Were Hillary Clinton not determined to drag out the Democratic primary despite considerable evidence that she stands no realistic chance of closing Barack Obama's delegate lead, John McCain would, right now, be groaning under the yoke of a massive advertising campaign designed to define him and Obama in the public eye for the first time. Instead, McCain has what the New York Times rightly deems " a valuable commodity: time he can use to unite a fractured Republican Party, ramp up his lackluster fund-raising and transform his shoestring primary operation into a general election machine." The landscape still strongly favors the Democrats, but it's much less favorable than it would have been were the Clintons willing to set their own interests aside in favor of those of the party and the progressive movement.
« Rapture Ready | Main | The Turnout Myth »
The Cost of Egotism
10 Mar 2008 09:53 am
Comments (165)
the Clintons willing to set their own interests aside in favor of those of the party and the progressive movement
Maybe their interests and those of their supporters are opposed to those of the progressive movement and the party as led by Obama-ites. Then it's just a straight fight for the party; which is to say that the interests of the party remain to be determined. I don't think that the Clintonsites are confused by this, I don't think the Obamites are confused about this. But it appears some progressives/Obama supporters are.
Re Matthew's comment "it's much less favorable than it would have been were the Clintons willing to set their own interests aside in favor of those of the party "
-----------------
ha ha ha snort. cough. choke.
Jay Leno hasn't said anything that damm hilarious lately.
I see you too have read Jon Chait's article in TNR. Seriously Hillary, Go Already!
...were the Clintons willing to set their own interests aside in favor of those of the party and the progressive movement...
Yeah, that's funny.
But you're right, it would certainly be a different scenario if we lived in such a universe with the necessary physical laws to allow such a hypothetical to be proposed.
despite considerable evidence that she stands no realistic chance of closing Barack Obama's delegate lead
Still haven't seen this, despite all the talk about "The Math". You have two major wild cards - superdelegates and Florida/Michgan. Since the outcome of those two things is essentially unknowable, I don't see how anyone can say she has "no realistic chance" of getting the most delegates in the end.
As someone who doesn't have a horse in this race (I would be perfectly satisfied with either candidate), I fail to see the relevance of Mr. Yglesias' comment. The fact is that Senator Obama has no realistic chance of winning a sufficient number of committed delegates from the primary and caucus states to win the nomination either. Thus, both candidates are dependent on convincing a sufficient number of the superdelegates to achieve a majority. For instance, suppose that Senator Clinton wins the Pennsylvania primary decisively. Would Mr. Yglesias then claim that she should drop out? Although, as we sit here today, Senator Obama has a marginally better argument then Senator Clinton has, there are still a sufficient number of contests left that could change this perception, particularly if primaries can be arranged in Michigan and Florida in May.
If the prolonged race is harmful to the progressive movement, and we know Hillary's massive ego won't allow her to quit, maybe, for the sake of the Party, Obama should step aside. But wait, he is all talk and no action, so I guess we will have to tough it out.
"I'm predicting there will be five hundred inane, nasty horse-race comments in this thread by noon."
Well, isn't Matthew leading that particular parade with postings like this?
Were Hillary Clinton not determined to drag out the Democratic primary despite considerable evidence that she stands no realistic chance of closing Barack Obama's delegate lead
I mean, I understand that Matthew prefers Obama to fulfill his upscale goo-goo vision of what the Democratic Party should be like.
But if he's going to make inane and ignorant comments about process that ignore the fact that Clinton has won the overwhelming majority of Democratic votes in the nomination race so far, ignore the fact that Clinton has won the a narrow majority of overall votes in the nomination race so far, and ignore the fact that the Party isn't going to nominate a candidate who finishes second among the voters, well, he's signaling that he doesn't want reasonable commentary.
The fish rots from the head.
If Matthew writes brain-dead posts, he's going to get a lot of brain-dead comments.
And unpleasantly enough, he seems to be pursuing this strategy intentionally. It's the Jonah Goldberg school of selling books by selling out your brain and your soul.
Fun Facts:
Bill Clinton won 79.8% of the available electoral votes (91 of 114 EVs) in 19 states he lost in the '92 Democratic nominating contest, fewer than the 65.8% of the available EVs (279 of 424) of the 31 states (and DC) he won on the way to the nomination.
At the pace she's going Hillary Clinton will win fewer states total than Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, Tom Harkin, and Bob Kerrey won in total running against her husband.
In the '92 general election Bill Clinton lost two of the four largest states (FL & TX) that he won on the way to the nomination.
If the prolonged race is harmful to the progressive movement, and we know Hillary's massive ego won't allow her to quit, maybe, for the sake of the Party, Obama should step aside. But wait, he is all talk and no action, so I guess we will have to tough it out.
What do people think about the idea of Obama offering Hillary the VP spot right now. I know it has some drawbacks but it would end the fighting, eliminate the minority chance that she would wrest the nomination from him somehow, and allow them to combine resources to spend the next several months using their overwhelming resource advantage to define McCain a la Dole in '96.
What do people think?
I am a big Obama supporter, and I'd like nothing more to see Hillary gone (preferably for good- no Hillary '12!), and I also agree that she's hurting the party and Obama's November chances by staying in.
However, I do not know of a precedent for anyone dropping out when they were this close - I'm not a history buff, but didn't Kennedy '76 and Hart '84 stay in even after they knew they couldn't win?
So I'm not sure that this egotism is peculiar to the Clinton's. Still, ut's something that the superdelegates should pay attention to. In general, I'm pretty disgusted by the whole message of the Hillary campaign (it's her turn dammit!), but I think a lot of the blame goes to the supers who lined up behind her early. Obama has picked up way more endorsements since the voting started, and if she hadn't started the race +100 things would look very different now.
But wait, he is all talk and no action
as opposed to Hillary's decisive action on the AUMF?
All Snark aside, and apart from the particular motives of the individual candidates, I don't see a clean solution for this in any conventional way.
Whatever may motivate Clinton or Obama, they each have their decidedly devoted supporters, which (a) calls out for some larger party-based intervention of some sort which can manage to retain both groups of supporters; and (b) is why I see Clinton's aims as quite realistic, because given the option of some way of 'winning' which alienates many if not most Democrats, Clinton would in my view be 100% willing to do it, whereas Obama will (rightly or wrongly) hesitate or play along.
Patrick- terrible idea. She's a detriment to the ticket, as she is to the party. He will choose somebody with REAL national security cred. Like Jim Webb. (Or Sinbad!)
Why is Bill Bradley the only voice demanding transparency and investigation of the Clinton tax returns and business dealings?
Why is the press allowing them to buy more time, when exposure of their financial dealings is essential now?
The truth could help turn things around. Why doesnt the media do more?
Why is Bill Bradley the only voice demanding transparency and investigation of the Clinton tax returns and business dealings?
Why is the press allowing them to buy more time, when exposure of their financial dealings is essential now?
The truth could help turn things around. Why doesnt the media do more?
Why is Bill Bradley the only voice demanding transparency and investigation of the Clinton tax returns and business dealings?
Why is the press allowing them to buy more time, when exposure of their financial dealings is essential now?
The truth could help turn things around. Why doesnt the media do more?
Matt, if you or any Obama supporters are insisting that Clinton needs to exit the race for "the good of the party" you need to make a stronger case as to how/if Obama can get those working class/older women voters that have been going so strongly for Clinton into his camp by November. There seems to be a sense that large numbers of Obama voters would sit at home on election day if he is not the nominee, but Clinton voters will ultimately suck it up and vote for Obama if Clinton loses. This seems to be more asserted than proven. I'm in Ohio, and looking at how badly Obama got beat among white voters, white women of all ages, and voters making under $50K gives me pause. The same dynamic will be at play in Pennsylvania.
That is the obvious downside to a prolonged contest, but there are plausible benefits to Obama continuing to campaign (and usually win) in new states. And from what I have seen, it appears that Obama does in fact improve relative to McCain after he campaigns in a state. So, I'm not convinced a full accounting of all the relevant effects would find that a prolonged contest really is that harmful.
"I see you too have read Jon Chait's article in TNR."
Marty Peretz Uber Alles!
What do people think about the idea of Obama offering Hillary the VP spot right now.
It's a disaster.
A big part of Obama's campaign is that he has the judgement to be Commander-in-Chief based on his record opposing the Iraq War. If Obama wants to pick a woman who supported the Iraq War I'd rather he picked Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe. She's pro-choice, won a majority of the Democratic votes cast in her last race, she hasn't spent the last two months lying about Obama's record, and she's a less of a hawk than Sen. Clinton.
but didn't Kennedy '76 and Hart '84 stay in even after they knew they couldn't win?
Yes they did, and it both cases Republicans won the presidency.
As here,
http://pulpable.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/pulp-politics-blank-canvas/
the problem is that Clinton's "narrative" isn't yet complete in her own eyes. For better or worse, she'll fight to the end even if it means puncturing Obama's rise to the detriment of the party.
If McCain rallies the GOP and cements his own image, either way the Dems lose - Obama will be broken by Clinton's protracted negatives or she is the nominee and has given McCain the time to sort out his act into something more dangerous.
We Obama supporters here need to develop a plan on how to proceed IF Monsters, Inc. ® ends up stealing this nomination...I’m not saying the party is going to let this happen (and the Bill Foster win will help Obama with the establishment, no question), but we need to have a CREDIBLE threat ready if this happens.
To this point, no credible threat has been issued, which is why Clinton has been pursuing these tactics, and, more importantly, why the party establishment hasn’t put a stop to it...Clinton’s behavior will continue if there is no penalty for it...They’re thinking, "where else are these people (Obama supporters here and everywhere else) going to go?"
Well, to this point, I’m not smart to have come up with that threat --- but it needs to be articulated and the sooner the better --- six more weeks of Ed Rendell guest-hosting for this show isn’t going to do anybody any good.
Well, isn't Matthew leading that particular parade with postings like this?
Yeah, I guess Matt likes seeing the additional traffic these kind of posts generate. Personally, though, I feel this has all been beaten to death, over and over, already, on every other political blog in America.
The only interesting thing about the comments is the humor in seeing a bunch of middle-aged people with college educations finding new ways to reword the basic sentiment "ZOMG (candidate name) is teh 5uxOr5."
Adam,
Obama has fared better among those demographics outside of certain regions (e.g., see the results in states like Wisconsin or Virginia). This is even true within Ohio itself: he did much worse in the Appalachian parts of Ohio than elsewhere. What I think that indicates is that Obama does not have a fundamental problem appealing to Democrats in those demographics. It is just that the Clintons are particularly popular among those Democrats within certain regions, such as Appalachia, the interior South, and the Northeast Corridor. But I see no reason to expect McCain to somehow do as well among those Democrats as Clinton.
Other than run for President, what exactly has Obama ever actually done? He was put up as a sacrificial lamb against a Republican favorite and only won his seat as a result of a sex scandal. Since he has been in the Senate, where his voting record on Iraq is exactly the same as Mrs. Clinton, the only time he made news was announcing his candidacy.
His wins in caucuses and open primaries make him appear that he is winning when in fact more Democrats have voted for Hillary. Yet, his supporters wnat to short-cut the proceess and anoint him the chosen one. Maybe after Hillary quits you can get McCain to quit too.
It is cheap and easy to suggest that it is her ego that drives her staying in but there is no history of anyone with over 1200 delegates dropping out. She has money, she has support, and no one can get to 2025 without the other via pledged delegates.
Historically races aren't over in early March very often.
The fight between these candidates leads the news and blogs and talk shows everyday: it has ratings power. The race being over until August would provide a huge lull that could easily benefit the republican candidate. All this time on the news is money the candidates don't have to raise or spend to have maximum exposure.
Every other cycle we worry about this down time before the convention, now we want it?
Considering the considerable evidence that Obama stands no realistic chance of closing Clinton's popular vote lead among Democrats, I think it's imperative for the Party that Obama drops out now.
Of course, given Obama's stated refusal to accept the VP slot and given Obama's stated refusal to encourage his supporters to vote for a different Democrat in the general election, I think we all knows how Obama feels about the good of Party.
If he cared about the Party, he wouldn't be basing his nomination campaign around his Goolsbee-esque positions designed to lose Democratic voters in the first place.
If he cared about the Party, he's be taking positions designed to win over Democrats instead of General Electric and Marty Peretz.
Oh, Puh-Leeze! Get over yourself. And stop excluding MI & FL - - whether re-voted or as is - - from your mathematics. What's 'ripping-the-party-apart' is not the contest, but the overwrought rhetoric regarding the 'ripping-apart.' Please try to breathe between now & whenever a Dem is nominated.
Question for those of you more informed on campaign finance law than I: Would it be legal for both Obama and Clinton to agree to give a certain amount of money from their campaigns -- say, $5M each -- to the DNC, so that the DNC can be aggressively attacking McCain while Obama and Clinton continue to fight it out?
Obviously, it would have to be the product of agreement from the campaigns. But if it were doable, wouldn't that solve the "problem" MY has identified, without asking anyone to give up the race? It's not irrational for HRC to think that she still has a shot, and I'm sure there's plenty of egotism on both sides to go around.
phg,
Thanks for the blast from the past--I don't think I have seen a post quite as factually inaccurate as that since before the Potomac Primaries.
"We Obama supporters here need to develop a plan on how to proceed IF Monsters, Inc. ® ends up stealing this nomination"
Well, you could try winning more Democratic votes in the nomination race than Clinton. That would guarantee an Obama nomination.
But, of course, you can't actually succeed in doing that since Obama has decided to take policy position designed to please General Electric rather than Democratic voters...
Possibly if he was being too heavily outspent and attacked it might help him shore up his base. Still I wish the primary were over.
One thing I do wonder, Hillary supporters seem to feel she is a great candidate who is underperforming due to a week team, while thinking Barack is a week candidate overperforming because of a strong team. Besides the obvious (is she really strong if she assembes a week team and vice verse), wouldn't you rather the are both in the Whitehouse with team Barack.
"You have two major wild cards - superdelegates and Florida/Michgan. Since the outcome of those two things is essentially unknowable, I don't see how anyone can say she has "no realistic chance" of getting the most delegates in the end."
If there are do-overs, any plausible victories by HRC still leaves her behind in pledged delegates, for what that's worth.
Post-PA, if Obama is still ahead by 100+. senior superdelegates are going to step in and end it.
BTW - There's another reason I don't understand Matthew's post.
If it were true that The Math is such that Hillary has "no realistic chance of closing Barack Obama's delegate lead", why isn't Barack Obama already engaging in "a massive advertising campaign designed to define [McCain] and Obama in the public eye for the first time". If Hillary has "no realistic chance", shouldn't Obama be completely ignoring Hillary and focusing every bit of his attention on McCain? What's the point for Obama of getting into a fight with someone in his own party who Matthew says has "no realistic chance" - she should be completely irrelevant, right?
But the fact that Obama is not ignoring Hillary and focusing completely on McCain leads me to believe that the Obama campaign, at least, doesn't think that Hillary has "no realistic chance".
I mean, maybe it's the case that Matthew is smarter than Obama's campaign about whether she has a realistic chance to win the nomination, but I doubt it.
mofo,
The math will not change if we include MI & FL, unless Clinton wins by 20% in both states. That will not happen.
"I'm in Ohio, and looking at how badly Obama got beat among white voters, white women of all ages, and voters making under $50K gives me pause."
I don't think anyone disputes that Ohio is a bad state for Obama. Not enough African-Americans to carry an election for him, but enough so that a critical mass of white people know that they really don't like them. And not enough of an educated white upper middle class to offset that.
But Ohio would really be a third tier state for him. He would almost certainly concentrate on Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, Missouri Iowa and the Dakotas -- basically states where there is a large combined population of affluent and/or young white people and African-Americans. By the way, of those states, Obama would be favored to win at least the first three and Iowa, and Virginia and Missouri would probably be toss-ups. Clinton would have a fighting chance in New Mexico, and the rest would have to be written off.
But the real reason that Obama is a stronger candidate is the Democratic states that Clinton would probably not win -- Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, New Hampshire, maybe Michigan. The only tough hold for Obama would be Pennsylvania (for the reasons you note).
fredbellmore - Monsters, Inc.!
Colin McEnroe had a bit on Samantha Power's comment in his Courant column:
"...what happens then? People start drinking even more coffee to stay awake during conversations about Canadian trade agreements, and before you know it they start blurting out things such as Hillary Clinton "is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything." This was said by Obama foreign policy aide Samantha Power in an interview with The Scotsman, a Scottish newspaper.
Power tried to withdraw her remark, saying she had momentarily confused Clinton with Gamera, a giant armored turtle who shot plasma fireballs and also would not release its tax returns; but, ultimately, she had to resign."
Monsters Inc. starring...
Hillary Clinton as Gamera
Mark Penn as The Blob
Bill Clinton as King Kong
Howard Wolfson as Fenris Wolf
"Considering the considerable evidence that Obama stands no realistic chance of closing Clinton's popular vote lead among Democrats ..."
I dunno, I think this fails to account for Limbaugh Republicans ...
Hillary's only alleigence is to herself and her destructive bid for power.
It's time for the party heavyweights to explain to her it's time to take her ball and go home.
She can't beat Obama; and she certainly wouldn't McCain.
Buh-Bye.
www.opeding.blogspot.com
Matt's main point is that Hillary's only way of getting the nomination seems to be to try and exploit Obama's unifying strategy to go negative (he can't reciprocate) and trash him so badly that the superdelegates will hand her the nomination. The Obama campt won't concede with their (barring some catastrophe) near-unassailable lead in the delegates. Such a strategy is effectively holding a gun to the head of the Democratic party and saying "give me the nomination or else".
Clearly the campaign continues. But (here's the point) the Clinton supporters still need to explain why their candidate deserves the nomination given her campaign's destructive behaviour.
Clinton has won the overwhelming majority of Democratic votes in the nomination race so far, ignore the fact that Clinton has won the a narrow majority of overall votes in the nomination race so far
Ha. I love this "most Democratic voters" bit. What is the relevance of that? You're basically arguing that you'd prefer the candidate who has shown the least ability to woo independent voters to go up against the Republican nominee who, rightly or wrongly, has appeal with independents.
And the "narrow majority of overall votes" line is absurd. That is really playing loose with the facts... you're including Michigan and Florida's vote totals there.
Hillary's only alleigence is to herself and her destructive bid for power.
It's time for the party heavyweights to explain to her it's time to take her ball and go home.
She can't beat Obama; and she certainly wouldn't beat McCain.
Buh-Bye.
www.opeding.blogspot.com
Also, if it's effects on party morale & alienation that are to be discussed, then you should analyze based on what each side's supporters will think or feel or do if one of the two suddenly dropped out without any particular objective event to explain it.
Let's say that Matt's view were correct, and that Clinton looked at the current numbers and decided, hey, I can't win, etc. And quit. Stopped campaigning cold turkey.
Who among her supporters would not feel that this had happened due to some insider pressure? Who among her supporters would agree that that was the 'best thing' for all concerned?
Petey said: "Considering the considerable evidence that Obama stands no realistic chance of closing Clinton's popular vote lead among Democrats, I think it's imperative for the Party that Obama drops out now."
Nice try, to bad its blatently false. Even if you count MI and FL HRC still trails BO in the popular vote lead. The considerable evidence is that HRC stands no realistic chance of closing BO lead in BOTH delegates and popular vote.
When Al is on your side you know your running with the wrong crowd.
The superdelegates are not exactly a black box: they can tell us what they intend to do. Now, it is true they could change their minds despite what they say, as in fact several have already. But the bottomline is that with most of the primaries behind us, once enough superdelegates commit to a candidate to put them substantially over the margin that candidate will likely need, the other candidate is basically waiting for some external event to intervene and hand him or her the nomination.
Al,
I think all the assessments of Clinton's chances depend on there being no fundamental change in the dynamics of the contest, which is a reasonable assumption since to do date there has been no such change. But if one of the candidates decided to radically change his or her behavior, such as by no longer campaigning in the primaries and focusing only on the general election, that radical change in behavior might well cause such a change in the dynamics.
An Obama supporter (!) writes about the general election:
But Ohio would really be a third tier state for him.
Cool! So we'll write off OH, PA, MI, and FL, since they're not 'good Obama states'. I'm sure Obama's strength in Wyoming, Nebraska, and the Dakotas will compensate, right?
Yglesias' post is ridiculous. HRC has a realistic chance of getting FLA and MI back on with mail-in ballots, and with FLA and PA, plus just a couple of overly decent results in MI and/or IND and/or NC (yes there are other Obama states, but there are also other Clinton states as well), and she comes very close in pledged delegates and passes Obama in total vote.
Who has the better claim to the nomination then Yglesias? The person who got more people to vote for her (and way more Democrats to vote for her), or the one who lost the popular vote but won more pledged delegates because of a better performance in caucuses and small states.
To blame this on Clinton's ego is to piss on the millions of people who voted for her. It also (like most things political Yglesias writes lately) sounds like 90's-style irrational Clinton hatred, but maybe Yglesias is to young to remember.
It seems to me that calls for Hillary to drop out of the race have grown in proportion to the negativity of Hillary's campaign and the fodder she's created for the GC should Obama win the ticket. I can completely understand why Hillary's staying in the race even if I don't care for her tactics.
That said, does anyone else feel like some Democrats have a death wish? Why one earth would you want to nominate someone so polarizing? Talk about making things hard on ourselves.
Having voted for Barack Obama, I find the more criticism of Hillary Clinton the more I want her to continue her campaign an the more I am sympathetic to her policies and suspicious of Obama's. I am not ready to dismess Samantha Power and Austan Goolsbee, and the unfair criticisms by Obama supporters are a real problem for me.
Clinton: the Nader of 08.
"Nice try, to (sic) bad its (sic) blatently (sic) false."
I understand that a certain chunk of the Obama crowd has trouble with the realities, but Clinton currently has a narrow lead in the overall popular vote, and a substantial lead in the popular vote among Democrats.
Most observers expect both of those leads to extend in the months ahead, which is why she's likely to be the nominee.
(And since I care about majorities, congrats on getting a narrow majority of your words correct.)
Perhaps we could check the IP of some of these people commenting. Jennifer in particular has a noticeable whiff of astroturf about her.
Actually, I think Obama would likely end up stronger than Clinton in MI and OH, and probably PA, provided the Clintons campaigned for Obama. FL is the one state on Petey's list in which I think she might be a better candidate, but I also think she would still lose FL to McCain. In any event, obviously there is a lot more to deciding who is the stronger overall candidate than those four states.
By the way, socctty, Petey's theory is that the role of the superdelegates is to turn the Democratic nomination into a closed primary, despite the fact the national party rules allow states to conduct caucuses and open primaries. Interestingly, he apparently thinks the superdelegates will more or less uniformly adopt this view of their role, despite the fact that many of them are state party officials who have been supporting the sorts of contests Petey thinks are illegitimate, and elected officials who were themselves nominated in those contests.
Al,
Sure, if Obama decided to stop contesting all future primaries Hillary would win. That scenario is not very realistic, hence the qualifier.
While I do think MY believes what he wrote here, you have to wonder if part of him just wanted to see if comment threads could become heated enough for making s'mores.
Mmmmmmmmmmm. Smores.
"I'm predicting there will be five hundred inane, nasty horse-race comments in this thread by noon.
Posted by James Gary | March 10, 2008 10:01 AM"
I disagree. There will be 501. Therefore you are an idiot who doesn't count.
I love how Hillary supporters like to change the rules mid-stream. There are open primaries in most states, but Hillary wants us to ignore the Obama Independents who would be critical in November. There are caucuses, but Hillary thinks they're too undemocratic for her night shift nurses or something. The little states get to vote, which is unfair because those Democrats should just drop dead and let the NY/CA axis decide what is good for them. Michigan and Florida broke the rules, but keeping their delegates out somehow disfranchises them. Popular vote matters more than delegates, which is why Maggie Williams was crowing that Hillary ONLY lost by 61-38 in Wyoming and prevented Obama from getting 63% and two extra delegates. Republican crossovers are sabotaging Hillary, except when Limbaugh tells them to vote Clinton. Obama needs to reject and denounce Farrakhan, but Clinton can laugh off bigots like Adelfa Callejo. The superdelegates are necessary for Obama to win, except the superdelegates have already been moving en masse to Obama since early February and are unlikely to reverse course now. Only Hillary wins the swing states, as if Obama will fare poorly there despite SUSA shows Obama beating McCain by 10 in Ohio.
There is simply no reason left for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race. Michigan and Florida will not make a difference. She cannot win the popular vote. She cannot win the pledged delegate vote. Her victories in the "big states" say nothing about general election matchups against McCain. She will never be able to win over Independents, while Obama will almost certainly consolidate his support among white women, Latinos and non-Appalachian blue collar whites.
Hillary Clinton has one stronghold: Appalachia and the white South. That's it. Those are the only folks who will choose Clinton over McCain but McCain over Obama. So in a GE she wins AR and WV and he doesn't.
But Hillary Clinton loses Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire and Obama wins them easily. Obama also has a more than even shot at Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina and a couple of Nebraska's EVs.
If superdelegates care about electability, this is what they'll see. It's over but for the counting. Hillary cannot win without some sort of skulduggery. Leave gracefully. Please.
"It seems to me that calls for Hillary to drop out of the race have grown in proportion to the negativity of Hillary's campaign"
Odd. It seems to me that calls for Hillary to drop out of the race have grown in proportion to Team Obama's realization that they're likely going to lose the nomination due to rejection by Democratic voters...
"Cool! So we'll write off OH, PA, MI, and FL, since they're not 'good Obama states'. I'm sure Obama's strength in Wyoming, Nebraska, and the Dakotas will compensate, right?"
Did I say anything about writing off PA or MI? Or mention Florida (though in truth, I think the odds of any Democrat winning FL are exceedingly small)? If you look at the states I mentioned, I was clearly looking at possible flips from 2004. And if Obama is the candidate, I think that Ohio is possible but unlikely (though much more likely than Florida). Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada are likely. Missouri and Virginia are toss-ups. I didn't mention it, but in case you are asking, I think Pennsylvania would also be a toss-up, and Michigan would likely vote for Obama (people seem to forget that Michigan actually has reasonably favorable demographics for Obama -- it's like Wisconsin with more African-Americans).*
The fact that you are aghast that the Democrats could even conceive of winning the presidency without Ohio and Florida is telling. That sort of idea is what brought us the wonderful Kerry administration that we've enjoyed these past four years.
* So if you're counting, just looking at those states means that Obama does 27.5 EVs better than Kerry in 2004 (splitting the toss-up states down the middle). So he wins the presidency 279-259 or so.
I'm getting sick of people trying to come up with definitions of what "matters", such as the number of votes by registered Democrats, or the number of big states or swing states that were won. This is incredibly silly.
All that really matters is the number of pledged delegates that have been won. Sure, its possible that a few superdelegates will be swayed by these silly arguments, but not many. Obama is going to end up with a healthy lead in pledged delegates, even if there is a re-vote in Florida and Michigan. That's why he's extremely likely to be the nominee.
I have no problem with Hillary continuing to run until Obama has commitments from enough delegates to put him over the top. I do have a problem with her saying that McCain is ready to be president but Obama isn't. How can Democrats support her after a statement like that?
"I understand that a certain chunk of the Obama crowd has trouble with the realities, but Clinton currently has a narrow lead in the overall popular vote, and a substantial lead in the popular vote among Democrats"
On your first point that is a flat out lie, unsupported by any data. As to leading among "democrats" if what you mean is somehow you are not counting votes BO recieved from independants or rep. who were allowed to cross over, well that data isn't keep by the various secretaries of state. So what you are relying on would be poll data, not votes. In any event if someone is allowed to vote in the primary it counts just as much as someone else. If HRC or someone like you have a problem with that maybe you should have worked on getting the rules changed before the primary season, instead of in the middle of the contest.
If Hillary dropped out, most of her followers would support Obama in the general election.
If Hillary wrests the nomination from him through other than democratic means, a good number of Obama's supporters would refuse to support her; some would support McCain instead.
Pressure should rightly remain on Hillary. She cannot catch up to Obama (delegate-wise) at this point (barring Michigan & Florida, as it now stands).
Discerning the Matrix... www.opeding.blogspot.com
It seems to me that calls for Hillary to drop out of the race have grown in proportion to Team Obama's realization that they're likely going to lose the nomination due to rejection by Democratic voters...
Was it Democratic voters Bill Clinton was appealing to on Limbaugh on the day of the Texas primacaucus? Or some other sort of voter?
I agree that HRC has tried to change the rules after the race has begun -- her behavior with respect to MI and FL is particularly problematic (not to mention the NV caucus issue, etc.).
But, can we also agree that the Obama supporters who try to say that it's only pledged delegates that count are also trying to change the rules midstream? Like it or not, the superdelegates were added precisely to be an "undemocratic" bloc, to reflect the supposed wisdom of the party elders. This new-found notion that their votes are somehow illegitimate if not cast in line with the pledged delegates has no basis in either the rules or even the history and purpose for which the DNC created them. I don't like them one bit, but the rules provide for it. Neither Obama nor HRC were out there before the race complaining about it, either.
I'd love to see Obama pick a woman as his VP -- as long as it's not Hillary. What a great snub of the Clintons that would be. Obama/Sebelius or Obama/Napolitano? Realistically though, I suspect he'll go with a white male, perhaps either Mark Warner (to put VA in play?) or Wes Clark.
"I'm getting sick of people trying to come up with definitions of what "matters" ... All that really matters is the number of pledged delegates that have been won."
Do you even think about what you're writing?
Matthew at least has a reason for writing brain-dead things - he's trying to sell a book with Jonah Goldberg's playbook. But you?
i was almost going to stay out of this (and actually, i will after this comment), but every so often matthew reminds us what a youth he is: the idea that in frickin' march, there would be this brilliant series of obama ads that would transform the election if only the horrible clinton weren't hanging around pretty much approaches the dumbest thing matthew has ever typed.
march, for god's sake.
1) Look, people, the solution's simple if you are willing to get off your ass. Simply go and work in Obama'scampaign. That will accomplish a lot more than comments on a blog --it will make reality, versus just watching it happen.
If you want to drive a stake through Hillary's heart, chop off her head, and stick it on a stake, then come to Pennsylvania.
The weather's starting to warm up and spring is kinda nice here.
"If Hillary dropped out, most of her followers would support Obama in the general election."
Multiple polls in the past week have shown that Clinton keeps a higher percentage of Obama supporters in the general election than Obama keeps of Clinton supporters.
But don't let unpleasant facts bother you. Just keep watching General Electric and reading dKos. I'm sure you'll be able to avoid unpleasant facts that way.
Damm, I forgot one of the major reasons to come to Pennsylvania and work in Obama's campaign:
Yuengling Beer.
Petey, you're right. What really matters is the number of popular votes by registered Democrats. I guess the delegates who vote in the convention are just some sort of technical detail.
But it isn't self-interest that's driving Hillary now, because she can't win in any case. It's just vindictiveness.
Odd. It seems to me that calls for Hillary to drop out of the race have grown in proportion to Team Obama's realization that they're likely going to lose the nomination due to rejection by Democratic voters...
Posted by Petey | March 10, 2008 11:03 AM
Petey -
Love the snark. So there's no chance that some folks calling for Hillary to cease and desist or else drop out aren't motivated by the obvious facts that 1) Hillary's campaigning hurts Obama in the general election if Obama wins, and 2) nominating someone with Hillary's sky-high negatives is bad electoral strategy? What I want is for a Democrat to win the general, and I can't understand why some folks insist on making that as hard as possible. I'll vote for Hillary, but it's obvious that her candidacy is a non-starter for a lot of voters.
You can no more expect the Clintons' to set aside their own egos in the interests of their own party - let alone that of a broader agenda of progressive politics - than you could expect a Snopes. The Clintons' are dealing with the Democratic Party the way Flem Snopes dealt with Will Varner - if Hillary can't have it, they'll burn down the whole barn.
"Well, you could try winning more Democratic votes in the nomination race than Clinton. That would guarantee an Obama nomination."
According to RealClearPolitics, Obama has won more of the popular vote, 13,025,003 vs. 12,421,316, unless you count both disallowed primaries in MI and FL, where, of course, Mr. Obama never campaigned.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
So, by your standards, he has the nomination guaranteed.
You can no more expect the Clintons' to set aside their own egos in the interests of their own party - let alone that of a broader agenda of progressive politics - than you could expect a Snopes to do the honorable thing. The Clintons' are dealing with the Democratic Party the way Flem Snopes dealt with Will Varner - if Hillary can't have it, they'll burn down the whole barn.
I don't know if anyone here has seen this, but the latest polls in Michigan show Clinton and Obama tied. In the event of a revote, that one is probably close to a draw.
She's still well ahead in Florida, and -- as a Florida native -- I'd guess she's likely to remain so.
Also, I find it bizarre that Petey thinks the correct way to choose a nominee is by looking at exit polls. Ask President John Kerry what a good idea that is.
There is one thing that I haven't read anywhere yet. If at the convention, Obama is given the nomination, will Hillary run as an independent?
I liked Petey when he was the upbeat Edwards supporter. Heck, he convinced me to be one.
But now the Russert/GE and 'most Democratic votes' lines ring false and desperate.
Amen, Matt. It's time for Sen. Clinton to graciously concede, for the good of the party and the country. Maneuvering to get pledged delegates to switch (her latest trial balloon in Newsweek), claiming that she should get MI/FL, all but endorsing John McCain, exaggerating her trips abroad into major foreign policy experience (USO trip w/Sinbad does not equal peace negotiations)... the list goes on. It's time for her to stop the insanity and salvage her dignity and the respect she deserves.
"Petey, you're right. What really matters is the number of popular votes by registered Democrats. I guess the delegates who vote in the convention are just some sort of technical detail."
Wait. Now it's "the delegates who vote in the convention" who matter?
Just ten minutes ago, it was only "pledged delegates" who mattered.
I tell ya', I'm getting sick of people trying to come up with definitions of what "matters".
-----
Personally, I think the wishes of Democratic voters matter.
But I do understand that getting a majority in Denver is what will matter in terms of winning the nomination. Thankfully, a hall full of Democratic delegates is going to, like me, highly value the wishes of Democratic voters.
Her stuff touting McCain really is disgusting. I don't think the party "elders" need to step in to stop the race, but they do need to step in and tell her to cut that crap out.
Glenn,
You are conflating two different sorts of arguments. I don't think Obama's campaign is arguing the rules should be changed to force the superdelegates to vote in any particular way. Rather, they are offering various arguments to try to persuade the superdelegates it would be better for them to vote in certain ways.
Frankly I'm not convinced that sabotaging Obama’s general election chances is an unintended side effect of Clinton's aggressive tactics. If Obama wins the primary I think Clinton would probably prefer that he lost the general, as that would give her a far better shot in 2012. It’s a win-win for her, she still has an outside chance of getting the nomination (by convincing superdelegates), and she can damage Obama in a way that simply wouldn’t be allowed if she was no longer a candidate.
I liked Petey when he was the upbeat Edwards supporter.
That's because he used to have a coherent argument. Even if you disagreed with him, you knew what the hell he was talking about.
QOTD, Mark Penn: “Independent and Republican support is diminishing as they find out he’s the most liberal Democratic senator… As they get more of a sense that he’s not ready to be Commander-in-Chief, a lot of Independents who were supporting him are disappearing.” Yes, that's right, the Hillary campaign is using "liberal" as a slur. And they're using the National Review's fraudulent Senator librul rating. Please tell me what part of this is ok?
So much fro "Clintons willing to set their own interests aside in favor of those of the party and the progressive movement."
Ok, that's enough.
Petey, I think you do think about what you're writing, which is why I used to defend your Edwards posts, but have now concluded that you have no integrity at all. Your attempts to turn this race into a game of Calvinball are transparent and, frankly, pathetic.
Your repeated assertions that only "Democratic" votes should be considered is offensive to the entire election process.
To select the best Democratic candidate, the party designed a primary system. All the candidates agreed to it. States got to choose btw caucus and primary, and the level of openness to independents or republicans, with the idea that they know their electorates best. All the candidates agreed to this. The party also selected an order, and when 2 states violated this, they lost their delegates. All the candidates agreed to this as well.
The reason you design a system is that when everyone agrees to it, it means people buy into the process. This means that the losing side will accept it because they lost according to rules that they agreed to .
When you piss on this, you piss on the entire system. Losing fairly hurts, but losing unfairly makes people drop out of the game. Especially, in this case, the millions of Obamabots who are new to the game, and don't yet realize that double-dealing assholes like you are the rule rather than the exception.
If your are doing this for pragmatic reasons, vying for a spot in the Clinton network, the you are a lying, contemptible, sack of shit. If you are doing this for idealistic reasons -- ie, fucking up the party for mandates and mandates alone, with no thought of who is more likely get their stuff passed (hence the laughable "I'm voting Nader bullshit -- then you are just dumb as a fucking rock and don't deserve to be taken seriously.
Frankly I'm not convinced that sabotaging Obama’s general election chances is an unintended side effect of Clinton's aggressive tactics. If Obama wins the primary I think Clinton would probably prefer that he lost the general, as that would give her a far better shot in 2012. It’s a win-win for her, she still has an outside chance of getting the nomination (by convincing superdelegates), and she can damage Obama in a way that simply wouldn’t be allowed if she was no longer a candidate.
Posted by JK | March 10, 2008 11:31 AM
I have serious reservations about calling this intentional. Clinton's aggressive tactics of late are born of desperation. She and her advisors have concluded - rightly, I think - that this is her only shot to squeak out a victory. They're probably aware of the consequences, but I don't think HRC is pursuing this course because of them.
Petey,
Of course all the delegates matter, both the elected ones and the superdelegates. Those are the rules. That was clear in my original post.
My point was that I believe the superdelegates will end up supporting whoever has the lead among the "pledged", elected delegates, especially if it is a substantial lead. It looks to me that Obama will be ahead by at least 100 pledged delegates, so even if I am wrong and the superdelegates break slightly in favor of Clinton, Obama will still have enough to win.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
Glen,
They will not cut it out, because it's all they have. The only way for her to win is to tear Obama down. Now they've invited the man to walk like Rosa Parks to the back of the Clinton bus. This makes no sense what so ever - he's not qualified, but he can be my VP.
It's not chutzpah, it's insane.
"But now the Russert/GE and 'most Democratic votes' lines ring false"
What, precisely, about that "rings false"?
Clinton does have a narrow majority among all votes cast, and a substantial majority among votes cast by Democrats.
There have been several studies out that show MSNBC and NBC have given better coverage to Obama and worse coverage to Clinton than any other broadcast or news network by a substantial margin.
General Electric has for many decades been the most Republican of any (non-Fox) media organization. This is true today, true a decade ago (read up about Jack Welch), and true many decades ago (read up about Lemuel Boulware and Ronald Reagan).
General Electric is not mainly a media company, (unlike Disney, Time-Warner, Viacom, and even Fox.) GE makes its money off of things like healthcare supply and financial services. This is why they have long led the charge against Social Security and universal healthcare. This is why GE has always supported all Republicans and any Democrats willing to stand against Democratic economic policy.
You may not care about this stuff, but it sure as hell ain't false.
I'm in the tank for Obama, but I think these calls for Clinton to concede now are premature. Given the vicissitudes we've seen in the race so far, it is not out of the question that the "momentum" (ill-defined and unmathematical as that is) could swing all the way back to Clinton, esp. if she manages a decisive PA win. That could at least create a facially plausible "moral" case to make to the superdelegates. I am hoping that will not happen, though.
At this point, if Obama does win the nomination I will take a moment to indulge in a dedicated session of schadenfreude beamed at Petey.
OK, there's my contribution to the 500 inane comments (of Bartholomew Cubbins).
Jim W,
I think it is worth underscoring that the superdelegates are not some undifferentiated mass. They are just a bunch of elected and party officials, and will undoubtedly decide how to vote for a host of different reasons. And as you note, the person who wins the pledged delegate contest does not have to win a majority of superdelegates.
That, of course, is what is so silly about Petey's argument. There may well be some superdelegates who think the Party's nomination process should have been restricted to closed primaries, and that their obligation as a superdelegate is to try to duplicate the hypothetical result of such a hypothetical nomination system regardless of what has happened in the Party's actual nomination system. But we already know that there are many, many superdelegates who don't think that is their role, and we have no reason to believe that the necessary supramajority of superdelegates will subscribe to Petey's theory.
"My point was that I believe the superdelegates will end up supporting whoever has the lead among the "pledged", elected delegates"
You may think the undemocratic caucus delegates matter and the popular vote doesn't matter, but that's why I think you're going to be quite disappointed by the next few months.
I'm in the tank for Obama, but I think these calls for Clinton to concede now are premature. Given the vicissitudes we've seen in the race so far...
Posted by hum | March 10, 2008 11:46 AM
I've had a similar view, but unfortunately the only likely way for HRC to build up serious momentum is to do things like this:
QOTD, Mark Penn: “Independent and Republican support is diminishing as they find out he’s the most liberal Democratic senator… As they get more of a sense that he’s not ready to be Commander-in-Chief, a lot of Independents who were supporting him are disappearing.”
She's pulling out all the disgusting stops in order to try to squeak out a narrow win, and if she wins, she's the less likely of the two to beat McCain. Oh, and if she doesn't win...
As I said before, I don't understand why so many of my fellow Democrats want to make it as hard as possible to win in the general.
"Your repeated assertions that only "Democratic" votes should be considered is offensive to the entire election process."
The superdelegates were instituted precisely to protect Democratic voters after Jimmy Carter won the nomination by bypassing Democratic voters and relying on independent voters.
The nomination race is a party process, and the wishes of the Party will trump all other concerns, as well they should.
DTM:
By the way, socctty, Petey's theory is that the role of the superdelegates is to turn the Democratic nomination into a closed primary, despite the fact the national party rules allow states to conduct caucuses and open primaries. Interestingly, he apparently thinks the superdelegates will more or less uniformly adopt this view of their role, despite the fact that many of them are state party officials who have been supporting the sorts of contests Petey thinks are illegitimate, and elected officials who were themselves nominated in those contests.
Well put. Bill Foster's win in Illinois is also a good sign for Obama. It's a mixed district with suburbs and exurbs and was held by Dennis Hastert for over 20 years. Foster emphasized practical solutions as opposed to partisan posturing, which he said people are tired of.
Says the New York Times:
"Democrats say Mr. Foster’s advocacy of a withdrawal of troops from Iraq tapped voter opposition to Mr. Bush, while Republicans acknowledge that the president’s unpopularity harmed their candidate. Democrats also said that Mr. Foster benefited from his emphasis on health care issues in his advertising, particularly Republican opposition to expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program."
This "majority of Democratic voters" nonsense has to stop. The primary system has rules that all candidates agreed to beforehand. You can't just dismiss the results of open primaries because you don't like them.
hum,
The thing is, in retrospect the coalitions and dynamics in this contest have actually been very stable, all the way back to the beginning. And it also appears that once you control properly for those coalitions and basic dynamics, momentum has played almost no role in determining the results in the various contests.
So, any arguments that depend on momentum really are equivalent to any other arguments that depend on something unexpected happening that fundamentally changes the race. Which doesn't mean that something unexpected couldn't happen, but hoping for something to happen when you have no reason to expect that thing to happen is not exactly realistic.
"Bill Foster's win in Illinois is also a good sign for Obama ... Democrats say Mr. Foster’s advocacy of a withdrawal of troops from Iraq tapped voter opposition to Mr. Bush"
Too bad Samantha Power spilled the beans about Obama only withdrawing from Iraq in a "best case scenario".
I understand that a certain chunk of the Obama crowd has trouble with the realities, but Clinton currently has a narrow lead in the overall popular vote, and a substantial lead in the popular vote among Democrats.
Petey, you're becoming more of an ass than you ever were before. There are many ways to count votes, but the only way to reach this conclusion that I am aware of is to throw out caucus votes and include Michigan and Florida. Of course, throwing out caucus voters is unreasonable. Even simply counting caucus voters at face value still unreasonable when it comes to counting 'popular vote'. Obama has done much better in caucus states. Some of that has to do with the nature of his support. But it also might just have something to do with his being much more popular in those states. And if you conducted a regular election in those states, he'd probably end up with a bigger absolute vote advantage. This is why talk about popular votes (or god help us, democratic popular votes) is so silly. I haven't heard a singe super claim that the 'popular vote' totals matter. I have heard many supers claim that they think the supers will support the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Clinton's lead among supers is a relic of her early front-runner status. Since then, Obama has been gaining on her quickly. It would take an enormous shift in momentum for Clinton to win this thing. Revoting in Florida and Michigan would not even be close to sufficient, nor would a modest win in PA. If Clinton wants to wait around another two months waiting for an Obama scandal to emerge, fine. But she's just hoping for a collapse at this point. All your flailing about to claim otherwise is quite unseemly.
This "majority of Democratic voters" nonsense has to stop. The primary system has rules that all candidates agreed to beforehand. You can't just dismiss the results of open primaries because you don't like them.
Posted by bg | March 10, 2008 11:56 AM
Beyond that, why would you necessarily want to ignore how independents vote? Doesn't that tell you something about general election viability? Unless it's been thoroughly determined that there's been some campaign by the GOP to send "independent" voters to Democratic primaries, you'd think the votes of independents would be something to guide you rather than be disgarded.
I know I said yesterday not to feed the Petey, but good God.
Petey - are you really saying that superdelegates, when deciding who should get the nomination, are going to not only prefer the candidate who did worse with independent voters, but that doing worse with independent voters is a feature, not a bug?
This is utterly insane. The fact that you are spewing out bullshit popular vote totals which include Michigan is further evidence of your full of shitness.
Can you provide any evidence to back up the notion that exit polls showing how self-identified Democrats vote are an important element in how superdelegates decide to vote?
You do realize, as well, that probably the majority of the people who call themselves "Independents" but vote in Democratic primaries are, in fact, Democrats in all but name? In some closed primary states, these people are actually registered Democrats.
Beyond that, for all Petey's ridiculous arrogance, he has yet to provide any support for his claim that the most important thing for superdelegates is who does best among self-identified Democrats in exit polls. A considerable number of uncommitted superdelegates have suggested that the pledged delegate winner should get the nomination. We also see that, in spite of Obama's slightly poorer showing among self-identified Democrats, Clinton's lead in superdelegates has been collapsing since the Potomac primaries - from over 100, it is now at around 40. Both the statements and the actions of superdelegates over the last few weeks suggests that Petey is, shockingly enough, wrong.
"There are many ways to count votes, but the only way to reach this conclusion that I am aware of is to throw out caucus votes"
Untrue.
"This is why talk about popular votes (or god help us, democratic popular votes) is so silly."
Spoken like a true Obama supporter. Fuck Democrats! Fuck the voters! We're the upscale goo-goos, and we want what Marty Peretz wants!
Gotta agree with Petey. The Dukakis/Kerry coalition that Clinton's put together is a sure winner in the fall.
And with me as her running mate, no worries about the AA vote!
Hillary/Sinbad '08!!!
mpowell and others,
Just treat him as a troll. Ignore.
Listen to Petey, people. Ideological purity matters! We need the candidate that die-hard Dems love and everyone else hates!
Now they've invited the man to walk like Rosa Parks to the back of the Clinton bus
Ugh, the "back of the bus" crap is really over the top. I suppose that saying that HRC should drop out is asking her to stay barefoot in the kitchen? This rhetoric is getting a bit ridiculous. Thankfully it's mostly limited to blog comments, since I don't think Sen. Obama would make such a ridiculous claim.
Petey - you are really claiming a Clinton popular vote win based on Michigan, where Obama was incapable of receiving votes? Are you trying to insult our intelligence?
"The fact that you are spewing out bullshit popular vote totals..."
Spoken like a true Obama supporter. 4,000 upscale goo-goos in Wyoming with the time and ability to caucus matter. But the almost 14 million popular votes for Clinton are "bullshit".
Fuck Democrats! Fuck the voters! We're the upscale goo-goos, and we want what Marty Peretz wants!
Posted by Petey | March 10, 2008 12:04 PM
This is what's commonly known as going off the deep end.
Spoken like a true Obama supporter. Fuck Democrats! Fuck the voters! We're the upscale goo-goos, and we want what Marty Peretz wants!
Do you have any intention of addressing my argument? Even including caucus voters in the popular vote count probably understates Obama's actual level of support.
I think the tremendous irony here is that Petey was such a fan of caucus's when he thought that they gave the party a better chance to deliver the candidate the activists in the party preferred (in John Edwards, in Iowa). Now we have the candidate preferred by Dem activists and independents, and all he can do is keep repeating the name Marty Peretz
Peter K,
And that is the basic problem with Petey's analysis. The superdelegates generally have an interest in expanding the Party in their jurisdiction and helping their candidates win elections (in some cases, that means helping themselves win elections). So, they are highly unlikely to vote against those interests just because someone like Petey makes a moral argument that only the votes of registered Democrats are legitimate.
You are conflating two different sorts of arguments. I don't think Obama's campaign is arguing the rules should be changed to force the superdelegates to vote in any particular way. Rather, they are offering various arguments to try to persuade the superdelegates it would be better for them to vote in certain ways.
DTM, I agree as far as Obama's campaign goes. I referred, however, to Obama supporters -- an admittedly ill-defined reference -- but I had specifically in mind people like Matt. Their argument seems to be more than simply an attempt to persuade superdelegates how they should vote; it crosses over into a suggestion (at least) that their failure to respect the pledged delegate outcome would be illegitimate. It's that argument that I think amounts to changing the rules after the game has started.
The repetition of the command that only true working class registered Democratic proletarians support Hillary and only the sub-intellectual classes and the petit-bourgeoisie and lumpenproletariat support Obama -- and I don't mean an argument about statistics but about definitional principles -- is starting to sound a bit familiar to those who have endured a good deal of rigid Marxist arguments.
Glenn,
No, Obama would not say it, but how do you think this is perceived it the black community?
"Listen to Petey, people. Ideological purity matters! We need the candidate that die-hard Dems love and everyone else hates!"
Love ya', Ralph, but last week's SUSA 50 state poll shows Clinton does just as well as Obama in the general election, and does so without selling out the Party.
(And shame on you for running if Clinton is the nominee, Ralph. You, of all people, ought to understand how important universal healthcare is for achieving social justice in this country.)
"Do you have any intention of addressing my argument?"
Get in line. I just had to think about how to respond to Ralph Nader's argument, and he rates higher than you.
Count me with the happy-with-either-candidate crowd.
But I find take-no-prisoners attitude of the Obamaites troubling.
If Obama wins the nomination, I don't see HRC supporters defecting. At least I'm not hearing that from them.
I wish I could say the same about Obama supporters. Their divisiveness is troubling. If Obama loses, that means that hope is lost? How did they survive Bush?
Petey couldn't predict 6 o'clock at 5:30. Why do people argue with him like he knows what's he's talking about??
"I think the tremendous irony here is that Petey was such a fan of caucus's when he thought that..."
It's ironic if you ignore that throughout 2007, I was expressing support for caucuses in early states only. That's a distinction I repeatedly made pre-Iowa.
I've got no problem with Obama's win in Iowa or Clinton's win in Nevada. Early states are about perceptions and winnowing the field, and that's what activists are good for.
What I do have a problem with is Obama relying on a strategy of leveraging his demographic advantage in caucus-goers to try to subvert the will of the popular vote.
Clinton not selling out the party! This stuff is fucking hilarious. I think I'll go back to my previous position of "don't feed the Petey."
The entity we call "Petey," is actually a bot created by a group of researchers at Stanford, who have for several years now been conducting a lengthy, well-funded attempt to create the perfect internet troll. They have apparently succeeded.
I wish I could say the same about Obama supporters. Their divisiveness is troubling. If Obama loses, that means that hope is lost? How did they survive Bush?
Posted by Horatio Parker | March 10, 2008 12:23 PM
Wha? I count myself among Obama's supporters, but I'll certainly vote for HRC if she wins the nomination.
"The repetition of the command that only true working class registered Democratic proletarians support Hillary and only the sub-intellectual classes and the petit-bourgeoisie and lumpenproletariat support Obama -- and I don't mean an argument about statistics but about definitional principles -- is starting to sound a bit familiar to those who have endured a good deal of rigid Marxist arguments."
Upscale Goo-Goo Support for Obama: An Infantile Disorder.
(h/t to Reality Man)
As an aside, obviously Petey is setting up a false dichotomy: one can disagree with Petey's notion that the superdelegates should act to turn the Democratic contest into the equivalent of a closed primary despite what the individual states decided to do without going to the opposite extreme and claiming that registered Democrats should be irrelevant to the process. Indeed, because of the mix of closed and open contests, registered Democrats already have a disproportionate weight in the nomination process relative to their weight in the general election. But that is apparently not enough for Petey.
Glenn,
It is hard to disentangle such arguments from the current circumstances. I suspect, for example, that people like Matt would happily admit that under some circumstances, it would be legitimate for the superdelegates to swing the nomination to a different candidate (say, in a case where after the contests have concluded, the winning candidate commits a serious crime, or contracts a very serious illness). So, I think that in context what they mean is that the reasons certain people are currently offering for the superdelegates to swing the nomination to the losing candidate would be insufficient, and thus that barring a change in circumstances, such a resolution of the contest would be seen as illegitimate.
Thank God one poll 8 months out shows Clinton's strength!! After all, it's not as if she has a history of polling well far in advance and then watching her lead evaporate. And here I was worried that the fact that she's one of the most unpopular politicians in the country with appeal only to the uneducated and old white women, was some kind of handicap!
Not trying to turn this into a "Pile On Petey Session," but Petey,
1. If your #1 issue is UHC, don't you worry that HRC from a political point of view is the least equipped to deliver it? When John McCain gets her to say that we may have to garnish wages if people refuse to pay, don't you worry that that is a political non starter? What happens when someone finds a way around garnishes? UHC contempt of court warrants? I can already see the commercial "Tell Hillary Ohioans can't afford socialized medicine. Vote for John McCain."
2. Do you at least see the argument that she'll be such a drag in red states that it'll be nearly impossible to increase the D's in the House and Senate? Remember, nothing leaves the senate without 60 votes. Dems actually have a chance to pick up some red state seats, but with Hillary as the nominee, the GOP will be energized, making these pick ups less likely, which leads me to...
3. Because you need 60 votes to get things out of the senate, you probably need some republicans to vote to end debate. Republicans can and will use Hillary as an excuse for obstruction. I think they'll be less able to use Obama as an excuse. I'm not saying the love affair between Obama and the GOP will be long, but it'll be a lot longer than the one between Hillary and Mitch McConnell.
But if he's going to make inane and ignorant comments about process that ignore the fact that Clinton has won the overwhelming majority of Democratic votes in the nomination race so far, ignore the fact that Clinton has won the a narrow majority of overall votes in the nomination race so far, and ignore the fact that the Party isn't going to nominate a candidate who finishes second among the voters, well, he's signaling that he doesn't want reasonable commentary.
I love this. Lessee, where was I reading something on this very point... oh, that's right, it was this morning's freaking paper (nytimes.com pop-up window; apologies if it doesn't work: Barack Obama has received 700,000 more votes than Hillary Clinton. Others have rightly noted the curious phrasing of the standard that includes Florida and Michigan but excludes independents and Republicans.
I'm sure that there's a litany of comparable offenses by Obama fans that can be and are recited by Clinton supporters when appropriate, but as of last Friday I just don't care---listening to Hillary Clinton's supporters has caused me to drink deep of the Kool-Aid, and from now until the convention I'm just ignoring every idiotic thing they say. This is perhaps unreasonable or even immature, but my candidate's eventually going to win and I don't care.
"Others have rightly noted the curious phrasing of the standard that includes Florida and Michigan but excludes independents and Republicans."
I'm not excluding independents and Republicans in my count of overall votes, which Clinton narrowly leads.
I'm excluding independents and Republicans in my count of Democratic votes, which Clinton substantially leads.
I never thought I'd say this, but Ralph N is making sense!
Remember, guys, each time we respond to Petey, we are merely providing new data that will allow its programmers to refine their coding to make it an even more outrageously irritating troll.
"If your #1 issue is UHC, don't you worry that HRC from a political point of view is the least equipped to deliver it?"
No. If I thought that, I wouldn't be supporting her.
I thought John Edwards would be better equipped to deliver it, which was a not insignificant part of the reason I supported him. And I think Obama's craven policy capitulation to General Electric and Marty Peretz has left him utterly unable to even push for it, let alone deliver it.
Hence, I'm stuck with the least bad remaining candidate, Senator Clinton.
Breaking my own advice, but:
Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan! Michigan!
The Clintons are utterly reprehensible for campaigning like this. I will never vote for Hillary now, and you may be sure I'm not alone. There is only one Democrat running for president, and his name is Obama.
Petey, you say that HRC leads the popular vote count among all voters. Care to provide data and/or your source for this assertion? J.Myers at 11:22am gave a source that contradicts you.
As for Marty Peretz, Obama is the only candidate who has put forward a sane sentiment regarding Israel. (see: his recent speech in Cleveland) If Obama appears to have obtained Peretz's support, it wasn't by pandering to him. Or, have you read Obama's musings on judicial nominations? Obama basically said that he wants judges who can sympathize with the common man. Funny, I haven't heard anything re judges from Clinton. I can't find anything on her website.
And you think Clinton is the candidate for social justice?
Upscale Goo-Goo Support for Obama: An Infantile Disorder.
That was pretty funny. On the other hand, I actually think Lenin was wrong, and his 'ultra-left' critics were correct.
What I do have a problem with is Obama relying on a strategy of leveraging his demographic advantage in caucus-goers to try to subvert the will of the popular vote.
Translation: Petey has a problem with Obama trying to win the nomination based on the agreed-upon rules of the nominating process.
Petey, you say that HRC leads the popular vote count among all voters. Care to provide data and/or your source for this assertion? J.Myers at 11:22am gave a source that contradicts you.
Well you see in that link, that Hillary leads 19,000 votes if you include Florida and Michigan. Now, to be sure, Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot, but who are we to say that he would have received more than 19,000 of the 240,000 "uncommitted votes" if he'd been listed?
The "democratic voters" argument strikes me as a completely reasonable argument to make in a DNC primary rules committee before the actual primarys, but the idea that we can look at exit polls and discount certain demographis strikes me as crazy.
Using myself as an example, I'm a registered independent, and would have aswered as such to an exit poller. But if my state had a closed primary I would have changed my registration to Democratic, because while I'm not a "registered Democrat," I am most certianly a "democratic voter" in terms of national elections.
If Clinton supporters want to make arguments to the superdellegats that they should override the pledged delates because she would be the better candidate, that's fine with me. But overriding a candidate because the exit polls show that certain disfavored demographics voted for them is a horrible idea.
@right: "Well you see in that link, that Hillary leads 19,000 votes if you include Florida and Michigan. Now, to be sure, Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot, but who are we to say that he would have received more than 19,000 of the 240,000 "uncommitted votes" if he'd been listed?"
Note the fine print on the page cited, and you'll see that these results do not inclue Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine because they "Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals"
Your 19,000 votes vanish right there, by a pretty good margin. I think Washington state alone wipes them out.
As to the Michigan ballot, your point is absurd. Do you propose that Obama would likely have gotten less than 10% of the non-Hillary vote? Where has that happened? And if he had been allowed to campaign: there is a clear, consistent, unbroken history of Obama substantially eroding Hillary's early front-runner status in every state in which he has campaigned. Even if he doesn't win in the end, her support drops precipitously by election day. To believe this would not happen again in MI and FL is mere wishful thinking.
J. Myers -- I was being sarcastic. Sorry I couldn't make it more clear. I was trying to point out the feebleness of the pro-Clinton argument.
It's based entirely on exit polls, excluding certain states, and circumventing the agreed-upon nominating process.
I thought right was being sarcastic ...
Wha? I count myself among Obama's supporters, but I'll certainly vote for HRC if she wins the nomination.
Good to know. Thanks for sharing.
Hear that, Obamamites?
@right: sorry for not picking up on that. On review, it's clear. I guess I get pretty well wound-up about the specious "popular vote" argument floating around out there.
And, on the flip side, I've seen actual arguments on these issues that I initially assumed must be some kind of joke. In fact, your sarcasm is well within the very broad bounds of what some consider legitimate points. It's not easy when the arguments and the jokes are so alike!
""Wha? I count myself among Obama's supporters, but I'll certainly vote for HRC if she wins the nomination."
Good to know. Thanks for sharing.
Hear that, Obamamites?
What? The fact is Clinton has run an inept, dishonest campaign. She's sleazed herself out of a chance to be VP (and perhaps President later on, as the country continues to realign itself). That's poetic justice. Serves her right.
Note the fine print on the page cited, and you'll see that these results do not inclue Iowa, Nevada, Washington & Maine because they "Have Not Released Popular Vote Totals"
Petey thinks everyone who reads his comments are either idiots or anything-goes Hillary supporters. That's why he receives such hostility in returen.
Hillary Clinton willing to set her own interests aside in favor of those of the party and the progressive movement? Hillary believes that she, is, the Democratic party, and the progressive movement combined. Without Hillary, those entities would cease to exist, to her way of thinking. Furthermore, there's some evidence to suggest that she may be correct: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Yglesias,
This is sour grapes OR Obama talking points OR both.
There's little evidence to suggest this were true. Besides, Obama could end it now, by offering Hillary the Vice Presidency slot on the ticket.
Alas, poor Petey, we knew him well.
Here lies Petey, who defied reality and progressed from Blue Dog to Pink Dog, and expired in hideous mental confusion after an excess of Clintonian parsing. Rest in peace, small babbler, and may misplaced exit polls sing thee to thy rest.
Guys, Petey had always been consistent. You have to understand, he is in fact Mark Penn. He spent months trying to split the Democratic vote so that Clinton could win through on the Republican-lite ticket. Now that Edwards has gone, there's no split left to engineer, so Petey/Penn has gone back to straight shilling for his real candidate. There's no contradiction at all.
Worth noting amidst all the caucus hyperventilating: Chuck Todd crunched the numbers today and determined that, including just primary-won delegates and excluding caucus-won delegates, Obama is still in the lead.
There goes that argument.
But, jbryan, they weren't primaries in REAL STATES. Surely that's the point?
Perhaps longterm students of presidential races can answer this:
Has anyone ever won the presidency after rejecting as much of the USA as Hillary Clinton? From the latte-sipping hicks of Iowa to the luxurious birkenstock wearers of Mississippi, no state is left behind in the chorus of rejection. We have to admit, Hillary does indeed reject and denounce..
Here in Virginia, there is no party registration so the primaries are necessarily "open". Nice to know Petey wants to throw away all of our votes in Virginia so his chosen candidate can prevail. A certain faction of the Democratic party is looking more and more Republican every day.
Fact is, with the diverse nature of the contests in each state, the only fair measure of support is number of pledged delegates won, hence the winner is the candidate that wins a majority of pledged delegates, not the candidate that wins the most big states or gets the best exit poll results.
Anything else being the standard and there's no need for anyone to ever drop out. Edwards and Richardson could get back in the race and make a case that although neither one of them can win the most pledged delegates, no other candidate can win a majority of pledged delegates and so the contest should be decided by a different arbitrary standard that favors one of them to the exclusion of the others. That is the essence of the case the HRC supporters are making.
"Here lies Petey, who defied reality and progressed from Blue Dog to Pink Dog"
I've never been a Blue Dog, and I'm proud to be a Pink Dog.
Clinton '08! Democratic economic policy deserves to be defended.
But Face the Music, you've made a sensible argument! Based on facts and logical thinking! You can't expect Petey to actually your arguments. All Petey does in thread after thread is cherry-pick one or two sentences as a launching point for zombie talking point laced with non-sequiturs ("Peretz, registered Democrats, mandates, GE, mmmwwwaaahhh...Peteybot program malfunctioning...help..."). In this way, Petey is just the left-wing version of notorious troll Al, who also will continue to blather on ceaselessly in thread after thread long after everyone else has started to look away, embarrassed by the sight of their demented tenacity.
A zombie who keeps pushing forward long after its expiration -- hmmm...sounds vaguely like the subject of this thread.
In a strange and sad way, Petey seems to have become the Mitt Romney of blog commenters - plastic, unscrupulous and without any discernible core values. I guess we shouldn't ask about the amazing underwear *s*.
The reasons these threads degenerate to name calling (besides the posters being idiots, of course) is that everybody likes to make assertions with no links or other evidence to back them up.
If you say Clinton is ahead in something, post a link to prove it. Same with Obama.
Otherwise you're just trolling and thus should STFU.
The reasons these threads degenerate to name calling (besides the posters being idiots, of course) is that everybody likes to make assertions with no links or other evidence to back them up.
If you say Clinton is ahead in something, post a link to prove it. Same with Obama.
Otherwise you're just trolling and thus should STFU.
by Richard Steven Hack | March 10, 2008 10:16 PM
Any chance of some links to prove your assertion, Senor Hack? Or are you just trolling?
Given his track record, Petey's vocal support of Clinton can only mean good things for Obama.
Comments closed March 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'm predicting there will be five hundred inane, nasty horse-race comments in this thread by noon.
Posted by James Gary | March 10, 2008 10:01 AM