Why the two key spins “can’t close the deal” and “Only the popular vote” are breathtakingly stupid

[grantcart]

Why the two key spins “He can’t close the deal” and “She will have the popular vote” are breathtakingly stupid


CURSING YOUR HIGH SCHOOL GUIDANCE COUNSELOR.

Listening to the talking heads repeat these two idiotic spin memes over and over makes you wonder why your guidance counselor didn’t tell you to become a talking head and make millions making more common sense than these idiots who download their emails from the Clinton campaign and then say, “well the Clinton campaign will argue”.

I know that you all know why they are stupid but for the record (and by the way I hate the pretentiousness of people who say ‘by the record’) and for convenient future cutting and pasting for future idiotic threads that try and repeat these palpable idiot spins the following:


HE CANNOT CLOSE THE DEAL
1) ‘He cannot close the deal’ or ‘he cannot shut the gate’ or any other stupid analogy that indicates the closing of a container or other mechanical device:

a) Reason One: It’s a near mathematical impossibility. He would have to get 71% of the delegates/

It would be enough to simply say in a competitive two person race where proportional distribution of delegates in a race where elected delegates constitute only 80% of the total it is virtually impossible to win the nomination with just pledged delegates, let alone when only 80% of the pledged delegates have been chosen. To have won enough delegates at this point in time Obama would have had to win 71% of the delegates. To get 71% of the delegates you would have to consistently get 75% of the vote.

b) Reason Two: It clearly is a contradiction and therefore and argument against itself.

On the one hand the Clinton campaign is arguing that they should be elected because they are the tough campaign professionals that can win the general election. When you then turn around and say “why can’t he close the door?” the question automatically undermines the first premise. If you are saying that he is weak because he can’t beat Hillary you are also saying that Hillary is an even weaker campaigner than he is. If she is the greatest campaigner with the greatest campaign juggernaut then of course its going to take time – but you have indeed beat the best campaigner –except Obama was better.

The ‘why can’t he close the door?’ meme only makes sense if you are also conceding that Hillary is a weak and ineffectual candidate.


SHE WILL HAVE THE POPULAR VOTE – EVENTUALLY – WE THINK
2) “She will have the popular vote”

a) She doesn’t have the popular vote
Of course this is a particularly stupid device to argue when in fact you do not even have the popular vote.

b) We don’t have a system of popular vote. We have a mixed system
It also disregards the 12 states who decide not by popular vote but by state convention (no delegates are selected by caucus – the estimates of delegates based on caucus resorts are just that wild estimates – in the case of Iowa where Obama originally appeared to have 38% of the caucus delegates but will end up with 70% of the delegates there is no number of popular votes that can be added that will reflect the outcome of the state conventions).

c) It is dependent on the lie that somehow we can count either Michigan or Florida

It also requires the completely intellectually dishonest step of including the uncontested primaries of Florida and Michigan. If uncontested primaries are an accurate representation of popular will then why do we even bother with campaigns?

d) But this is not the main reason it is an inane argument. The main reason is that it simply is not true – its based on a flawed premise that those that have voted for Clinton in the primary at that point in time still in fact support her. It is premised on the idea that Clinton has retained the support that voted for her.

Read today’s New York Times. Does anybody believe that she would have gotten the endorsement after that excoriating criticism? Does anybody believe that she would have gotten the support of the following:

- the African American vote she got on Super Tuesday if they knew what was going to happen after South Carolina or her cheap comments on Rev. Wright?
- the same percent of vote in California once she trashed ‘closed door meetings’ and slimed Californians as being elitist?
- the activist branch of the party after she slammed MoveOn.Org?
- the same level of support after it became known that she wants to extend the threat of thermonuclear war?
- the same level of support when it became clear that her campaign and husband are working the other side of the street on NAFTA?
- the same level of support after her penchant for resume embellishment became exposed?
- the same level of support when people like the NYT had a chance to evaluate her negative campaign tactics.

If the vote was held today nationally she would have fewer popular votes not more.

The fact is that before she campaigns in a particular place she panders to it and afterwards it is simply another candidate to be thrown under the bus.

The fact is that she is making the case for the popular vote when a) she doesn’t have it and b) when her popularity is tanking nationwide.






It makes you wonder why so many of the lap dog talking head pundits keep repeating such idiotic spin from the Clinton campaign.

[futureliveshere]

1. Got the first rec in. Great post and it highlights the contradiction in terms the HRC campaign is!!!

[grantcart]

5. lol boy you are quick lol

[BobbyVan]

70. But he CAN'T CLOSE THE DEAL!

What would we be saying about McCain if Romney or Huckabee beat him in all the big states? Obama rode a wave of enthusiasm early in the race, but that's clearly come to an end. HRC is the only one who can unite the party at this point.

[jgraz]

78. If the original arguments are breathtakingly stupid...

Exactly how stupid does that make Bobby's response?

[JBShakes]

90. As stupid as the fact that he cribbed it from...

Pat Buchanan on MSNBC last night.

[jgraz]

91. I thought it sounded familiar

Though it works much better in the original German.

[Barrymores Ghost]

107. THAT was funny.

OMG...I can't breathe............
:rofl:

[jgraz]

108. Thank Molly Ivins...

She said that about Pat's infamous convention speech.

[grantcart]

114. he got beet red last night when he called RM a marxist lol

[EnviroBat]

135. Bobby is heavily sedated , and delusional.

Say the sky is blue and the "Bobbies" will continue to insist it's pink. Fingers jammed in ears, tongue waggling "LA LALA LLALAL ALLALALA I CAN"T HEAR YOU..." You know, the same things an 8yo would do when faced with facts that don't suit them. It's getting downright pathetic at this point. All I can do is ignore the morons on this board and continue to donate to the winning campaign for a president this country truly needs.

GoBama

[grantcart]

82. lol you can't read can you

He closed the deal in Jan Feb Mar and with super delegates April

For any candidate to get the nomination with just pledged delegates the candidate would have to get 70% of the vote.

By the way simply repeating a slogan is not an argument. Hillary is the one that has lost momentum

[BobbyVan]

84. Then why did Obama lose PA last night?

Just imagine if McCain was still losing to Huckabee.

[MattBaggins]

116. Reality is over this way

Still losing to Huckabee? He never was loosing to Huckabee.

Your sense of logic is a bit on the warped side. No matter how you try to convince yourself otherwise; Obama is beating Clinton. She is losing not him.

[goclark]

100. HRC is a divider not a uniter

All she does is bait and switch

and cry

and pt. her finger and shake her finger

[Heathen57]

101. HRC could never unite the party now.

She has alienated so many factions of the party in her quest for the crown that there is no way she would ever get support from those that she has thrown under the bus.

That may be the DLC way of doing things (copying the GOP tactics) but it isn't how Democrats treat people.

[krkaufman]

128. Early in the race? He's been beating her consistently throughout ...

... with the only recent exceptions being OH & PA, two states.

HRC is the only one who can unite the party at this point.

I agree.

HRC is the only one dividing the party at this point, and she can quickly unify the party behind the preferred candidate by ending her campaign and putting the same amount of effort into supporting Obama that she's been putting into tearing him down over trivialities.

[grantcart]

129. tks

[People4Change]

139. Hillary can't close the deal!

Think about it.

Last October Hillary Clinton was considered unbeatable. She had the big donors, the big backing. Her husband is a former president that was very popular. She had everything going for her.

Yet, she could not close the deal by super Tuesday.

Obviously a lot of voters do not consider Hillary Clinton electable, no matter what the pundits keep telling us.

Also, her negative ratings and lack of honesty have taken a huge toll on her ability to get elected.

What IS hurting Obama's chances for getting elected in November is Hillary's continued campaign of dirty politics, negative ads.

They are hurting the ENTIRE Democratic party in general's chances in November, not just Obama's chances. Something to think about.

[SunsetDreams]

2. Excellent post grantcart!

She simply can't get the nomination, the math is in her way! It's time to put an end to the HRC campaign game.

[grantcart]

73. thanks

[Saturday]

3. He can't close the deal because lots and lots of Democrats

don't want him to be our nominee. Money doesn't talk. LOL

[grantcart]

4. the problem with your logic is that if there are lots and lots of democrats that don't want him

to be our nominee there are even more that do not want Hillary Clinton.


Your replies atleast have the consistency of absolute lunacy.


Thanks for stopping by.

[TahitiNut]

43. You forget that the "Double Standard" is a revered American tradition.

:eyes:

[goclark]

99. Yea for grantcart nt

[Terran]

49. Did you even read the post?

Gawd. "Breathtakingly" doesn't even describe you.

[Terran]

50. Great post

Thanks, K'd and R'd.

[ForeignSpectator]

57. Just lol n/t

[grantcart]

77. lol nice avitar lol

[grantcart]

88. we are trying to be polite

[rhett o rick]

123. Yes lots and lots but not MOST. Check the math. nm

[JBShakes]

141. Actually, I think a more reasoned statement...

Would be that lots and lots of Democrats would PREFER Senator Clinton to be the nominee. That's certainly fine - I understand the reasoning behind it (experience, "the devil you know versus the devil you don't", concerns about electability, etc.), even if I don't always agree with the facts that Senator Clinton's supporters use to support their choice.

HOWEVER - the comparison of "what if McCain was losing to Huckabee like this" is a ridiculous one. McCain CONSISTENTLY lost states to Huckabee early in the primary process, largely for the same reason that Senator Obama lost Pennsylvania - simple voter demographics. States full of Christians voted for Huckabee - just like PA, a state full of older Reagan Democrats, chose the older Reagan Democrat on Tuesday.

However, a parallel comparison between Senator Obama/Senator Clinton, a virtual political unknown running against the most famous woman in American politics, who just happens to be married to the ONLY successful Democratic President of the last 30+ years, and Senator McCain/Governor Huckabee, where those "name recognition" dynamics are the reverse, is a ridiculous one.

Finally, I find it pretty amusing that Clinton supporters are suddenly whining about how she got outspent on media buys in PA by the Obama campaign - so remind me again:

Which of these candidates is worth in excess of $100 million?
Which of these candidates has already had to give $5 million of their own money to the campaign?
Which of these candidates is spending cash donated largely in small amounts from grassroots fundraising?
Which candidate doesn't take lobbyist/PAC money?
WHICH candidate might have had a little more money to spend in PA if their campaign was actually PAYING ITS BILLS?

Right. Being hamstrung by your own campaign's colossal incomptence is soooo UNFAIR.

So are facts.

[Liberal Dose]

6. Off to the Greatest Page with you nt

[grantcart]

8. tks

[cliffordu]

7. grantcart - you da man!!

Sheeit...just when I feel a little queasy from the vast amount of bullshit passed off as argument around here, I can count on you to set things right with a little of that schweet grantcart logic, aided of course by them wonderful little charts.

This ain't no joke:

I'm glad you're here!!


:patriot:


EDIT FOR K AND R

[grantcart]

10. and I love seeing you here too

[redqueen]

9. Doesn't make me wonder. I wasn't born yesterday.

Why so many seem so unwilling to see what's right in front of their faces is a mystery to me.

[grantcart]

15. I know we shouldn't even have to waste time on this crap

[TahitiNut]

44. It becomes more apparent when you consider "what's right in front of their faces."

[redqueen]

56. ...

:spray:

:hi:

[JBoy]

11. Nicely done, grantcart! That "he can't close the deal" argument is truly ridiculous.

[grantcart]

18. thanks

[Bread and Circus]

12. Great post. I love when DU'ers make the "expert pundits" look like the stupid jackasses that...

they are.

[grantcart]

74. just hold up the mirror they do all the hard work

[hfojvt]

13. he does need to win the popular vote though

Otherwise the perception or spin will be that the SDs overturned the will of the people.

Another monkeywrench are Republicans who may be voting in Democratic primaries simply for the purpose of hurting our party.

[grantcart]

14. sigh If you mean that he needs to be the most popular Democrat at the time of the

nomination fine. The only way to find out who has the most primary votes is to throw away the current system and have a natinoal primary. The reasons for this are articulated above.

5 minutes after the nomination is decided all of this spins will become distant memory.


Can anyone remember today for example that Hillary Clinton placed 3rd in Iowa.


Current events will sweep aside the idiotic spin.

[futureliveshere]

17. Touche. Good point again. The problem is that the MSM have their own agenda.

Ending this fight early and having a harmonius party really doesn't play into their "maximize-the-ratings" game. We had an astonishing moment of genuineness yesterday when Tweety admitted as much.

[Greyskye]

16. The 'no-win' spin

The argument that "he outspent her 2:1 (or 3:1, depending on how dramatic the talking head is feeling), and was still "blown out".

This is a no-win spin for Obama. They knew that it was close to impossible to win Pennsylvania. If he had given Pennsylvania a pass, and not campaigned heavily there, he would have lost by 20+ points. At that point, the Clinton's would point and say "look at the blow-out!". Instead he took the margin from 22 to 10 within a couple of weeks, and they say "he outspent us and still couldn't win!".

I felt like throwing a shoe at Pat Buchanan on MSNBC last night. :puke:

:kick: & R

[grantcart]

20. I wonder how many TVs in America were damaged last night?

[TahitiNut]

46. Actually, he took the margin from 28+ points to 9 points in about 6 months.

In early November, Hillary was polling +27/+28/+33 vs. Obama. In less than 6 months, that dropped to 9 percentage points.

Hillary is a catastrophe. Only imbeciles continue to deny this.

[juno jones]

104. She apparently spent all that walking money on the 'PA/Rendell' machine,

Greasing the wheels of the small fry that demand their palms be crossed with silver for support. Obama refused that play game to a chorus of 'concerned' precinct mucky-mucks.

And she still couldn't get one lousy blowout. AHAHAHAHAHAH!

[Heathen57]

105. Outspending her even though he knew he couldn't beat her

was a good strategic move on his part. He forced her to spend so much to keep up that he has broken her financially.

It didn't hurt him that much and he still has money pouring in. Her campaign is deep in debt and she is having to beg for money just like a TV preacher.

[Hugabear]

19. Hard to close the deal when Hillary is doing her damnest to pull him down!

And she's got her allies over at FAUX helping her.

[damndude]

21. i think matthews made a great point last night that was lost

he can't close the deal because he is running against 'mr. and mrs. democrat' the de-factor leader and wife of the democratic party for that past 20 years. if it were anyone else this thing would be done long ago but because it is bill and hillary clinton have their automatic base that comes with them and that is her rue firewall. it's the one thing that insulates her from complete and total 'obliteration' and also how she get by running the most disorganized and shoddily executed campaign.

[grantcart]

29. everyonce in a while he says something very worthwhile

unfortunately its a long while in between.

[suzie]

64. I find Keith Olbermann's comments interesting

Because he's a former sports announcer, he never seems to lose sight of the fact that it's not about spin, it's about numbers. He keeps asking about the numbers.

Which is what the money people, who are the ones that also count, are likely doing today. How much more money do I give to a losing cause, even if the name on it is Clinton?

[grantcart]

81. he also uses sport analogies the least lol

[Demeter]

22. NICE Graph!

Ought to be on front page of every paper. Every Day!

[grantcart]

24. yeah stayed up all night working on it lol

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

[barb162]

39. How does that graph look as of 4/23?

[TahitiNut]

54. When the facts aren't on your side, take refuge in supposition and conjecture.

:eyes:

[stillcool]

23. I'm confused about why she...

can't get close to closing the deal. When I stop and think about how entrenched the Clinton's are in Washington, and the Democratic Party Machinery, I'm amazed at where they are. How could this have happened to them?

[grantcart]

25. hubris goes before the fall

[RaleighNCDUer]

145. It's because the DLC does not represent the real Democratic party.

And people are beginning to wake up to that.

There are so many that played nice with the DLC who got screwed over by them - Gore, Edwards, Kerry, and with Richardson backing Obama I suspect him as well, though I know no details of how they might have done so (broken back-room promises, most likely). The Democratic Party will always resist being run like a corporation.

And I am glad to see it.

[dchill]

26. Kick, recommend, and GODDAMMIT...

It will NEVER cease to amaze me how the folks on the "other side" fail to grasp these simple facts. It still suffices for them to follow the hollow "leadership" of their goddess, and they willfully ignore the facts as you have so brilliantly laid them out.

Since I have no desire to continue to vent to a fellow "O-Bot", I'll just say, 'Well done, once again.'

[grantcart]

28. thanks

[kmsarvis]

27. GREAT POST !!!

You are exactly right.Both of those arguments are ridiculous.The "he cant close the deal" argument is obviously stupid but the "popular vote" argument really pisses me off ! It is the MSMs job to explain the controversy (adding primary and caucus totals) in using the popular vote totals to reflect "the will of the people" and they are failing.

[grantcart]

30. thanks and welcome to DU

[CK dexter]

31. Nicely done!

Too bad well-reasoned arguments don't persuade fools.

[backscatter712]

32. The MSM is behaving like Venezuela's private TV stations in The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

Go watch that documentary if you haven't already seen it.

The private TV stations were doing nothing but blowing smoke the whole time and shilling for the CIA-backed dictator that would replace Chavez.

CNN, ABC, FAUX Noise and even MSNBC are doing the same thing - endlessly repeating Clinton and right-wing talking points about how "Obama can't close the deal" and "Clinton made it competitive again!"

It's all bullshit. The media's interested in two things - making money for themselves, and promoting their corporate fascist agenda by defeating Obama.

[grantcart]

83. thats why we have to buy our time with commercials

[phrigndumass]

33. K/R - Right now is the closest she will ever be in the "popular" vote

... and she's behind by 630,000 votes (340,000 if you include Florida).



My commentary: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5639954&mesg_id=5645242

:patriot:

[grantcart]

34. ane we aren't including in Florida - I don't give people the option of including it why

because if you believe that uncontested primaries are a valid instrument to gage public support then we wouldn't have needed any campaign in any state.

[phrigndumass]

38. I agree, but it has a benefit: Even with their own argument, it's out of reach.

One of the things we have learned during this primary season is that Senator Obama's numbers always increase when he actively campaigns in a state. He didn't have a chance to do that in either Florida or Michigan.

And if we look at the polls for each candidate against McCain, Senator Obama most likely would have won Michigan and would have come much closer to Senator Clinton in Florida.

[wowimthere]

35. Your hat is on correctly. I wish people could see this for what it is.

[grantcart]

37. thanks and welcome to DU

[RareLubbockDem]

36. It's all about the popular vote now

so they say.......

[grantcart]

40. lol

[barb162]

41. Facts: Neither are closing the deal and that graph is very outdated

after her big win yesterday.

[grantcart]

47. the first part of your sentence is gibberish.

As to the second part you are confirming a basic point of mine. That all of Hillary's claims of poplular vote are out dated they only represent the popular vote on that particular day. In most states she has declined in popularity after the election.

Would you accept a more up to date graph on the day of the NC and Indiana primary.

There is in the end only one determinate - delegates.

[barb162]

53. Your first sentence is gibberish

Neither has enough delegates which means neither can close the deal. That's quite factual. Now as to the graph, that graph was taking all kinds of good and bad polls and slapping them together. They're probably less than 200,000 people apart in popular vote RIGHT NOW. She may even be beating him if FL and MI are included.

[grantcart]

60. There is no popular vote

there is a popular vote in the primary states which excludes the caucus states

She is currently behind 535,664 in those states, again excluding all of the caucus state results.


In any case her support has declined after she leaves the state and says disparaging things about that state.


There is no scenario that has her making up the 500,000 popular vote in the contested primary states.


The only justification for including Mi and Fl popular vote is based on the premise that having campaigns are not useful in educating the populace about the issues of the camapaign and that we should have skipped all of this, picked a day when Hillary was ahead and just given it to her.

On May 20 Obama will take the absolute lead in pledged delegates (Clinton campaign does not dispute this) and a large number of supers including Hillary supers will endorse him at that point. He is going to be the nominee and all the silly sping is not going to change any of that.

[barb162]

63. A lead in delegates doesn't mean there's an automatic nominee.

[grantcart]

66. no but a clear majority of pledged delegates requires the SDs have a clear

compelling and overwhelming reason to turn that result aside and give the nominee to someone who lost the primary and caucus system.


Not only is there no clear, compelling or overwhelming reason to do so, a number of Clinton SDs have indicate that at that point they are going to change their endorsement to Senator Obama.

[PseudoIntellect]

130. kind of like the possibility of winning the lottery does not make it a compelling argument.

[grantcart]

131. exactly

[cui bono]

What big win? n/t

[barb162]

55. A little ol' state called PA

[cui bono]

61. Again, what "big" win? She had a 20 point lead drop to 8. Hardly a big win.

[grantcart]

85. point

[cui bono]

86. set

oops. That wasn't right. Shows you how long it's been since I've played or followed tennis. ;)

[mcollier]

119. And the 30 contest Obama don't really matter

and North Carolina doesn't really matter because Obama is expected to win there....

I tell you, the idiots just keep on rolling down the same old road.

I really think Obama's "Blueprint For Change" has a lot to do with the game playing by the media, its a nightmare to the special interest groups. If you haven't gone to BarackObama.com to read this document, you are selling yourself short, Period.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

42. recommended - and time for Grantcart to have his own show

not too late to change careers.

[grantcart]

48. lol thanks

[TragedyandHope]

45. We seem to be fighting this same battle over and over

It's a battle against the "if we repeat it enough times it might become true" school of thought. Not only do all these so-called arguments fail in their logic, but they are also a poor excuse for not being able to argue for your candidate on her positive merits, such as her policies, positions on the issues and her character.

Repeating these arguments like a mantra, you might eventually be able to fool yourself into believing them, but you're certainly not convincing anyone to support your candidate. It only makes people think, "haven't they got any better reasons to support their candidate?" The same goes for all the other negative divisive attempts to tear down Obama. It makes you look desperate and irrational, as if your candidate has nothing else to offer.

[grantcart]

65. we have to be as determined as they are

[cui bono]

51. Two more: 3. "a win is a win" 4. "Obama can't win the battleground states"

Both equally ridiculous.

3. A win is not a win when you manage to blow a 20 point lead down to 8. That is an indication of slipping support. And no, the fact that Obama outspent Clinton by whatever amount it was does not help the argument, it makes it worse. The fact that he has that much more money, that came from the American people in small amounts, says that he is reaching the people more than Clinton, that he is inspiring them to participate.

4. These are primaries. It's Dem vs. Dem. Of course one of them is going to "win". But that does not say anything about whether or not Obama can win them against Son of Cain. That is not logical at all and has no bearing on it.

[grantcart]

67. correct you should start another thread on those as well

[knixphan]

52. Haven't they got any better reasons to support their candidate?

....?

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/too_little_too_late_for_hillary/

[grantcart]

68. Its not their fault that their candidate doesn't give them any reason

[myrna minx]

58. Thank you. K&Rn/t

[grantcart]

69. thanks Myrna

[bigbrother05]

59. Hillary is framing the talking points for the media

more dumbing down, like an earlier poster said, why are we even having this discussion.

[grantcart]

71. good point

[SaveAmerica]

62. I'm so sorry to tell you this

but I have to recommend all the level headed posts that are filled with truth. R'd

[grantcart]

72. I accept it with relucntance lol

[knixphan]

75. truthiness kick

[grantcart]

76. thankiness

[jgraz]

79. It's the Chewbacca defense all over.

[grantcart]

80. lol what is the Chewbacca defense?

[jgraz]

95. Here y'go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVunOhF3EUQ

[grantcart]

109. works for me lol

[Jansen]

144. If Chewbacca is a wookie, then HRC is winning the popular vote.

BRILLIANT!

[DerekJ]

87. Thanks Grantcart.

:)
K & R

[grantcart]

94. thanks

[DerekJ]

102. Kick

[Major Hogwash]

89. Geezus Christ! Obama should hire you. You have a steel trap mind!

Your logic is inescapable! It's clear, precise, accurate, timely, and correct.

Damn, whatever you do kid, don't quit now.

[grantcart]

92. thanks major

(I do have a daughter that is 29 but I still like being called kid lol)

[Major Hogwash]

115. Haha! Well, you know what they say about people on the internet . . .

We appear 10 years younger and 20 pounds lighter - because we lie about our age and weight!

LoL

[FrenchieCat]

93. Media is trying to make the case for Hillary Clinton to the SDs......

that's how badly the corporate powers want her.

This is frightening!

[grantcart]

97. It is what it is we just have to be as determined as our leader is

[mlevans]

147. Something my sister sent me

suggested that the actual numbers from our state on Tuesday were:
Clinton -- 54.3%
Obama -- 45.7%
yet MSM continued to tout it as 55-45, which would bear out the pundits' predictions. That's not how I was taught to round numbers back in grade school; correct rounding should have been 54-46. Has anyone else seen or heard this? Not that it changes a lot, but it does suggest some inaccuracies being used to present a certain picture of what went down.

[FlyingSquirrel]

96. Thank You, Sir... I believe I have rec #80

Bookmarked

[grantcart]

106. thanks FS

[oregonjen]

98. Watching Pat Buchanan say "He can't close the deal" about a thousand times last night

drove me nuts. I wanted to throw something at the tv! Makes no sense at all. Wish I could recommend this thread more than once. :thumbsup:

[grantcart]

103. he got so red in the fact I thought he was going to have a stroke

[Sam Ervin jret]

110. Hillary can't "close the deal" either,( by any definition that doesnt include changing the rules)

or what we use to call cheating.

They could have the super delegates do something against the wishes of the people's vote and the approved rules.

or what we use to call elitist backroom crowing of a candidate.

Now who can't close the deal and who's calling who the elitist? People in glass houses......

[grantcart]

113. she can't open the deal

[HooptieWagon]

111. Why the two key spins “can’t close the deal” and “Only the popular vote” are breathtakingly stupid

Consider the source.

[tbyg52]

112. The goalposts have reached escape velocity

and are now on the way to Lunar orbit.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

117. The deal was signed and sent in Feb. Just waiting for the paperwork to go through

[grantcart]

121. right

[Timberside]

118. What I can;t stand hearing on the MSM's is...

"She now has the momentum"

Because the Pennsylvania primary was scheduled for April? She now has the MO? What would they be saying if this state had been scheduled before Super Tuesday? What if yesterday had been Iowa's turn instead of Penn. What does the order of state primaries have to do with momentum?

The only indicator of momentum is the national poll, which has her tanking.

I suppose if Kentucky and West Virginia were next, the MSM would have her as the presumptive nominee!!!

Such stupidity!

[grantcart]

120. they seem to be backing off the more the day went on

I think that they started to realize that they were way over the top when only 10 delegates were gained.

[rhett o rick]

122. 100 rec. Another stupid spin. Clinton deserves nomination because she has momentum.

there are soooo many stupid people in this country that they will shirley* get what they deserve. Too bad the rest of us go down too.

*spelling for effect.

[grantcart]

124. tks

[Scurrilous]

125. K & R

:thumbsup:

[grantcart]

126. tks

[rogerballard]

127. Hillary darling...........

Don't let the door hit ya
where the good Lord split ya

Why can't Hillary close the deal ????????????? That's the question.:wtf:

[democracy1st]

132. K & R

:kick:

[IsItJustMe]

133. Much truth and great analysis, only the insane people are not listening.

[Pappy]

134. Its going to be party bosses in the end who decides, plain and simple

Its going to be the so-called Super Delegates who decide this because neither candidate has garnered enough votes for it to be decided in the primaries, I think that should be obvious to most of us by now. Although I am an Obama supporter I just can't help but think that the Super Delegates really would elect Hillary if they thought in the least that the wind is blowing her way just because of Bill Clinton having a ton of say so in the party, and the fact that she has always gotten what she wants. She wanted to be a Senator and they handed that one to her on a silver platter.

[EnviroBat]

136. What is really starting to bother me the most.

Every time I see her on television lately, I have to remind myself that she's not a republican. Anyone else feeling that way lately? It's starting to creep me out. I really feel like were fighting a republican in democratic clothing. The nicey nicey that's going on with her and Fux News just supports those feeling even further. It's as if she's been planted by some grand scheme hatched out of the PNAC agenda.

I SIMPLY CAN NOT/DO NOT TRUST THE CLINTON'S.

[happyslug]

137. Bring back he 2/3 rule, it would solve this problem

From the first Democratic Convention in the 1820s till the 1940 Convention where FDR won his the nomination for his third term, the democratic Party insisted that any nominee gets 2/3 of ALL delegates votes, A majority was NOT enough, it had to be 2/3s of the vote. Under this system, the Democrats nominated Jackson, Polk, Cleveland, Wilson and even FDR in 1932 (Winners of the subsequent election). The Radical (for his time) William Jennings Bryan (Whose supporters were the closest thing to the present Obama movement in the history of the Democratic Party) was nominated three times (And still won over 45% of the vote, dispute being outspent almost 10 to 1).

Now the bad side of the 2/3 rule was the Democrat had a lot of "me to" candidates during the late 1800s (Including Cleveland who won) and even McClellan, the 1864 Candidate was a Classic "Me-To", his followers nominated him as an Anti-War Candidate, but he ran as a person who could run the Civil War better than Lincoln had been.

The worse case of the 2/3 rule was the fight between what we would now call the DLC and the what was then called the "Brayanites" i.e. the Progressive/Liberal wing of the party in 1924. The convention went 103 ballots before picking a candidate (Who did better than the conservative wing nominee did four years later) against a sitting President (Through one who had been elected as Vice President, Coolidge having succeeded Harding upon Harding's Death in 1923).

More on the 1924 Convention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Democratic_National_Convention

McAdoo was supported by Hearst, who controlled the Democratic party of California at that time. Alfred Smith had been Mayor of New York City and Governor of New York State, he had been a product of the Tammany Hall Democratic machine of New York City and represented the Conservative wing of the Party (In the 1930s he became an outstanding opponents of FDR's New Deal). The progressive wings were at its lowest point in Decades, fighting to prevent both candidates from getting the nomination. On top of that the South was in its finest pro-KKK mode, a mode extending at that time throughout the nation (The 1924 Convention was NOT called the Klanbake for nothing). Given those choses, the Bryanites kept playing one side or the other till a more acceptable nominee could be made. Bryan himself opposed the Klan but did not speak but against it.

Bryan thought the KKK of the 1920s it was a temporary movement which would soon die out on the national scale, and he was right, the KKK collapsed by 1928 on the national level, reverting to a loose collection of racist in various parts of the South. Bryan also knew any Democratic nominee needed the south to win, so did NOT want of offend the South. A policy FDR would follow, Truman would be the first Democratic President to actually support Civil Rights through actions instead of words, and Lyndon Johnson said his signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would cost the Democrats the South for at least a Generation, recent studies have shown that Nixon's Reagan's and both Bushes Victory was based on Southern Voters that prior to 1964 were Democratic. Bryan;s position on the Klan reflected how the Klan was viewed by many people in the 1920s (including later Supreme Court Justice Black a KKK Member during the 1920s, and Truman who inquired about joining the Klan but decided against it). The Klan was a group of Americans who had been grabbed at a corrupt form of reform offered by Radical Right wingers in the 1920s (The Nazis of Germany are the worse example of this). Thus Bryan saw most of the Klan members of the 1920s as people he would convert to progressive (what we now call liberal) Government. The Right wing "solution" of Fascism being a corrupt form of liberalism designed to get low income people to support Rule by Corporations. Fascism could NOT last long (The Klan was dead by 1928, the Nazis were dieing by 1938, which is why Hitler went to war when he did, to prevent the working class from seeing that Nazism was failing to help them, the same with Soviet Russian under Stalin, Mussolini called it the most fascist state in Europe in 1938, it was dead by the 1960s but not having any internal opposition survived till it went bankrupt in the late 1980s). Such pro-corporate movements as the Klan int he 1920s, Nazism, Italians Fascism and Stalinism could NOT survive long with any form of internal opposition. With Internal opposition such movements last less then a decade. They only survive where NOT internal opposition is permitted, and even then fail. Thus the need to preserve internal opposition, you need it to keep yourself on top. The classic "study" is Lincoln and Jefferson Davis during the US Civil War, Lincoln had a serious Democratic opposition which kept him honest and forced him and his party to do what was best for the country. Jefferson Davis had no such opposition, so it permitted him and his government to do what was best for them and their fellow southern elites, often at the expense of how to preserve their country from the invading Northern Army. The Southern Government during the Civil War was like the Nazis during WWII, appointing officers do to their loyalty to the Government and their friends in the Government as opposed to Competency. The North also appointed Political officers, but made sure they were in position to do little or no harm to the war effort, knowing if such harm occurred the opposition would pounce on it. Thus opposition is Generally GOOD, for it keeps your side honest knowing the voters have the power to vote you out of office for incompetency.

Thus, the 2/3 rule is NOT a bad rule to revert to, if it was the rule BOTH Hillary and Obama would be working together right now for neither has 2/3 of the votes and can NOT have 2/3 before the convention. Compromise is the key to any political dispute and that is what is needed NOW, not both sides looking at how to knock the other one down. The 2/3 rule FORCED opponents like Obama and Hillary to work together, for its much easier to get 51% of the vote, much harder to get 67%. The attacks BOTH SIDES are doing to each other would cease, once both sides realized they NEED the votes of the other to win the nomination.

A National Primary would do similar affect, no one would be able to win in most states let alone all of the states, thus forcing the Conventions to do what Conventions have NOT have to do since the 1950s SELECT the NOMINEE. The vote is important, but the person who gets the most votes in the primaries may NOT get the most votes in the General Election. The key is NOT who most Democrats want, but who the Democrats think MOST AMERICAN WILL VOTE FOR. That is the job of the Convention not the primaries or Caucuses. That is why we have Primaries and Caucuses to select people who can MAKE that determination. Such Delegates reflect what people in the Primaries and Caucuses think and want (Based on heir voted in the Primaries and Caucuses) but such Delegates MUST act to get the best nominee possible, not just the one they are committed to. The 2/3 rule forces Delegates to do their job, as they did in 1924 fighting where the 2/3 rule minimized the power of the Klan, Tammany hall and Hearst.

[grantcart]

140. very interesting

[Brotherjohn]

138. Inability to "close the deal" might mean something if he were the prohibitive favorite going in...

... like, say, Clinton was. I fact, if Clinton were now barely leading, everyone would be saying that there was a problem with HER because she wasn't yet able to "close the deal". That might have some validity (nevertheless, she would be leading and that would be that).

The simple fact that Obama is ahead casts much more doubt on Clinton; not only has she been unable to "close the deal" in a race where she has been the prohibitive favorite for years, but she is losing! Ever since she became a Senator, long before she announced, she was the name everyone was mentioning; and she polled far ahead of Obama and any other Dem until the primary was well under way. Yet she has been unable to "close the deal".

I think the "close the deal" argument was decided long ago, in Obama's favor, when he began to amass more and more votes and delegates, and in fact passed Clinton to become the (likely) nominee. He has not yet "closed the deal", but he came from being the prohibitive underdog and is well on his way to pulling one of the greatest upsets ever in primary politics. That speaks volumes about HIS ability to win, and the momentum he has built, and the numbers of people he has won over. It also speaks volumes about her failure to do these things.

[hisownpetard]

142. Such a pleasure to read your intelligent, clear and insightful posts.

Thanks, grantcart!

:hi:

[wmhogg]

143. Thanks, also!

I posted a diary at the Daily Kos about your post here. I had not thought about it that way until you pointed out that Hillary's popularity has indeed been falling since going negative and using Republican tactics. Talk about "buyer's remorse"! Don't MoveOn.org Hillary supporters feel silly now! Why Hillary Really Does Not Have the Popular Vote

[hisownpetard]

146. A *1st* post!! I've never seen one before. Welcome to DU!

I think, however, that you meant your response to be for the OP (in case you want to post it again).