Matthew Yglesias (February 16, 2008) - Sebelius: We Count! (Politics)

This is really getting tiresome.

All of Obama's wins count. The point is that Obama's wins in a particular state can not be extrapolated to the whole Democratic party, all of primaries and caucuses, all demographic groups within the party, and especially not to the general election.

That's the point.

Posted by Tim K | February 16, 2008 4:48 PM

While I agree with both you and Sebelius (I don't like being told that either!), let us hope that this is not a sign of vice presidential aspirations. Please. After that awful response to the State of Union....

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 4:49 PM

I would never have though there would come a day when the elite would decide that CT doesn't matter.

Posted by soullite | February 16, 2008 4:50 PM

Stop whining, Matt. You had your chance to count, but you all blew it. In fact, right before you voted, Sen. Clinton was talking about making sure DC would get full congressional representation. You thanked her by turning around and nullifying your presidential votes. There's gratitude.

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 4:50 PM

Here in Connecticut, being between NYC and Boston, we're used to be told we don't count. If somebody said we counted, I'm not sure how we'd take it.

Posted by Abby | February 16, 2008 4:57 PM

who said Sebelius counted?

fyi, she doesn't.

Posted by M | February 16, 2008 4:59 PM

Well, I'm from Colorado, and we never count. So this is nothing new to me.

Posted by fostert | February 16, 2008 5:02 PM

Howzabout a link, MY? Links count.

Posted by urbino | February 16, 2008 5:02 PM

A Democrat will not win in November without New Jersey, Pennsylvania and probably Ohio.

Kansas they don't need. Don't take it personally Kathleen.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 16, 2008 5:05 PM

Tim K, aren't Obama's many wins in many states susceptible of extrapolation? It's the wins taken cumulatively which tends to impress.

Posted by burning flock | February 16, 2008 5:05 PM

Tim K,

That may be your point, but it's not the point of the Clinton campaign. They have come up with an excuse for every lost state, including complaining about the caucus format. Where was that concern prior to the primary season? The reality is that they have been outmaneuvered and outorganized, but rather than acknowledge this they point to red states and undemocratic practices dominated by "activists" (I'm sure many average joe caucus-goers are scratching their heads at that one). The obvious flip side to their argument is that Hillary is winning states that any Dem will (NY, California) but is conceding multiple states from the start.

It's ridiculous to think Democrats can't win Colorado, Minnesota, Virginia, Missouri, etc. It's defeatist to give up on red states and hope for what didn't work in 2000 and 2004: win the big cosmopolitan states and a few more to clinch the electoral college. Obama is trying to redraw the electoral map, to energize a base in places where the opposition may be dispirited, and to force the Republican Party to spend resources in places they would rather not.

Beyond all that, it just seems silly to offend voters in 30-40 states.

Posted by Paddy | February 16, 2008 5:09 PM

Sure, Kansas counts. But what's this lame point about Obama "winning red states"? I heard Rachel Maddow say the same thing on MSNBC. Obama Democrats who voted in UT, ID and KS are not necessarily conservative or moderate voters. The simple refutation is that the people who make the red states red are either not allowed to vote in the primary/ caucus, or choose not to. The significant differences between states are demographic (black, white, hispanic, poor, rich) and institutional (primary/ caucus). Obama's wins are impressive because he's won in a variety of states (like VA: blowout win in a *primary* not dominated by African-Americans). Not because he's won in "red states".

So the joke about people not counting has become so hackneyed that one should point out that Hillary's basic logic is valid: a string of wins is not evidence of some general ability to win the whole thing, or evidence of more support overall, if you're only winning in your strongholds. So yes, some states count more than others as evidence of an unstoppable juggernaut. A general election where the Mountain West states got to vote first would not provide early indicators of how the whole country would go. The problem with HRC's spin is not the logic but the actual evidence: Obama *is* winning outside of his strongholds.

Posted by Colatina | February 16, 2008 5:13 PM

What in the fuck does it possibly matter who wins a democratic primary in New Jersey?

Are you really suggesting that it's going to go to McCain if Obama wins?

There are two possible explanations for making this statement.

1) You are really, really, uninformed and gullible and regurgitate everything that falls out of the Queen's court no matter how prima facie stupid it is.

2) You understand how stupid this is and hope someone else might be dumb enough not to think about this for five seconds and get away with bullshitting people.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 16, 2008 5:15 PM

A Democrat will not win in November without New Jersey, Pennsylvania and probably Ohio.

Replace "November" with "August" and I think you've nailed the Clinton campaign's thinking to a T. Unfortunately for them, here we are, with Kansas having mattered a great deal...

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 5:15 PM

"It's ridiculous to think Democrats can't win Colorado, Minnesota, Virginia, Missouri, etc."

It sure is. Colorado is a solid purple state now, and it's getting bluer by the minute. Obama can easily win it (even if we don't count), but can Hillary? I'm not so sure. Coloradans like to think of themselves as "fiercely moderate," but they can easily be polarized. Hillary is just the person to do that in Colorado.

Posted by fostert | February 16, 2008 5:18 PM

Hillary's basic logic is valid: a string of wins is not evidence of some general ability to win the whole thing, or evidence of more support overall

True, but then neither is a string of losses.

Posted by Marc | February 16, 2008 5:18 PM

Spin can't give you a ground organization, a coherent strategy, an appealing message, or a delegate lead.

Hillary talked up Wisconsin, ran attack ads there, scheduled rallies, opened field offices... and has just canceled a bunch of Hillary's appearances, thus both insulting voters and making "I didn't contest it!" spin laughable.

Farmers and black people might not count because they don't have much political power, but it looks like they have enough to pick the Democratic nominee. Funny, that.

Posted by Some dude | February 16, 2008 5:22 PM

The point is that Obama's wins in a particular state can not be extrapolated to the whole Democratic party, all of primaries and caucuses, all demographic groups within the party, and especially not to the general election.

Really, after a while, the failure of Obama-bots like Yglesias to grasp this basic reality makes you wonder who they bonked to get this job. They can't really be that dim, can they?

That may be your point, but it's not the point of the Clinton campaign.

Yes, it is. It is precisely the format of the caucus that makes it impossible to generalize the results.

The problem with HRC's spin is not the logic but the actual evidence: Obama *is* winning outside of his strongholds.

Not yet, he hasn't. He won the white vote in Virginia because it was an open primary. He lost white Democrats by 14 points--same in Maryland. Any talk about him "winning" the Hispanic vote in Virginia is absurd, as Hispanics didn't vote in big enough numbers to make the exit polls.

What in the fuck does it possibly matter who wins a democratic primary in New Jersey?

Because the results in New Jersey mercilessly spell out the demographics that he has shown no signs of winning yet.

Posted by Cal | February 16, 2008 5:26 PM

Isn't the point that any of the major Democrats, if nominated, could win the so-called (by Mark Penn) "major" states. I think Clinton, Obama, Biden, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, even Richardson would be fair bets to carry NY, Illinois, Mass, and CA. If you narrow the field to Obama or Clinton, it's safe to expand that to New Jersey and some of the other Gore 2000/Kerry 2004.

The point is who can win the swing states. Clinton would have had a compelling argument concerning Florida had that state not been screwed up due to a variety of factors. And she has a great opportunity to make that point about Ohio. Obama can make similar points about Missouri and Virginia.

The point really is that the national Democratic party, in the wake of 2000, decided to adopt more of a 50-state process. That process finally reaped some rewards in 2006. When Dean proposed this, however, it was not without controversy. The Clinton approach seems to be to go back to a coastal state + Ohio or a state from the interior West. Again, maybe good to win the White House, not so good to keep a working majority in Congress. Anyone paying attention during the 1990s has seen this movie.

Posted by John C | February 16, 2008 5:29 PM

Hear, hear, Paddy!

That is *exactly* the point.

And it's completely unbelievable to me that a candidate for President of the United States would actually try to excuse their losses because of the *format* of the process, when *clearly* they had the exact same opportunity within that format that their opponent did.

If Barack Obama can get his supporters out to polls and caucus sites, why can't Hillary Clinton?

Oh yeah, the latest excuse is "bad weather". I kid you not. Cite

She can't even run a good campaign, why should we trust her to run the country?

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 5:29 PM

Because the results in New Jersey mercilessly spell out the demographics that he has shown no signs of winning yet.

I never thought about it like that, Cal. Why do we even waste money having other contests? New Jersey is such a perfect microcosm or America there is little use for these other redundant contests. Obviously, this formula was seriously thought out and not backward projected in a rather pathetic attempt to bolster your shrinking candidate.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 16, 2008 5:33 PM

Obama has gotten 0% -- that's right, ZERO VOTES -- from people voting for Hillary in the primaries. If you crazy Obamabots think that Obama can win the general election without a substantial portion of the Democratic base -- voters he has shown ZERO sign of winning over so far -- you're in for a nasty surprise in November.

Hillary 2008!

Posted by Barbar | February 16, 2008 5:33 PM

John C, what's worse is that they trained a legion of loyal followers to believe that their strategy, which has worked only once, is the only way to win.

Posted by soullite | February 16, 2008 5:35 PM

What fucking retarded arguments some of you people make, which would be easily dismissed if they weren't coming from a major candidate and a former president. Caucuses count. Clintonistas sound like French generals whining that Germans didn't directly attack the Maginot Line.

Posted by Some dude | February 16, 2008 5:35 PM

Not yet, he hasn't. He won the white vote in Virginia because it was an open primary.

The general election is open to independents and Republicans too, fyi.

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 5:38 PM

A worrying element to this strategy is giving up pretty easily in states where you have a disadvantage. This itself does not bode well for a general election where Senator Clinton finds herself behind. One thing that definitely true about Senator Obama is that he knows how to overcome being behind in an election.

I think that Senator Clinton has the instincts to fight, but she has surrounded herself with people who would rather withdraw to the next
firewall state than try to contest in an unfavorable situation. It's odd, because the spin (we did not contest) does not protect her at all and her campaign must know that. The dynamic makes it too easy to give up and bodes poorly for future campaigns and for a future presidency.

Posted by windshouter | February 16, 2008 5:39 PM

Additionally, how in the fuck is a Democrat who routinely gets the votes of 10% of black Democrats supposed to be electable in the general? It's like Mark Penn has actually hollowed people's brains out and replaced them with his own love-juices!

Posted by Some dude | February 16, 2008 5:40 PM

"The problem with HRC's spin is not the logic but the actual evidence: Obama *is* winning outside of his strongholds.

"Not yet, he hasn't. He won the white vote in Virginia because it was an open primary."

Yes, that's the problem: Hillary people are giving Obama's "stronghold" such a wide definition that it includes easily enough states to give him a majority of votes for the nomination. If Hillary is willing to concede all caucus states, open primary states, black-dominated states and Illinois and Hawaii, then she is really in trouble. If somebody's popular among 60-70% of democratic voters, it quite simply doesn't matter if they "can't win" among the other 30-40%. But that's what the spin from the Hillary camp seems to deny.

Some of them are starting to realize this, which is why they've switched to calling the process unfair. How dare Obama's core base have the audacity to grow to a majority of Democratic primary and caucus voters?!

Posted by Colatina | February 16, 2008 5:40 PM

We "RED STATE" democrats do matter! We contribute at the local, state, and national level! We do GOTV drives, registration drives, and it is ridiculous for anyone in public office to say that WE don't matter!

I'm appalled at the behavior of the Clinton's for saying that all they need to win office is the Blue States, this is the MIND SET that needs to be changed in the Democratic Party and this is why Howard Dean proposed a 50 State Strategy!

Until the Democratic Party recognizes that they need to reach out to Red State Dems they will continue to lose elections!

Posted by Erin | February 16, 2008 5:42 PM

Not only is the general an open election, so are Ohio and Texas! Why is Clinton campaigning in these states that don't count and are inherently incapable of identifying a viable Democratic nominee???

Posted by Some dude | February 16, 2008 5:43 PM

We "RED STATE" democrats do matter! We contribute at the local, state, and national level! We do GOTV drives, registration drives, and it is ridiculous for anyone in public office to say that WE don't matter!

I'm appalled at the behavior of the Clinton's for saying that all they need to win office is the Blue States, this is the MIND SET that needs to be changed in the Democratic Party and this is why Howard Dean proposed a 50 State Strategy!

Until the Democratic Party recognizes that they need to reach out to Red State Dems they will continue to lose elections!

Posted by Erin | February 16, 2008 5:43 PM

We "RED STATE" democrats do matter! We contribute at the local, state, and national level! We do GOTV drives, registration drives, and it is ridiculous for anyone in public office to say that WE don't matter!

I'm appalled at the behavior of the Clinton's for saying that all they need to win office is the Blue States, this is the MIND SET that needs to be changed in the Democratic Party and this is why Howard Dean proposed a 50 State Strategy!

Until the Democratic Party recognizes that they need to reach out to Red State Dems they will continue to lose elections!

Posted by Erin | February 16, 2008 5:45 PM

Barbar: That is hilarious. Hillary has gotten 0% -- that's right, ZERO VOTES -- from people voting for Obama in the primaries too. So? Also, since when are blacks, upscale liberals, and students not part of the democratic base? Also, even if you only count boomer women and blue-collar men as the democratic base, Obama has certainly made inroads there. Did you think before you posted?

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 5:45 PM

David: methinks Barbar was making a joke. A good one, too.

Posted by urbino | February 16, 2008 5:48 PM

You had your chance to count, but you all blew it. In fact, right before you voted, Sen. Clinton was talking about making sure DC would get full congressional representation. You thanked her by turning around and nullifying your presidential votes.

If that wasn't high-grade snark, it illustrates to a T what's wrong about Senator Clinton's attitude. You don't vote for me? Then freeze in the dark, f*ckers, you don't deserve a vote at all.

Posted by sunsin | February 16, 2008 6:05 PM

Thanks Urbino. Should have spotted that.

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 6:06 PM

jbryan -- as for D.C., Clinton and Obama were both cosponsors of the most recent attempt to secure representation in the House for D.C. Their policies on D.C. are identical.

As for Sebelius, can we nix her as a VP candidate yet? Saying things like "we can't tell people their votes don't matter and then expect their support against John McCain in November" provides for an easy Clinton turnabout -- they'll just point at Florida and Michigan and say the same thing. With errors like that, and Sebelius' underwhelming performance responding to the SOTU, let's leave her in Kansas, where she's best positioned to bring that state over to the blue side.

Posted by the good reverend | February 16, 2008 6:07 PM

Some dude, I just want to say how much you rock.

Your arguments are not only cogent, but hilarious, to boot!

Have you ever visited the message boards at the Straight Dope? You would fit in so well there with us.

Yes we can!

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 6:15 PM

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I really do think Hillary has a valid argument about the caucus v. primary dynamic. Sniffing that her supporters must not be enthusiastic enough won't cut it -- I sort of buy her claim that a lot of her base is made up of people who cannot afford to commit to a caucus, either because of work or family obligations. Unfortunately, this reasonable claim is clouded because she's making other (transparently dumb) arguments about red states not counting or explaining away losses by saying the vote is "too black" or whatever. But really, the general election is more closely approximated by a primary than a caucus. A lot of a Obama supporters are saying, "well, she didn't complain about caucuses until she started losing them!" Well, that's true. And of course she has a personal interest in the outcome. But it doesn't negate the argument. It's not as if before the primary season started, the Obama campaign was making the argument that superdelegates should follow their constituents. It simply didn't come up.

Posted by Ryan | February 16, 2008 6:19 PM

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I really do think Hillary has a valid argument about the caucus v. primary dynamic. Sniffing that her supporters must not be enthusiastic enough won't cut it -- I sort of buy her claim that a lot of her base is made up of people who cannot afford to commit to a caucus, either because of work or family obligations.

No, I'm sorry, but that's a dumbass argument. The whole point in an election is to do the hard work that it takes to get people off their ass and to the voting booth. It doesn't mean squat if all the people who are rooting for you are doing so from the comfort of their couch!

Hillary Clinton had the exact same oppoortunity to reach out to the exact same voters that Barack Obama did. The simple fact is, she either didn't try, or wasn't as successful at it.

Period.

There is no 'there' there, as it were.

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 6:26 PM

The point is that Obama's wins in a particular state can not be extrapolated to the whole Democratic party, all of primaries and caucuses, all demographic groups within the party, and especially not to the general election.

Really, after a while, the failure of Obama-bots like Yglesias to grasp this basic reality makes you wonder who they bonked to get this job. They can't really be that dim, can they?

The failure of certain HRC supporters to grasp the concept of a "straw man" makes you wonder what essential nutrient they were denied when they were small children.

Posted by yod | February 16, 2008 6:26 PM

Jill, I don't think you know what a caucus is.

Posted by Ryan | February 16, 2008 6:28 PM

As for Sebelius, can we nix her as a VP candidate yet?

Yes, please. Obama said in Nevada that he would like a VP with a military and/or business background to compensate for his inexperience in those areas.

Meanwhile Obama seems to have picked up a few insights from Howard Dean: get your ground game together and run a national campaign. Shazam!

Mark Penn's spin that the primaries are no indication of who can best win the general election is but the latest entertainment from the hapless Clinton campaign.

I can't wait for March 5.

Posted by Lucy | February 16, 2008 6:32 PM

Can't extrapolate caucuses to the general, eh?

Colorado:
Obama 46
McCain 39

McCain 49
Clinton 35

Clinton's Latino support helps her out west in the general, eh?

Nevada:
Obama 50
McCain 38

McCain 49
Clinton 40

sigh.

Posted by John M. | February 16, 2008 6:37 PM

I'm a political consultant for a living. OF COURSE I know what a caucus is.

That doesn't negate the truth of the fact that Hillary Clinton was simply not as good at getting people OUT TO VOTE FOR HER as Barack Obama was.

And she had the same target audience as Barack Obama -- every registered voter in every single state. Those potential voters looked at both candidates and chose who they wanted to vote for, in whatever format that vote was being conducted.

The fact that she didn't perform well is nobody's fault but her own.

Stop making ridiculous excuses!

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 6:42 PM

Jill, let's say that the "format the vote was being conducted" was that you had to answer your land-line phone at 7:00am and cast your vote. Obviously, this would disenfranchise college students and young people who sleep til noon, but would be great for seniors who wouldn't have to leave their house and don't use cell phones. I have to imagine that you can see the flip-side, where Hillary is arguing that saying you need to show up somewhere *at a specific time* and stand for two hours and publicly declare your support for someone might not be easy for the nurse who can't leave the hospital at 3pm or the father watching his kids who could leave them in the car to cast a primary vote but can't get a sitter for a long caucus. I don't think it's a ridiculous excuse, I think it's a claim that may or may not have merit. I happen to think it does.

Posted by Ryan | February 16, 2008 6:52 PM

John M. - excellent numbers. Funny how they get in the way at times.

The problem with much of the Clinton approach is that there is usually little reason to believe that there is conviction behind it. Somebody feel free to correct me, but did Obama offer up excuses for his losses in CA or Mass?

The Clinton camp seems incapable of accepting blame at times. Which is sort of understandable given that once Al Gore decided to opt out, they were the favorite. Still, I find myself almost terrified of the idea of any of the Clinton campaign folks making their way into government. Stephanopolous seems like Dean Acheson compared to the really bad Ari Fleischer imitations that Mark Penn and even Howard Wolfson seem to be doing these days.

And when the media calls them on their spins (like when they fail to mention that they were leading in most of the states which Obama has won through early January in their post-loss spin(s) of "we knew it was going to be tough in Maryland/Virginia/Iowa/Colorado/Missouri and the list goes on and on), we get cries of bias. Heck, I actually see that MSNBC (aside from the ridiculous Shuster comments) treats Clinton harshly but maybe this is because Obama & Co. limits spin to the plausible and policy and doesn't try to spin every darn thing, including the unspinnable. Or put another way, maybe the media would be treating Clinton better if she accepted the losses with a little more class and honesty.

Posted by John C | February 16, 2008 6:56 PM

Ryan,

Even taking your little scenario into account, how does that affect Hillary's inability to court and secure the votes of the same people Barack Obama did?

If Hillary's complaint is that caucuses are unfair to seniors, and that's her only demographic, then it's a complaint I refuse to hear. Get your ass up and make some sense to the students and farmers and housewives and every single other person who voted for Barack.

Every vote Barack got was AVAILABLE to Hillary.

That she didn't EARN them is NOT THE FAULT OF THE CAUCUS SYSTEM.

Do you get it now?

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 7:02 PM

Ryan:

A nice test case for that theory was North Dakota. The ND caucus is held all day and all you had to do was stop by, fill out a card for you candidate, drop it in a sealed box, and go on your merry way. She lost ND 61% to 37%.

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 7:05 PM

Jill, my argument is that caucuses are less democratic in that they might disproportionately select for certain groups in a way that is not replicated in primaries *nor in the general election*. In this case, Barack was advantaged because the groups that may find it easiest to caucus match up with his demographic strengths. You do not concede this point, but instead argue that Hillary should have done a better job *appealing to the advantaged groups (ie, Barack's demographic base)*. It's a parallel line of argument that can't really be reconciled with mine. But I appreciate where you are coming from.

Posted by Ryan | February 16, 2008 7:11 PM

Obama offers up excuses all the time the primary one being that he didn't have enough time to campaign in x, y, z state and if the election has been a week later, he would have done better. Course the dates for the elections were known way in advance and if he didn't plan on spending more time in ca. Ma, ny, nj, etc. too bad.

I would also ask "political consultant' erin how many states help caucuses for the first time this year. I believe many did that wanted to move up their primary but could for financial or political reasons. So NO one could judge how those would go - and many of them were plagued by confusion and disorder (and had a much lower turnout than primaries in the same states in 2004 - so much for rallying your base).

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 7:12 PM

Barbar: very funny. Unfortunately, I have a queasy feeling that your satirical argument is eventually going to be coming, deadpan, out of the mouths of Clinton and her surrogates. These shameless crooks seem to be convinced that the Democratic electorate really is that dumb.

Today's highlight was Clinton adviser Harold Ickes explaining, in ABC's Political Radar, that while he had enthusiastically supported the plan to strip the delegates of Florida and Michigan, that had happened when he was a member of the DNC. Now that he's on the Clinton campaign, he says, he's in favor of counting the delegates. Literally, that's his "explanation" for his changed position.

The politicians have to talk about party unity and so forth -- it's in their self-interest -- but I'm not a slave of any one political party. I'm an American citizen, and thus a political free agent. I've knocked doors for Democratic nominees in every election since Dukakis.

If Clinton somehow becomes the nominee, I will knock doors for McCain. It isn't just a protest statement; it's clear to me that he would make a much better and more trustworthy president than Clinton. A Hillary Clinton presidency would be a death blow to American progressives. Even if it means another Republican administration, we have to do everything we can to stop it.

Posted by HGBT | February 16, 2008 7:13 PM

"those of us in DC, Maryland, Connecticut, Maine, Washington, Minnesota, etc. don't like to be told we don't count either."

How completely ridiculous. Don't like to be told we don't count either? Jeez, that's some weak, weak-ass shit.

Now, Mr. Yglesias isn't super smart, but he definitely isn't dumb, so it should be obvious that he KNOWS that is a completely stupid-ass argument. So, he must think that his readers, the audience for his weak-ass sophistry, IS dumb - dumb enough to think this thumb-sucking BS is a compelling argument. Of course, if called on it, he'd surely say he was just joking.

Similar to when Yglesias was supporting the invasion of Iraq because he "worried about the nexus of WMDs, Muslim extremist terrorists, and failed states", blah blah blah. A bush-league Straussian.

FYI, I don't really care who wins the Democratic nomination, and I'm planning on voting for Obama. But what weak-ass fan-boy whining that shit is.

Posted by luci | February 16, 2008 7:14 PM

If you are arguing that Hillary lost some caucus because her supporters are so old and sick that they could vote in a primary but couldn't hang out a few hours for a caucus I think you are just crazy to begin with. The state could be Florida and I still wouldn't believe it.

If I entertained the idea seriously I'd have to worry her constituancy might very well be dead by November and make her unelectable.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 16, 2008 7:21 PM

Ed - I'll give you an example of what I am talking about: Nebraska. Nebraska democrats wanted to move up their primary to have more impact on the election, but the republicans (who control state government) wouldn't do it. So they organized a caucus.

They had no idea what the turnout would be (no surprise as they'd never hosted a caucus before). The result was disorganized madness in many areas of the state. The largest county, douglas, had only fifteen caucus sites. Sarpy county (suburbs of omaha) had only 0NE caucus site. Traffic was backed up for miles, people had to park blocks away, there weren't accessible handicapped stops and the sidewalks were covered in ice. Once someone made it inside, they found a process that was haphazard at best. To my knowledge, at one site an obama volunteer - trying to be helpful - started collecting preference slips. When someone in authority realzed this was happening, those slips had to be handed back to the voters, delaying the process by more than an hour.

This happened all over. The state party - to their credit - arranged for an absentee ballot process but it was not well-publicized and many people didn't know it was available. The counties were also allowed to schedule their caucuses for different times during the day, with the result that lincoln voted a full seven hours behind omaha.

Now the state party got what they wanted - some good press and about 7000 new registered dems (you could register at the caucus site).

But for all the hoopla, only about 10 percent of dems turnout. About a quarter that turned out in may of 2004 when kerry was running against no one.

No one is going to convince me that the caucus was desirable or democratic in nebraska. Not when it leads to substanially fewer voters.

Democrats used to believe that things that made it harder to vote were bad, but some of the obama supporters here seem to not believe that any more.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 7:40 PM

Columbia:

I think primaries are better than caucuses. But it doesn't hold that because that is true (or at least you and I think it is) it must also be true that caucuses don't "count."

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 7:44 PM

The general election is open to independents and Republicans too, fyi

No, really? Get out. I learn something new each day, don't I?

And I suppose you think it's likely that an inexperienced black Democrat will carry the day among whites and independents over--who's the Republican candidate, again? Moderate John himself.

Yeah. I know that republicans and independents vote in the primary. That's pretty much my point, in fact. It is foolish indeed to think Obama will win the white vote. Democrats have operated at a deficit there for 11 of the last 12 presidential elections, or something close to that. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Obama will carry that vote in the general. Hope, sure. Base the entire hopes of the Democratic presidential campaign on a nominee who loses the white vote without Republicans and can't win the Hispanic vote? Not likely.

how does that affect Hillary's inability to court and secure the votes of the same people Barack Obama did?

Even if I agreed with you--and I don't, for the reasons others have spelled out--your argument is beggared. You are arguing strategy and legalisms. You're acting as if the delegate count matters in the slightest in the face of Obama's thus far crippling demographic deficiencies.

Even assuming Hillary ran a bad caucus campaign, so what? It's not about fairness. It's about being sure that the Dems put forth their best candidate. White liberals in Nebraska are not the most reliable indicators for that determination.

Get used to this basic fact: if Obama can't demonstrate in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania that he can win at least half the white vote and half the Hispanics--preferably white Democrats--then he will almost certainly not be the Democrat nominee.

He will have to resort to two arguments, and both are fatal.

First, he'll have to make the legalist, rules are rules argument: He won more pledged delegates. So even if it's clear that he didn't win the support of whites and Hispanics, lost the vast majority of the huge states, and won based on the vagaries of the primary system, oh well. That's the breaks. Don't worry, whites and Hispanics will come around. That sort of combination legal/dismissive argument will just kill him.

Second, he'll have to reject Florida and Michigan. Prominent blacks will come out in favor of letting them in--Julian Bond already has, and Jesse Jackson has been suspiciously silent thus far. (Yes, I know who his son is.) If even some black people support letting in the votes, the Dems will have cover.

So ignore everything until Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And if you really want your guy to prevail, check the white and Hispanic vote before you look at the outcome. That's all that will matter.

Posted by Cal | February 16, 2008 7:45 PM

Ryan, you simply aren't making the case that you're trying to make.

The contention that caucuses are inherently "undemocratic" because they don't afford equal opportunity to every individual in a constituency may have some merit to it (I don't necessarily subscribe to that thinking, but a reasonable argument could be made). But that still doesn't account for how Barack Obama was able to engender enough support to get people to show up and Hillary wasn't.

Maybe you aren't aware of this, but all the candidates have people on the ground whose sole purpose is to drive people to their caucus sites. People who don't have transportation or don't drive, etc., can be brought to the polls by the campaign workers and volunteers. And believe me, a LOT of people do this.

People showed up by the thousands to these caucuses. They could have stood in her corner of the room if they wanted her as President. In greater numbers, they didn't. She didn't win enough hearts and minds. Period.

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 7:52 PM

"After that awful response to the State of Union...."

I remember hearing all the carping about Tim Kaine's SOTU response, and yet he helped Democrats win a VA Senate seat in 2007 and the state senate in 2007. Meanwhile, Jim Webb, who was pushed to godlike status after his SOTU response, has run as far to the right as possible on issues like FISA.

People like to say that Hillary is right about caucuses. The problem is that she doesn't just complain about caucuses. She also complains about primaries. She complains about everything she doesn't win. Her campaign's modus operandi seems to be complain, nitpick, whine, and rinse and repeat.

Now that she seems to be pulling out of Wisconsin early, are we going to hear about how that state doesn't count if she loses?

Posted by Carl | February 16, 2008 7:53 PM

David - what I am arguing is that a win in nebraska (with a diminished turnout and chaotic caucus) should not be seen as a sign of "strength". I can guarentee the results will not be duplicated in novemver.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 7:53 PM

HRC's failure to organize in caucus states could be at best shortsighted and at worst arrogant. If the format is a caucus then you learn how to master the rules so that you win it. You don't whine about it. We also have the electoral college and that is even more anti-democratic but we have to deal with it. Regarding moving up the dates having an impact on the election results, what difference does it make? Especially when you have an African-American and woman running for president. I am happy with either candidate although I feel more comfortable with HRC getting the nomination, but the excuses that are made on Hrc's behalf are just mindboggling and insulting.

Posted by Micheline | February 16, 2008 7:58 PM

I meant that in a historic election like this, moving up the date would not have made a difference.

Here is another problem with some of the Clinton supporters. It seems like none of them ever heard of the Dean fifty state strategy in which you in all fifty states so you do not cede the any of them to the Republicans. We know that Nebraska may not go democratic but that's part of building a party. You got to make it happen.

Posted by Micheline | February 16, 2008 8:06 PM

Micheline - moving up the dates was not the problem. It was a contributing factor to the fact that a bunch of states that had never had caucuses decided to have caucuses, were unprepared to deal with the logistics and had a much lower turnout as a result. No one - not even the officials who organized these events - knew how they would play out. But it is reasonable to surmise that they placed significant hurdles in front of voters and in fact they did as can been seen by the lower turnout. Again a win in such circumstances is not an unalloyed "strength".

The entire primary process on our side - caucuses, MI and FL, weirdly proportioning delegates (how did clinton get more delegates in AL again? And obama more in NV?) has been a mess. No one even knows who's ahead in the popular vote.

I blame dean for a lot of this and expect the dnc will have to seriously consider revamping the entire process.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 8:07 PM

And I suppose you think it's likely that an inexperienced black Democrat will carry the day among whites and independents over--who's the Republican candidate, again? Moderate John himself.

I think he'll run better amongst independents than Sen. Clinton, yes. So does all the evidence.

It is foolish indeed to think Obama will win the white vote. [...] There is absolutely no reason to believe that Obama will carry that vote in the general. Hope, sure. Base the entire hopes of the Democratic presidential campaign on a nominee who loses the white vote without Republicans...

Now who's slicing and dicing data, Cal?

The fact is, Obama's doing fine amongst white voters so far. Of twenty primary states*, Obama has won the white vote outright in four and lost by only a single point in two more. However, if we stop trying to spin this as a race war and look at the pretty obvious gender gap, the reason why becomes pretty obvious. Obama has won white men in ten primaries, tied amongst white men in one primary, and lost white men by a single point in two other primaries. That's a pretty strong showing in thirteen of the twenty states (considering he won 11 of the 20 primary states).

If someone can show me something -- anything -- to indicate that the gender gap is because white women hate the black man (and therefore will not vote for him in the general election) instead of the much more simple and sensible explanation that white women are excited by Hillary Clinton's candidacy... well, I'm all ears.

*: not counting New Hampshire and DC, for which CNN has no exit poll data

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 8:08 PM

Ryan-

Maybe it's a good argument that caucuses might disproportionately select for certain groups that may be more inclined to vote for Senator Obama. But that sure is a lot of maybes and mights. I think you could make a similar argument in the other direction - students may be more likely to be registered in at their permanent address in their home state, and you can't vote absentee in a caucus; for every (probably female) nurse who can't make it to caucus, there's at least one (probably male) firefighter, police officer or EMT that can't make it either; working class black folks are at least as likely as working class white folks to have inflexible work schedules; Senator Clinton draws a lot of her support from the over-65 demo, who are more likely to be free from work and child care responsibilities than Senator Obama's younger demographic etc. etc. etc.

None of these arguments take into account the differences in caucus rules in each state. Some caucuses do require a significant time commitment, at others voters can sign in and go, much like in a primary. Some caucuses were held on weekday nights, and some during weekend days.

We know that some states hold caucuses rather than primaries, and that Senator Obama tends to win in those states. It seems pretty silly to me to assume that one of those things caused the other, no matter how reasonable the explanation sounds. If there's data to show that certain groups are under-represented at caucuses, and that those under-represented groups would have voted for Senator Clinton, I'd like to see it. Without that data though, the argument doesn't stand up too well.

Posted by Emily | February 16, 2008 8:31 PM

I also wanted to add that it's a strange argument to make that "yes it was harder to vote but we made it harder for everyone". Course it was not equally harder for everyone - it was mildly harder for some and significantly harder for others (seniors, the disabled, people with small kids or weird work hours).

By the same logic, I could say that requiring IDs at voting sites is no big deal because everyone would have to show one. But as we all know, that particular requirement makes it harder for many minorities and low-income folks to vote.

Again, I fine it weird that democrats would be championing the results of a process that lead to fewer people voting.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 8:32 PM

I also wanted to add that it's a strange argument to make that "yes it was harder to vote but we made it harder for everyone". Course it was not equally harder for everyone - it was mildly harder for some and significantly harder for others (seniors, the disabled, people with small kids or weird work hours).

By the same logic, I could say that requiring IDs at voting sites is no big deal because everyone would have to show one. But as we all know, that particular requirement makes it harder for many minorities and low-income folks to vote.

Again, I fine it weird that democrats would be championing the results of a process that lead to fewer people voting.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 8:35 PM

Columbia:

Why is a caucus harder for seniors? My Great Uncle and Aunt had no problme voting in Nebraska's caucuses--they are retired after all and thus had plenty of time to participate.

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 8:37 PM

Again, I fine it weird that democrats would be championing the results of a process that lead to fewer people voting.

People are championing the results of the process because they're the results of the process.

No one is saying, "Yeah, let's get fewer people voting." But regardless, caucuses have been around a long while now and the time to discuss getting rid of them is NOT when we're right in the middle of an election where a substantial number of caucuses have been held.

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 8:40 PM

Reading this thread it is interesting to see the logic of the Clinton supporters. There is none. Obama can't win the general because he can't win Latinos? Do these Clinton supporters see how fallacious this is? If they follow this strange logic, then Hillary can't win the general because she can't win the African American vote. In fact his numbers with Latinos are better than hers with African Americans. He can't win the general because he didn't win Mass. and NJ, and Ca? Any Dem. who gets the nomination will win those states. What is really amusing is the importance that the Clinton people put on Texas because its a big state. No Dem will win in Texas in Nov. As far as I'm concerned Obama was smart to rack up the delegates in small red states to make up for a loss in a big red state like Texas. Hate to be snarky, but there is a reason that people with more than a high school diploma vote overwhelminly for Obama over Clinton. The Clintons are masters of playing to the hopelessly stupid. They gave us NAFTA yet the poor working class who have suffered the most from that horrible legislation vote for them. She blew heath care reform in 1993 and we lost the Congress, but people are going to hire her again. She's like the corporate raiders at places like CountryWide who run their companies into the ditch, get huge payouts and end up with big jobs in other corporations. Only in America folks! Unfortunately, we get the government we deserve.

Posted by sam922 | February 16, 2008 8:42 PM

Only the low information voters will be fooled by the ridiculous claims to electibility recently made by the Clinton campaign. Every political professional knows the "big" states Hillary won--CA, MA, NY--will be won by the DEM candidate in the general. None of these states has voted for the GOP candidate in the general since 1988. The Clinton campaign's claim to electoral advantage is just plain silly.

Sigh. This really is so very un-complicated. All one has to do is to start with the Gore states of 2000, and then ask yourself whether Obama or Clinton has a better chance of taking at least one of FL, MO, OH. Unless the DEM is running against a popular candidate on the GOP side, that's the terrain.

But let's be even handed here: Obama merely "winning" Washington, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, and Minnesota does NOT support his electability either. Again, just like Clinton taking CA, MA, and NY--these are ALL state either Clinton or Obama will take anyway in the general.

The key therefore is as follows: HOW did they win states, or do well, in various states?

The answer is in the demographics. And that's where Obama crushes Hillary on the argument for the general. His take of the electorate is much, much broader than hers.

The tipping point was Chesapeake Tuesday.

So the DEMS should nominate the candidate who is proving in the demographic data that they have a serious shot of taking two, the states of FL/MO/OH. Taking just one would certainly be good enough. But two is the standard one should apply.

Posted by Gregor | February 16, 2008 8:44 PM

The governor of Kansas is trying to make hay:
The Hillary campaign has a right to go after big states. Obama has a right to go after litle states. The states Hillary has won (nminus contested Florida and Michigan) represent 1026 delegates and Obama's represent 1005 delegates. If it were winner take all then it'd be nearly tied again.
Obama gets a lot of the states in caucuses and primaries that Bush got in general and Hillary takes a classic dem approach that nearly worked for Kerry and Gore in general, big states and picking off a few in the middle.
She is being a good obama soldier and trying to take a news cycle. No campaign can spend in ever state: not even with 100 million plus dollars.

Posted by Michael C. | February 16, 2008 8:58 PM

David - a couple of reasons. One it's a more taxing form of voting. You have to drive somewhere and stay there for a couple of hours. While campaigns may have arranged for the elderly or infirmed in iowa (where there was months of prep time), that did not happen in nebraska (and I'll warrant in many other caucus states). Two absentee ballots, which are likely to be requested by seniors were often not available or not publicized.

Again, I don't know the experience of your grandparents, but going to a crowded caucus site with inadequate parking and handicapped spaces and having to arrange transportation if you don't drive - that's a burden on low mobility voters ie the disabled and elderly. I know my grandma could not sit in a crowded gym for 3+ hours and that's if she could get a ride there.

Also, some are again forgetting that clinton had three huge primary wins in red states tennesse, arkansas and oklahoma. So she has certainly shown that she can win red states.

I don't think anyone thinks we can change the process now. But I think it is fundamentally flawed and not very democratic. Just the weird proportioning of the delegates should show that. (Again - clinton wins AL? Obama wins NV?)

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 9:15 PM

I think he'll run better amongst independents than Sen. Clinton, yes.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the point. The point is that Obama needs a completely unrealistic amount of independents just to start where Clinton begins. He won't get the other votes.

You are trying to argue the wrong case. He doesn't have to win more than Clinton to make a good case. He has to win more than McCain, and that's just incredibly unlikely.

McCain will almost certainly win white men, and white swing voters. It's absurd to be certain that white voters will go for Obama in the general. Your demographic--who votes for Obama to begin with--certainly. But white working class voters? You may want to believe it. But the Dem leadership would be foolish to.

Of twenty primary states*, Obama has won the white vote outright in four and lost by only a single point in two more.

Ha, ha. Yes. Out of 20 races, he's lost the white vote in 2/3rds of the races. And the numbers look much worse once it comes down to white Democrats.

then ask yourself whether Obama or Clinton has a better chance of taking at least one of FL, MO, OH.

Obama has big problems in Florida. I don't know about Ohio, but he'll be spending a lot of time shoring up California.

And every time he reaches out to Hispanics, white voters will swing to McCain. Hillary won't have to make that reach.

Posted by Cal | February 16, 2008 9:27 PM

You have to drive somewhere and stay there for a couple of hours. While campaigns may have arranged for the elderly or infirmed in iowa (where there was months of prep time), that did not happen in nebraska (and I'll warrant in many other caucus states).

Are you sure it didn't happen at all in Nebraska, or didn't happen from the Clinton campaign in Nebraska? I'm in a small primary state (Delaware) where there weren't months of prep time, but the Obama campaign here had a strong operation set up to provide rides for people here. I'm willing to bet his campaign had that in a lot of the caucus states, too, and that's partly why he won. Again, it's a matter of setting up organization, something Clinton didn't make a lot of efforts at.

that's a burden on low mobility voters ie the disabled and elderly.

I've seen a lot of speculation, but still not a lot to indicate that there's actually a structural disadvantage occurring here for these demographics. Anecdotes and theories could be presented for any demographic group. In Nevada's caucus, though, 36% of the voters were over 60. They didn't seem impacted there.

Also, some are again forgetting that clinton had three huge primary wins in red states tennesse, arkansas and oklahoma. So she has certainly shown that she can win red states.

Yeah, and? Obama had big primary wins in blue states Maryland, D.C., Delaware, and Illinois, and a still respectable 4 point win in blue state Connecticut.

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 9:31 PM

Ha, ha. Yes. Out of 20 races, he's lost the white vote in 2/3rds of the races. And the numbers look much worse once it comes down to white Democrats.

He's won half of the primaries and won or tied the white vote in a third. Meanwhile in more than half of those primary states he's beaten (killed) or equaled Clinton in white men.

Again, you keep acting like this is some sort of racial civil war in the primary. It isn't. All the evidence says it isn't. The fact that you keep coming back to this over and over and over again makes me wonder if you're the one with racial issues here -- the primary electorate doesn't seem to be in most of the states, though, despite your noble attempts to make it so.

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 9:36 PM

Looks like HGBT was right.

Cal talks about Obama's thus far crippling demographic deficiencies

Sorry, but you are simply a moron.

The Democrats typically win 90%+ of the black vote.
Hillary is nowhere close to that in the primary.
Therefore if she is the nominee those voters will vote for John McCain and the Democrats will be crushed in a landslide.

Is the logical fallacy clear for you now?

Let's try again.

The Democrats typically win a very large % of registered Democrats in the general election.
Hillary is winning less than half of registered Democrats in the primaries.
Therefore if she is the nominee those voters will vote for John McCain and the Democrats will be crushed in a landslide.

For fuck's sake, it takes real effort to be this stupid. I can't wait for primary season to be over.

Posted by Barbar | February 16, 2008 9:42 PM

Yes, I know driving didn't happen in nebraska. Even obama didn't have staff on the ground until a week before. And the dearth of caucus sites (one site for one of the largest counties!) added to the problem (ie traffic wait times, lack of parking, icy day). I think the greatly reduced turnout (one fourth of the voters from the uncontested 2004 primary) would be a significant piece of evidence that there were difficulties in voting. And nevada had much more organization (being one of the pre-super four) than states following it.

I bring up her red state wins to show that the idea that only obama can compete of the gop turf is flawed.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 9:42 PM

Let me make a crazy argument: they would both probably win, and the one that is more "electable" (I support HRC, but I can easily make the argument for Obama), is likely more electable by the thinnest of margins. It's a tough call, Obama with his infusion of enthusiasm among voters usually not enthusiastic, or not Democratic, vs. HRC and the potential to get a lot more of the women vote than may be apparent now.

This is going to be a tough campaign. McCain has been building a postive, personal, national reputation for a decade (yes, through MSM malfeasance), which will make him very formidable.

Side note: If the nominee, I hope Obama doesn't take the bogus public financing "pledge" McCain is seeking.

Posted by Andruw | February 16, 2008 9:46 PM

I don't understand why it is so hard for people like Cal to grasp this simple point: if either Clinton or Obama cannot convert most of the people currently voting for the other candidate during the Democratic Party's nomination process, they are going to lose the general election in a landslide.

This of course is true in any close primary contest. But history says that at least for the people who are registered Democrats, the conversion rate will likely be very high, because partisanship is a very powerful force. Conversely, the conversion rate for independents and cross-over Republicans will likely be much lower. And that is one of the reasons why if you have two more or less evenly matched people in the primaries, but one is getting more registered party members and the other is getting more independents and cross-overs, the latter is likely to start out the general election in a much better position.

Posted by DTM | February 16, 2008 9:46 PM

top 3 reasons Kansas doesn't count:

3. yellow-brick road doesn't lead to NY (which counts)

2. Kansas city is actually in MO, which also doesn't count (too many brothers), but by extrapolation KS doesn't count either;

3. governor's name sounds like obscure composer that only brie-eating NPR set recognize --doesn't put food (other than brie) on the table, so it doesn't count

Posted by anonymous | February 16, 2008 9:53 PM

In Barbar, we finally have someone on these myriad internet threads who combines sarcasm and logic. What a relief.

Posted by Gregor | February 16, 2008 10:03 PM

For those following the dem primary season with 1/2 a brain and for those who are really looking past their noses, Clinton is not, I repeat, is NOT gaining momentum in her desired and oft thought of strong demographics. Kate Michelman President of N.O.W [National Organization for Women] i.e. a heavy hitting feminist leader has backed and continues to campgaign for Obama.

Clinton Superdelegates are {cough} David Lewis {cough} most recently, jumping from supporting Clinton to supporting Obama. Her splendid white middle class voters are watching her canceling appointments, dropping campaign managers, calling 'unfair' working inside deals, and very simply not showing up and keeping her word.

One need not be a rocket engineer to figure out who is bringing their end game and who is coasting on a name and reputation.

Obama has succeeded in rousing a demographic all but asleep for the last decade, a demographic that is wakening and going to the polls, that demographic as if we actually need to name it? Americans who want change. Plain and Simple.

And that change is not Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Phil | February 16, 2008 10:07 PM

But history says that at least for the people who are registered Democrats, the conversion rate will likely be very high, because partisanship is a very powerful force.

History doesn't have an election with these kind of demographic patterns.

if either Clinton or Obama cannot convert most of the people currently voting for the other candidate during the Democratic Party's nomination process, they are going to lose the general election in a landslide.

Really? Gosh.

If only I were arguing that all the people who vote for Clinton weren't going to vote for Obama, this would be a brilliant rebuttal.

Posted by Cal | February 16, 2008 10:11 PM

I don't see any reason why a primary *or* a caucus should be predictive of the November vote. It's a different choice -- who should represent the party versus who should be President -- made by a different group of people, at a different point in the year. If anyone can point us to statistical testing that looks rigorously at the question of whether state primary/caucus votes or turnouts predict general election votes I'd be interested; without that it's just a lot of truculent assertion.

The funny part is that as Obama does better the trolls have to resort to ever-more-contorted arguments to demonstrate that Clinton's shrinking base is all the party should listen to. Any bets on whether Wisconsin will matter by Tuesday night?

Posted by Colin | February 16, 2008 10:12 PM

Well done Barbar.

Cal, are you actually suggesting that there will be a mass conversion of Democratic primary voters from the losing side to McCain?

Well, with no votes from college-educated whites and African-Americans, Hillary's pretty-well fucked, isn't she?

Posted by Daniel Koffler | February 16, 2008 10:25 PM

Obama has succeeded in rousing a demographic all but asleep for the last decade, a demographic that is wakening and going to the polls, that demographic as if we actually need to name it? Americans who want change.

Sure, Obama talks about change all the freaking time, but Hillary is a doer, not a talker. If there's anyone in this primary that truly represents change, it's her. I don't see why that's so hard for all you Obamabots to tap into. I mean, just in this last month Hillary has changed her campaign manager, changed her slogan, changed her mind on the MI and FL delegates, hell, she even managed to change the minds of some of her erstwhile super-delegates. Clearly, she is the candidate for change in 08.

Posted by TPH | February 16, 2008 10:27 PM

Barbar and the anonymous poster who posted the "Top 3" list, please, please, please come visit us at the Straight Dope. We've been "fighting ignorance since 1973 (it's taking longer than we thought)". :)

BTW, I post as "Shayna" over there, in case you do come by and wonder who I am there.

Yes we can!

We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 10:35 PM

"Sure, Obama talks about change all the freaking time, but Hillary is a doer, not a talker."

What has she done? I seem to remember quite a bit of talking her way out of scandals in the 90's. I remember a great deal of talking this decade in her confusing attempts to defend her war vote. She's also done a great deal of talking to justify why she has lost so many states.

Posted by Carl | February 16, 2008 10:45 PM

Well one thing I can tell you that she did NOT do, was read the full NIE report on Iraq before casting her vote.

You know, the one that was made available to every single Senator, and supposedly made the case for going to war, but in fact cast quite a bit of doubt over the supposed evidence. The one that convinced every single Senator who did read it to vote 'No'.

This was, quite literally, a life and death decision, and she didn't even bother to give it the care and consideration it deserved. There IS no more important decision a Commander in Chief will have to make than to take our brave service men and women into battle. I'll be damned if I'll award that grave responsibility to someone who shirks hers when it's most important.

It's offensive to me that she simply didn't do her job. Didn't bother to read a 90 page report. There is no excuse. Not when it comes to decisions of this magnitude.

Read.

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 10:59 PM

It's offensive to me that she simply didn't do her job. Didn't bother to read a 90 page report. There is no excuse. Not when it comes to decisions of this magnitude

Here, Here!

That decision was inexcuseable!

Posted by Phil | February 16, 2008 11:04 PM

A nice test case for that theory was North Dakota. The ND caucus is held all day and all you had to do was stop by, fill out a card for you candidate, drop it in a sealed box, and go on your merry way. She lost ND 61% to 37%.

Well, what about people without hands?? And people who have a fear of sealed boxes? Surely they all would have voted for Hillary.

Posted by jim | February 16, 2008 11:09 PM

Dammit, Jim, now you have to come to The Straight Dope, too. Check out the main page to the syndicated column, too. If you don't know Cecil Adams yet, you'll love him once you read him.

Oh god, I'm laughing so hard my stomach hurts.

What about the people with no hands?

(Hi Phil! Nice to see you here, too, friend!)

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 11:21 PM

Phill: Clinton Superdelegates are {cough} David Lewis {cough} most recently, jumping from supporting Clinton to supporting Obama.

John Lewis (D-GA) friggin' coughed up a lung reading your comment.

At least you didn't say Jerry.

Posted by Andruw | February 16, 2008 11:23 PM

Andruw,

I think he was rolling Rep. David Scott (D-GA) and Rep. John Lewis (D-also GA), both of whom switched their SD votes, into a single person.

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 11:34 PM

Yeah! f the disabled! F seniors too! If those a holes can't vote, good!

Again, never thought I'd hear dems cheer for disenfranchisement. But wonders never cease.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 11:36 PM

Oh come on Matt, until this moment when have you ever thought Minnesota mattered?

Posted by aleks | February 16, 2008 11:44 PM

Saturday, February 16, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama leads John McCain 46% to 43%....

.... while McCain leads Clinton 49% to 43%.
___________________________________________
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Cal, this Bud's for you.

Posted by The Jesus and Mary Chain | February 16, 2008 11:53 PM

Yeah! f the disabled! F seniors too!

well, if that's Clinton's base and she failed to make provisions in her organization to get her disabled and senior supporters out to the caucus sites, then she is, in effect, the person screaming "f the disabled and seniors!" But I guess we can't blame Hillary. She had no way of knowing what horrible perversions of democracy these caucuses are. If only she had the counsel of someone who had been through this process before - someone who had seen firsthand what the presidential campaign was like, maybe then she could have been prepared. Sadly, she had no one in her life who could offer such guidance.

Posted by TPH | February 17, 2008 12:01 AM

That David Lewis comment threw me off too. Though now's as good a time as any to ask Mark Penn which possible worlds count when we're considering subjunctive conditionals.

Posted by Daniel Koffler | February 17, 2008 12:07 AM

Yeah, he may be interested in the latest from Gallup, too.

Gallup Poll daily tracking. Three-day rolling average. N=approx. 1,200 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

Preference for Democratic Nominee:

Survey end date 2/15/08
Clinton 42%
Obama 49%

Obama now enjoys a 7 pt lead over Clinton, which is outside the margin of error.

Posted by Jill K | February 17, 2008 12:17 AM

The reason Hillary hasn't done well so far and isn't likely to do well in the future is that the ballots have been rigged against her because Bill's name isn't on them. The only states that really, truly count are the ones with ballots like this:

Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Bill Clinton

with the votes for either Clinton accruing to her. The fact that she's won some states despite this unfairness is a testament to her ability to overcome huge odds, for example America's distaste for too-blatant nepotism.

Posted by aleks | February 17, 2008 12:27 AM

Does anyone honestly believe that if Clinton had Obama's winning percentage in caucuses that Mark Penn wouldn't be defending them as in the best traditions of American democracy?

Posted by John C | February 17, 2008 12:28 AM

Obama has gotten 0% -- that's right, ZERO VOTES -- from people voting for Hillary in the primaries. If you crazy Obamabots think that Obama can win the general election without a substantial portion of the Democratic base -- voters he has shown ZERO sign of winning over so far -- you're in for a nasty surprise in November.
Hillary 2008!
Posted by Barbar | February 16, 2008 5:33 PM
**************************
It's true. And he's won exactly zero votes from people simultaneously voting for Huckabee or Romney, so I guess there's no crossover appeal either. And he didn't get any votes in the 2004 or 2000 elections, so he's clearly screwed with older voters.

Posted by aleks | February 17, 2008 12:35 AM

He's also gotten zero votes from Wisconsin thus far, which can only be interpretted as a unilateral preemptive decision by every voter in the state that Obama is a great big phony.

But, seriously, Barbar was speaking in jest - that much was settled somehwere way back in this discussion.

Barack Obama/Rob Halford 08!

Posted by TPH | February 17, 2008 12:41 AM

Ryan:
A nice test case for that theory was North Dakota. The ND caucus is held all day and all you had to do was stop by, fill out a card for you candidate, drop it in a sealed box, and go on your merry way. She lost ND 61% to 37%.
Posted by David | February 16, 2008 7:05 PM
******************

North Dakota doesn't count. Too many black voters.

Posted by aleks | February 17, 2008 12:51 AM

Daniel Koffler wins.

Posted by goethean | February 17, 2008 12:56 AM

Daniel Koffler wins.

nah, he has two f's in his last name. he doesn't count.

Posted by TPH | February 17, 2008 12:59 AM

Besides being a woman and reminding Dem partisan zealots of an era they recall in a cheesy, fact-ignorant nostalgia worthy of a Kevin Costner movie, what has she ever brought to the table?

Most infuriating of all are these baseless claims about a supposed "doer vs. speaker" dichotomy between her and Obama. The ONLY thing HRC has actually done since 1992 is shovel pork at New Yorkers while pretending she is from there.

These claims are as phony as the bad-actor accents she adopts depending on what state she happens to be visiting.

Posted by T.K. | February 17, 2008 1:10 AM

To paraphrase Clinton, she had 35 years to build up her base. She was First Lady and a Senator in a safe, powerful seat. Her base within the Democratic Party was hers for the choosing based on her political abilities to a greater extent than just about any major party nominee, including Clinton in 1992. The fact that she lost African-Americans, once one of the key bases of Clinton support, says much about her tin ear politically. Think about that: her last name is Clinton and she lost African-American Democrats. That's like Bush losing everyone who thinks the Left Behind series is a prophesy or Taft losing fat old rich white guys. She could have inspired young people, who would probably be more open-minded about having a female president, to get excited for her, yet she failed while Boxer, who is further away from being young, would probably have succeeded due to her being the cool grandma in the Senate and solidly anti-Iraq War. She was able to beat many Democratic elites into submission early in the campaign because she had so many advantages that no one could see how someone with "35 years of experience" could fuck up so bad. Even if she squeaks this out, this is like being born on third and then reaching home only because the opposing pitcher started streaking instead of pitching.

She only has a decent lead among Latinos in the Southwest and California and in New York's large suburb of New Jersey (and she lost the contest in the other major NYC suburb, CT, where Lamont endorsed Obama). Obama won Latinos in Maryland, after all. The fact that she was left with those Democratic voters that somehow have a harder time participating in caucuses is her own fault. No smart politician in the Democratic Party has had so many institutional advantages and then starting bleeding so many supporters since Carter almost lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1980. At least Carter took two years to become a lame duck. Clinton is ready to become a lame duck on Day One.

I am struck how just about every single friend I have who is supporting Clinton is from a blue state (New York, California, Connecticut) and how all but one of them isn't completely white. Meanwhile, just about every Democratic activist or Democratic supporter I know who is an ethnic minority or from a purple or red state is for Obama. The Purple and Red Staters I know are going crazy trying to make Blue Staters understand how deeply the average person outside of the Upper West Side and Cambridge hate Hillary Clinton even if they like Bill. Her best chance of winning against McCain is for evangelicals is to stay home, but she is the one Democrat they cannot bear above all others to become president. At this point, the Republicans would have to nominate Castro or Zombie Saddam to make enough of them to switch over to vote for Clinton for her to win.

Posted by Reality Man | February 17, 2008 2:04 AM

Preach it, Reality Man!

For the record; white chick from California here, and I loathe Hillary, and certainly recognize how hated she is outside the "blue" states.

When Howard Dean had the nerve to ask me to divert money away from the Obama campaign and to the DNC (who won't take a public stand and state once and for all that they will not ALLOW Hillary Clinton to go back on the rules she AGREED to from the beginning -- Fat Chance!), I told him that the best ammunition they have in beating McCain is Barack Obama. And that if Hillary Clinton was our nominee, McCain could sit out the rest of the election season and he'd coast to a win.

No amount of money will get the Independents and disgruntled Republicans to hold their nose and choose Hillary. No way. And many Democrats like myself won't, either.

Posted by Jill K | February 17, 2008 2:39 AM

"What fucking retarded arguments some of you people make, which would be easily dismissed if they weren't coming from a major candidate and a former president. Caucuses count. Clintonistas sound like French generals whining that Germans didn't directly attack the Maginot Line."

Hahahaha. I love it. On the other hand, everyone knows that the Alsace-Lorraine vote doesn't count.

Posted by rjf | February 17, 2008 2:50 AM

"This is going to be a tough campaign. McCain has been building a postive, personal, national reputation for a decade (yes, through MSM malfeasance), which will make him very formidable."

And he destroyed it all in one stupid night by letting a subordinate stop the vote count in Washington state and saying a day or so later that he wasn't concerned about the vote, since it looked like he won (with about 26% of the vote). The eerie sound you heard was the jaws of every hard-core evangelical in the deep South hitting the floor in disbelief that the party they supported would do that to them.

Democrats don't talk about this nearly enough. McCain was one of my favourite Republicans for years, and my sympathy that night went to Huckabee immediately, and I don't even like that guy. I can only imagine what the supporters who came out for him must be feeling. McCain hasn't apologized for it yet and I think it will cost him in the general election. Some people might think everyone will be over it by then, but Florida '00 was over seven years ago now and Democrats still aren't over it.

I keep hearing from Democrats (especially Clinton supporters, I might add) is that McCain is a Magical Unity Pony who will unite all these people behind him and crush whichever Democrat crosses his path, and that they will vote for McCain if there are any kind of political shenanigans on the Democratic side. I'm beginning to wonder if Democrats pay attention to the Republican primary at all. They should. It's educational.

The fact of the matter is, McCain is intensely disliked by a good chunk of the Republican base, and without any polling to back it up, it seems to me that a good many of the people who hate him are the same people who hate Clinton. In a contest between them, both parties would turn out their normal bases, some of them reluctantly, but with few people crossing over.

Obama, on the other hand, has been picking up a lot of independents (many of whom also dislike both Clinton and McCain), and getting crossover support from disgruntled Republicans. If he runs for the Democrats, he picks up all of those votes, plus the usual Democratic base. I actually suspect that he would do an equally good job if he ran as a Republican, and turn out their base better than McCain will. He is a far less odious choice for many people than Clinton or McCain, and a lot of Republicans (especially Huckabee Republicans) are in the mood to teach Mr. Straight Talk a lesson.

The Colorado and Nevada polls are indicative. That 10% swing in each state is the unhappy Republican vote mulling over whether to vote for a Democrat. It isn't enough to turn every single red state blue, but the Republicans need to keep those 63-37 spreads in all of their strongholds, and having twenty states suddenly drop to 53-47 while most of the others fall to the Democrats would be a nightmare. And it's what they're looking at if the Democrats pick the candidate who's been campaigning and getting the vote out in all of those states. Pick the one who has unwisely said that they don't matter to her any more than they matter to McCain, and they get them all back.

Posted by Splitting Image | February 17, 2008 3:31 AM

Where on earth is this argument that "Caucuses discriminate against seniors" coming from?

This is one of the most outrageously ridiculous things I've ever heard. Until Obama started winning caucuses, the conventional wisdom was that caucuses are dominated by old people.

Old people have lots of time on their hands. They are more committed to voting than younger people. Historically, they tend to caucus more than younger people. This doesn't pass the laugh test.

Posted by John | February 17, 2008 9:49 AM

The fact of the matter is, McCain is intensely disliked by a good chunk of the Republican base, and without any polling to back it up, it seems to me that a good many of the people who hate him are the same people who hate Clinton. In a contest between them, both parties would turn out their normal bases, some of them reluctantly, but with few people crossing over.

Obama, on the other hand, has been picking up a lot of independents (many of whom also dislike both Clinton and McCain), and getting crossover support from disgruntled Republicans. If he runs for the Democrats, he picks up all of those votes, plus the usual Democratic base. I actually suspect that he would do an equally good job if he ran as a Republican, and turn out their base better than McCain will. He is a far less odious choice for many people than Clinton or McCain, and a lot of Republicans (especially Huckabee Republicans) are in the mood to teach Mr. Straight Talk a lesson.

The Colorado and Nevada polls are indicative. That 10% swing in each state is the unhappy Republican vote mulling over whether to vote for a Democrat. It isn't enough to turn every single red state blue, but the Republicans need to keep those 63-37 spreads in all of their strongholds, and having twenty states suddenly drop to 53-47 while most of the others fall to the Democrats would be a nightmare. And it's what they're looking at if the Democrats pick the candidate who's been campaigning and getting the vote out in all of those states. Pick the one who has unwisely said that they don't matter to her any more than they matter to McCain, and they get them all back.

I'm just going to copy and past Splitting Image's post because I've been shouting the same thing to every Democrat so long I'm sick of hearing my version.

Posted by aleks | February 17, 2008 10:23 AM

Cal,

Well, what the heck are you arguing, then?

If Obama would outperform Clinton among cross-over Republicans and independents in the general election--and all the available evidence suggests he would--then the only way Clinton could possibly outperform Obama in the general would be to dramatically outperform him among registered Democrats.

Now, why would we expect Clinton to dramatically outperform Obama among registered Democrats? Of course, it is true she is getting slightly more of those voters than Obama right now. But in order for Clinton to dramatically outperform Obama among this group in the general election, her Democratic supporters would have to convert to Obama at a much lower rate than Obama's Democratic supporters would convert to Clinton.

And why would we would expect the rate of people converting from Obama to Clinton to be much higher than the rate of people converting from Clinton to Obama? Note demographics doesn't help you: to the extent registered Democrats appears to be voting in higher percentages for the person more like them (by age, gender, race, or so on), each candidate will have to do the same thing: convert over Democrats who are demographically less like them and more like the other candidate. But again, partisanship is the key to making that happen.

So, you argument seems to amount to the claim that somehow partisanship won't work nearly as well to convert Clinton's Democratic supporters to Obama as it will work to convert Obama's supporters to Clinton. But other than your bare assertion to that effect, I see no evidence of such a discrepancy being likely.

And by the way, if your idea is that somehow race trumps partisanship in a way gender and age do not: that is not at all backed up by recent evidence. Specifically, in 2006 black Democrats did not vote for black Republicans who were running against white Democrats in significantly higher percentages than they voted for white Republicans in similar circumstances, and white Democrats did not vote for black Democrats running against white Republicans in significantly lower percentages than they voted for white Democrats in similar circumstances. So, just as it does with every other demographic factor, partisanship appears to largely trump race.

Posted by DTM | February 17, 2008 11:35 AM

Cal, are you actually suggesting that there will be a mass conversion of Democratic primary voters from the losing side to McCain?

Of course not. There doesn't need to be a mass conversion.

But are you all seriously arguing that everyone who votes in the Dem primaries will vote for the Dem candidate? Given the number of times that Dems have outvoted Republicans in the primaries, there should have been a lot more Dem presidents over the last 60 years.

So the issue is who will win in the general. Demographics matter there. Of course Hispanics won't desert Obama en masse. But how many can McCain pick off?

Republicans have won the white vote in, what, 11 of 12 of the last presidential elections? If Obama can't convince a majority of white Democrats to vote for him, what does that say about his chances in the general?

Don't think about people you know, or what you want to happen. Don't imagine that I'm arguing that 100% of all these demographics will desert Obama, just because it makes it easier to dismiss what the demographics are saying.

This is a split electorate, and they are decided largely at the margins. With Hillary, that will remain the case. Obama widens the gap at the margins because of his demographics, and that's a big risk.

So just hope he demonstrates a clean win of white Democrats in TOP and all is well.

Posted by Cal | February 17, 2008 12:13 PM

Cal, if Hillary dropped out we would have an easier time seeing if those Dem white voters (especially white women) are willing to vote for Obama or not. Why won't she do what is good for the party?

Posted by Barbar | February 17, 2008 12:27 PM

Cal,

I'm sorry, but you are really making no sense.

First, again, it doesn't actually matter which candidate gets, say, 45% or 55% of the "white vote" in the Democratic primary, if you assume the winner won't convert most of the other person's supporters. That is because neither 45% nor 55% is going to do it.

Now it is true all those people on either side won't convert to the eventual winner, but the normal ratio is high. And actually, you really have offered no grounds for concluding Obama's conversion rate won't be as high or higher than Clinton's. So for all we know, Obama might actually end up ahead of Clinton among white Democrats in the general, even though he is behind her in this group during the primary.

Second, you seem hell bent on just ignoring the significance of non-white Democrats and non-Democrats to what will happen in the general election. That makes no sense: in total, those groups are much larger combined than just white Democrats. So even if we hypothesized Clinton would in fact end up doing marginally better among white Democrats, Obama could easily end up doing better overall by doing better among non-white Democrats and non-Democrats.

So seriously, what the heck is your point? Whether you want to admit it or not, your argument really is just assuming Obama's supporters will convert to Clinton at a much higher rate than Clinton's supporters will convert to Clinton. And until you give us a good reason to believe that is true, you aren't going to be convincing anyone.

Posted by DTM | February 17, 2008 12:29 PM

Cal is reluctant, perhaps understandably so, to say in plain words that he believes a significant percentage of white Democrats are racists and won't vote for a black man. That is the only premise that makes sense of his arguments. I'm not sure what his evidence is for the premise, but I would like to hear it.

Posted by Led | February 17, 2008 12:42 PM

Led,

I think that is right. And as I noted, the evidence from 2006 doesn't support that theory. For example, according to exit polls, Jim Webb got 92% of the white Democratic vote in Virginia. Harold Ford got 91% of the white Democratic vote in Tennessee.

Moreover, it would have to be a very significant percentage of white Democrats who were racists that would vote for Clinton and not Obama, since white Democrats are going to be outnumbered by non-white Democrats and non-Democrats something like 3:1 or more in the general election. And on top of that, you would have to subtract out all the male Democrats who were sexists who would vote for Obama but not Clinton, which for all we know is an even bigger group than the white Democrat racists.

In any event, hopefully Wisconsin is about to demonstrate that Obama can in fact get more than 50% of the "white vote" in a primary. Although I suspect that even if he does, the goal posts will be moved again and suddenly it will be necessary for Obama to get 60% (or 80%, or 110%) of the "white vote" before he can prove his viability to people like Cal.

Posted by DTM | February 17, 2008 1:37 PM

Cal is reluctant, perhaps understandably so, to say in plain words that he believes a significant percentage of white Democrats are racists and won't vote for a black man. That is the only premise that makes sense of his arguments. I'm not sure what his evidence is for the premise, but I would like to hear it.

It's called replacement of objective analysis with psychological projection.

Posted by Henri | February 17, 2008 1:47 PM

This is one of the most outrageously ridiculous things I've ever heard. Until Obama started winning caucuses, the conventional wisdom was that caucuses are dominated by old people.

Exactly. This is yet another case of the Clinton campaign moving the goalposts. I work in local government and can tell you exactly which demographic shows up most to public meetings, whether they're held in the daytime or the evening: senior citizens. More precisely, white senior citizens. If Obama is bringing more young people and non-white people to the polls in a caucus, that means that his candidacy has managed to energize the electorate and bring out the vote in ways we haven't seen in years.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 17, 2008 3:00 PM

Unbelievable. People are really getting upset about a politician spinning to minimize the significance of a primary loss in a particular state?
But two states actually, really, not being counted for the nomination, one of them being Florida of all places, that's just the rules, right?

Posted by per | February 17, 2008 3:21 PM

"So for all we know, Obama might actually end up ahead of Clinton among white Democrats in the general, even though he is behind her in this group during the primary."

According to the latest AP poll I say, Obama beats McCain by 7 points (while Clinton's win is only within the margin of error) while doing better with white voters than Clinton against McCain as well.

"Unbelievable. People are really getting upset about a politician spinning to minimize the significance of a primary loss in a particular state?
But two states actually, really, not being counted for the nomination, one of them being Florida of all places, that's just the rules, right?

Posted by per | February 17, 2008 3:21 PM"

I see you disagree with Clinton's initial position: you know, the one she had when she could have affected the outcome before it was convenient for her.

Posted by Reality Man | February 17, 2008 4:08 PM

Cal is reluctant, perhaps understandably so, to say in plain words that he believes a significant percentage of white Democrats are racists and won't vote for a black man.

I wouldn't be at all reluctant to say it, if it were my position. I have said it about Asians, in fact. But in the case of white Democrats, I suspect they just think Hillary is the better candidate, and I think it quite likely that a good number of them will find McCain a better candidate than Obama. Moreover, I predict most Democrat leaders will come to that position unless whites and Hispanics start voting for him.

What will make a significant percentage of whites unwilling to vote for a black guy is a bunch of whiny liberals screaming RACISM every time someone criticizes him. So go right ahead and help out McCain.

You all seem to be assuming a great deal. For all you know I'm an Asian Republican female staffer at the NAACP.

But then, you're Obamabots, so I guess I can't expect much in the way of rational thought.

Posted by Cal | February 17, 2008 9:12 PM

Cal: You, sir, are full of shit. Exactly why will these Democrats think McCain is the better candidate, and what is you evidence? You've never, ever explained that the fact that I and others asked you to do so in any number of threads. In the absence of any explanation and what appears to be your obsession about race, the only reasonable conclusion is that you think a significant number of white Dems are racist. Please prove me wrong by stating with particularity why it is that Democrats would vote for McCain over Obama. I'm begging you. I'd love to discuss it.

What will make a significant percentage of whites unwilling to vote for a black guy is a bunch of whiny liberals screaming RACISM every time someone criticizes him. So go right ahead and help out McCain.

Complete bullshit. As you know full well, I didn't say YOU were racist. I don't know or care. YOU are the one who's been implying that white Dems won't vote for Obama. And by harping for days on the racial demographics of the primary race, asserting ominously without explanation that Democrats won't vote for Obama and then waxing indignant that someone would think you're talking about racism, you've outed yourself as a disingenuous phony. I'm happy to discuss the merits of the candidates or the horserace aspects with someone who argues in good faith and states his/her premises openly. You've demonstrated that you're not that person.

Posted by Led | February 17, 2008 10:09 PM

But two states actually, really, not being counted for the nomination, one of them being Florida of all places, that's just the rules, right?

Actually, I think the Democratic Party is making a big mistake for letting this problem fester for so long. The obvious solution is to have them vote again in actual contested elections. If primaries are impossible, then do closed caucuses.

What I do NOT think is a good solution is to just seat the delegates voted on by an irregular election - you could maybe make a case for Florida, but there's no way in hell you can argue that Michigan's election, where Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot, were fair.

Also, be a man and admit that Clinton's change of heart in re: the delegates from MI and FL is incredibly self-serving and has absolutely nothing to do with her all of a sudden being a champion of the disenfranchised.

Also, Cal? The Cal who said, But then, you're Obamabots, so I guess I can't expect much in the way of rational thought. Fuck you, Cal.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 17, 2008 10:50 PM

Sorry, but there's no rational excuse for thinking the man could be a decent president. He's just a mirror that you all are using to check out your fabulous tolerance with shimmery highlights.

there's no way in hell you can argue that Michigan's election, where Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ballot, were fair.

To the extent that they aren't "fair", Obama has only himself to blame. He tried to talk all the other candidates into removing themselves from the ballot in order to make Hillary look bad. When the effort didn't work, he decided to be safe and leave his name on the ballot in Florida.

It was his choice. He wasn't required to remove his name. He did so in order to pander to Iowa voters. Bad call. Moreover, he did far more campaigning in Michigan than Hillary did, with the "Vote Uncommitted!" effort. So if he's hoist on his own petard because he doesn't play the game well, too bad. Don't sing me any songs of his fine, upstanding behavior, though.

That said, I see nothing wrong with holding new, closed primaries--not caucuses--in both states. But the DNC should cover the costs and when you consider that if the DNC gets to the point of a do-over, it's because Hillary won Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. That means the demographics haven't changed, and if they haven't changed,then Hillary would win the do-over. That's a lot of money spent for the same results.

Also, be a man and admit that Clinton's change of heart in re: the delegates from MI and FL is incredibly self-serving and has absolutely nothing to do with her all of a sudden being a champion of the disenfranchised.

Sorry. One, it's physically impossible. Two, what do I care what Hillary's reasons are? I'm unconcerned with candidate consistency on either side. I'm talking about what will probably happen in one particular case, not what anyone wants or expects.

Go find someone who cares if you need balm to soothe your gnawing consistency yearnings.

Posted by Cal | February 18, 2008 1:55 AM

First, Sorry. One, it's physically impossible. Sorry, I assumed "Cal" was short for "Calvin."

That said, I see nothing wrong with holding new, closed primaries--not caucuses--in both states.

I also favor primaries to caucuses in the abstract, but I really don't know what the rules are. It's the Democratic Party's problem, and they should pay for them, but my understanding is that states run primaries and parties run caucuses. That's probably an oversimplification; I suppose the party could run one of those elections like in New Mexico that was technically a caucus but looked more like a primary. On the other hand, that one took forever to count. I don't know if that was inherent to the system or if it's really just the New Mexico party's fault.

With six weeks between the TX/OH primaries and the ones in PA, that should give the party some time to figure out what to do about FL and MI. Let's hope so.

Anyway, back to the less-meta issues, let me just say for the record that I still think that your assessments of Obama both in terms of his ability to govern and his electability are wrong, but I have no interest in continuing to debate this.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 18, 2008 3:43 AM

Here's your "evidence":

But in the case of white Democrats, I suspect they just think Hillary is the better candidate, and I think it quite likely that a good number of them will find McCain a better candidate than Obama.

Cal "suspects"! Cal "thinks it quite likely"! Take it to the bank!

Posted by erm | February 18, 2008 4:08 AM

Let me say that Columbia doesn't know what the F*ck s/he is talking about with respect to Nebraska. Obama had an organization on the ground in Omaha and Nebraska at large within 3 days after he announced his candidacy. How do I know? Because i've been on the steering committee since February of 2007. F the disabled? Obama's organization had vehicles actively transporting disabled individuals to caucus sites the morning of the caucus. How do I know that? My (Republican) wife drove 2 elderly voters without licenses to our caucus site because she's supporting Barack. Oh and one of them was undecided during the trip, but ultimately caucused for Obama. You're just flat-ass wrong about caucusses.

Moreover, Nebraska PERFECTLY demonstrates why HRC is a moron. Nebraska is one of 2 states that splits its electoral votes in the fall by congressional district won, not by winner take all. NEbraska is one of those RED states that HRC says doesn't count becuase "democrats most likely won't win it in the fall." Nebraska voted 74% to 26% in favor of Bush in 2004. However, it is highly possible for the democtratic candidate to steal an electoral vote from our Second District which is the home of a democtratic mayor and the base of support for Senator Ben Nelson. The fact that HRC simply blew this state off completely, untilt he last second when she started running ads featuring that carpetbagger Bob Kerry, shows she doesn't understand the potential for this state. Moreover, given her Giulianiesque strategy of ignoring delegates for big states, coupled with her late staff restructuring and spending herself out of money, her campaign is a clear indicator that she is in no way ready to run the executive branch.

Posted by Columbia is an idiot | February 18, 2008 3:02 PM

Cal, you are quite the prejudiced moron.

Posted by Jennifer | February 18, 2008 3:34 PM

Sebelius: We Count!

Comments (133)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories