO WAY TO SPIN THIS, AND NO WAY TO EXCUSE IT.

We should understand democracy in a broad, "rule of the people" way. All that's required for this understanding is that the people, for the most part, be in charge of what happens. (Note that this doesn't require absolute control: the US is still a democracy even though we have unelected judges who's decisions don't require popular approval. We're a democracy because, at the end of the day, the people control most of what goes on. Most other democracies have similar features.)

On this understanding, super-delegate freedom is still consistent with democracy because the voters control 80% if what happens. Granted, they don't have absolute control, but they would easily outweigh the super-delegates if they had some common (or even largely shared) desire. That's easily enough controll for the process to be "democratic."

[karynnj]

255. Very impressive

Obama will be hit by many things in the general election - and he will need to fight back on each - as he and his surrogates are fully aware. HRC on the other hand, as you demonstrate had no defense on being dishonest. The Clintons in the 1990s did several sleezy things and used lying as their first defense - even in the 1992 primaries. The difference now is that the Bosnia thing is funny enough that it really has spread and it has actually done more damage than the rest of the dishonesty put together. I am amazed at how much damage the Clintons have likely done to their long term reputations by their actions in this race.

Now, McCain himself is really not all that honest - but no one would even examine that if HRC were his opponent.

[JVS]

252. Wow. Great post

[knixphan]

174. stevenleser's point is so right on

it needs to be re-stated

1. Hillary IS losing and has by admission of several members of her own campaign less than a 10% chance to win. Other observers suggest the possibility is much less than that.

2. The race is very heated.

3. There is a real concern that the race is so heated and may go on so long it will impact the ability of the eventual nominee to win.

[lefty2000]

189. Well Said

You have made a powerful argument, as one can tell by the vehemence of the response.

Much of the Obama camp's arguments are based on democratic values which are selectively applied. They want their man to get the nod because he has a plurality in delegates, but they don't want to count Florida or Michigan because "they broke the rules." They want Hillary to give up before Pennsylvania votes, because it is bad for the party to let the contest continue.

Hillary is not going to quit. Maybe Obama should do the right thing and step aside for the good of the party, but since he is not going to do that, the super delegates will just have to do their job.

The buzz is just the buzz. You can ignore most of it.

[Austinitis]

190. Thanks

[susankh4]

197. Thank You!

Thoughtful and helpful post! Hang in... they'll get the picture soon enough.

[knixphan]

202. "they broke the rules."

...they did.

[kiva]

206. Wow, a post that actually started a discussion!

This is the reason, I think, that most of us came to DU--to be able to read thoughtful, analytical discussions and respond in kind (OK, maybe with a little snark on the side). Barring the usual "I don't wanna read nothin' that's more than a sentence supporting my candidate," this has been a great read--thanks to all, on both sides, for a good start to my morning!

[oasis]

210. Hillary needs to stay in the race. Let the chips fall where they may. (eom)

[wowimthere]

222. Sounds Bushian. Don't ever admit defeat even when you're defeated... Like her war vote...

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

224. "That candidate is Hillary Clinton."

The entire premise of your argument is wrong.

Hillary is not the best candidate for president.

[MaineDem]

226. It's okay to say "bullshit" here

We're liberal.

:hi:

[Beacool]

227. The backlash is not a narrative,

it's the truth. There are some people who are now saying that even if she IS on the ticket they would not vote for the Dem. ticket as long as Obama is on it too. Now, that one threw me for a loop.

[Austinitis]

230. People make all sorts of threats during the primary season

See, for example, Ann Coulter's threat to vote for Hillary over McCain or Rush Limbaugh's threat to stay home. They've backed off that stuff, and so will our people.

[Usrename]

231. Well then, what's the point of having any more votes at all?

You seem to think everything possible outcome is equally beneficial, regardless of how the remaining primaries turn out.

If Obama wins the pledged delegates and the popular vote and Hillary gets the nomination, you seem to be saying that this is just as good as her winning the pledged delegates and popular vote. How do you justify this? How do you rationalize away the movement that has come up around the Obama campaign? How do you deny that these have been record turnouts, with record first-time participants, mostly due to the excitement around one candidate? How do you just ignore that?

Don't you think that if Hillary is selected now, in spite of this spectacular performance by the Obama campaign, that it could have the effect of alienating an entire generation of future Democrats?

What are you thinking? It would be another thing entirely if she were winning, but she isn't winning, she's LOSING! Can you see the difference? Maybe you squint a little harder if it's that difficult for you to see. Not only is Obama winning now, he has been ahead since this thing started back in Iowa. Clinton has never come close to catching him. Now it is impossible for her to catch him, unless she wins each the remaining contests by something like thirty points. It is not possible.

There is no plausible scenario where she wins the Whitehouse. There just isn't any. If the nomination is snaked away the Obama people then her negatives will just go up. They were already too high when this thing started, she can't lose any Democrats and still win the general election. It's over.

Get it? If you want to argue about this then I would suggest that you dream up some plausible scenario where she gets all the way to the presidency. I don't think you can do it, even in the imaginary world you seem to be living in.

[Austinitis]

236. If Obama was winning heavily then super-delegates wouldn't even matter

So I'm not saying that super-delegates should be able to overturn any pledged-delegate lead no matter how big. Rather, the claim here is that, within the limited range of influence allotted to them (after all, they only represent about a fifth of the total number of delegates) they ought to be able to exercise their discretion and pick the person they think best suited to the job.

And Obama will get some advantage out of his slight lead - he has to win over roughly 100 fewer super-delegates. But Obama is in the situation he's in now because he couldn't pick up a substantial majority. Super-delegates only really matter when you basically have a tie, and in that situation Obama's slight lead shouldn't be the last word on who wins.

And once again, she's not going to lose any Dems. They'll get behind her just like I'll get behind Obama if he wins. If she wins the nomination, she wins the Whitehouse.

[Usrename]

238. You are either in denial or you just don't understand arithmetic.

He doesn't have some "slight" lead in this race. He has an "unsurmountable" lead.

Do you really understand the difference between these two things?

She cannot catch him by any plausible scenario. If she is selected in spite of losing a hard-fought contest, she cannot win the general.

[Austinitis]

239. If it's an "insurmountable" lead then why do you care how the supers vote?

Answer: Because it's not that big a lead after all.

[Usrename]

241. The supers are one-fifth of the delegates.

You aren't any good with numbers, are you?

[Austinitis]

242. The supers are one-fifth of the delegates, so a 160 delegate lead isn't that big of a deal

You aren't any good with numbers, are you?

[Usrename]

243. It's a huge lead that she cannot overcome.

What is wrong with you?

Are you really this dishonest, or do you really not understand that he has an insurmountable lead?

[Austinitis]

244. We're going in a loop: If it's an "insurmountable" lead then why do you care how the supers vote?

You can either say "the super-delegates represent a threat to Obama's candidacy" (in which case Hillary can still win) or you can say "there's no way for Hillary to win the nomination" (in which case why are you arguing so hard?). But you can't have both.

And if you're going to come back and say "well the insurmountable lead is just in pledged-delegates" then we're back at my whole point: leading pledged-delegates =/= winning the nomination.

[Usrename]

246. You must have a huge blind spot about this whole thing.

You are arguing that it won't matter to anyone if she loses the elections and then gets selected by the superdelegates anyway.

That's beyond ridiculous. Of course it matters to most voters if she wins the elections or loses them.

You honestly believe that there is no difference to the voters in any of these four outcomes:

1) Obama wins the elections and wins the nomination.

2) Clinton wins the elections and wins the nomination.

3) Obama wins the elections and loses the nomination to Clinton.

4) Clinton wins the elections and loses the nomination to Obama.


Your basic argument is that Clinton has the same liklihood of winning the general election, whether she gets there by #2 or #3. You don't think it matters one whit, the masses will support her just the same, in either case.

What are you basing that on? How can you say that? Do you honestly think that the voting public would ratify a decision made in that manner? This would not offend your sense of fair play at all?

It's hard to imagine, but I guess we have seen examples of this kind of behavior very recently. Bush was more than happy to be sworn in after having lost the election. Perhaps you're right after all, and I'm just misunderestimating the total depravity of her entire message.

[Austinitis]

256. Voter anger would only be worrisome if either

a) It were significant enough to sink the general election nominee. or
b) It were legitimate and well founded.

And I don't think either of those is the case.

On A: I think that some people will be upset no matter who wins (for example, I'll be a bit sad if Obama wins), but I think that people will come around after week or so. The Republicans show us that you can have a primary where a lot of people threaten to quit the party and that they can get over their anger reasonably fast.

So, yes, Obama's supporters will be upset if super-delegates outweigh Obama's delegate lead. But not upset enough that Hillary can't win.

On B: There's certainly nothing actually illegitimate about using super-delegates to score a win (regardless of how such a win is perceived), so any voter anger isn't something I mind blowing off. The super-delegate rules were in place when the game started and everyone knew (or should have known) about them.

Moreover, the Obama camp hasn't exactly been scrupulous about only utilizing those rules which validate the popular will. For example, there are lots of Obama supporters on these boards bragging about how Obama won more delegates than Hillary in Texas, despite being significantly behind in the Texas popular vote. Stuff like that makes it a bit hard to believe that your side actually cares very much about representing the voice of the people. If you're going to play hardball then so will we.

[Usrename]

258. You just don't get it, do you?

If the Republicans were to give their nomination to Rudy Guliano at their convention, after McCain has won, there would be an uproar!

Right? Isn't that true?

You don't want to acknowledge the truth of what is really going on here, do you?

Yes the superdelegate rules have been in place for a while. But how does that change the fact that Obama has won this contest?

You don't think most Americans have any sense of fair-play that might get offended. You're wrong.

[Austinitis]

260. The Republicans are more likely to break

so if it went to Rudy Giuliani they probably would. But that's because they're just putting holes in an already sinking ship when they do. They don't have any real incentive not to split.

Democrats, on the other hand, would probably rally after a week if the nomination somehow ended up with Gore.

And Obama hasn't won the contest. That's why we're still talking about this. The convention, you may be surprised to learn, isn't actually until August. There won't be a winner until then unless someone drops out.

[grantcart]

250. well since you started this thread Obama has picked up two more

supers

6 more delegates in Texas



and plus 2 in Mississippi


Other than that you are gaining ground lol

[FatDave]

233. Couple points

(fair warning: I use the f-word a couple times in here, but never directed at you)

I'm not even going to argue the superdelegate angle, because you, like every other Hillary supporter, seem incapable of understanding the ramifications of party insiders overturning the will of the voters.

So a couple different things from me.

First of all, I love that you took a negative (Hillary supporters threatening to vote for McCain if she loses the nomination) and spun it into a positive (Hillary's supporters really like her!) Now, I could just as easily say that statistic points more to the fact that her supporters are sore losers who would rather have four more years of republican rule than to not get the democratic nomination. I like Obama, but if Hillary can beat him fairly, I will be sad, but not vindictive. Just like I was sad when Edwards dropped out. I sure as hell won't cut off my nose to spite my face.

And the other thing.

You go through a long list of "republicans are feeling this" and "democrats are feeling this". In one of them you state that republicans are likely to sit this one out because they are almost certainly going to lose, have had a lot of scandals, and they don't really like McCain. OK, actually it took you at least two bullet points for those, but no problem. You also say that democrats are likely to sit this one out because they are almost sure to win.

Now this last part I mentioned is the first point I want to argue. Democrats most certainly are not going to sit this one out because they are "sure to win". We've lost the last two "sure to win" elections, quite possibly by the most nefarious of means. We are not going to fucking rest on our laurels and let them do it again. Have you compared the turnout numbers for the democrats vs. republicans in the primaries? Democrats are energized like never before. Nobody's staying home this fall (with the possible exception of pissed off Hillary supporters, who for all I care can go sit in a corner and fuck themselves if they can't bite the bullet and support their damn party, especially given the number of times I've had to do exactly that).

But you're right about the republicans. They're not energized. They're drained. They've got scandal fatigue, and most have slowly come to realize what a fucking mess they've made of things. To top it all off, they've got a candidate that the insane right (a large voting block in the party) cannot stand.

You phrased this as "Argument: a lot of democrats don't like Hillary/Reply: More republicans don't like McCain." But the comparison you (intentionally?) overlooked is which do republicans hate more? McCain or Hillary? You're right, it's going to take something huge to energize the republicans to vote in november. I think the perfect thing is to have Hillary to run against. Shit, the lunatics would crawl out of the woodwork en masse and kiss John McCain's pale, wrinkled ass all the way to the white house if it meant preventing a Hillary Clinton presidency. There's not a better thing to rally the right-wing troops than a woman they think is worse than Satan himself. Obama, they actually seem to like, or at least not despise with every fiber of their being.

And lastly, please, consider the independents. They're something like 30% these days. They're the group who decides who wins and loses elections. And we know that McCain is popular among independents. We also know Obama is popular with independents (though Hillary keeps trying to spin this into a negative somehow). And Hillary is not popular with independents.

Just from an electability standpoint, I think it would be a huge mistake to nominate the candidate who is going to:

1. Rally the republican base
2. Give the independents largely to the republican candidate

And electability is just one of the reasons I can't support her.

[Kokonoe]

245. Some people say, a lot of Hillary's team is itching to jump ship

Didn't the democrats who need jobs after its all over,
grab the Clinton's coattails early on when she was a lock.

Obama clearly surprised a bubble of insiders.

[cooolandrew]

248. Only media is calling it small Barack has a huge lead.

[Usrename]

259. Obama does not have a small lead. It is a huge lead.

Clinton gained less than 100 pledged delegates by winning New York, New Jersey, and California.

In other words, she needs four more wins the size of California, and she still would not catch him.

[Austinitis]

261. It's the smallest lead by a front runner in 40 years (nt)

[Usrename]

265. He's outperformed her by a ratio of about 2-to-1

In the states Clinton has won, she has gained about 176 pledged delegates.

In the states Obama has won, he has gained about 345 pledged delegates.

It't almost twice as good as her.

[Austinitis]

266. Now you're just stretching

I guess if you try enough metrics you'll find one that he's not historically under-performing on (though I bet that even on this metric he doesn't do as well as front runners traditionally have). But the heart of the matter is that the gap between Obama and Hillary is smaller than any gap between front-runner and opponent has ever been.

And that facts suggests, pretty strongly, that Democrats in this country haven't really thrown in their weight with Obama's. That they're still hedging. That it's worth continuing on with this race.

[avrdream]

262. Brilliant post!

It may be better served at other sites around the net but thanks for bringing it here anyway.

[Raffi Ella]

263. agreed.

Here at Obama Underground it only serves as 'flamebait', but an excellent post just the same.


Thanks and Welcome :toast:

[Austinitis]

264. Thanks

[avrdream]

267. Most welcome.

And a fine welcome to DU from this Hillary supporter too.