My read of the pre-results spinning is that both sides seem to be anticipating a Clinton win in the high one digits. If true, that'll mean a continuation of the status quo -- Clinton hopelessly behind, and yet no particular reason (except the good of the party) for her not to stay in the race and hope Obama dies in a freak accident or something.
« Popular Vote | Main | Russert Logic »
Expectations Blogging
22 Apr 2008 06:57 pm
Comments (27)
Yep. I think the delegate count will look worse than the popular vote. She might net as few as 6 delegates tonight, but probably more like 8 or 10. Either way, her margin among delegates will probably be smaller than her margin in the popular vote.
There are no freak accidents in American politics.
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!
I got yer top 10 right here!
10. Howard Wolfson
9. The Fanjul sugar dynasty
8. Ginned up controversies like bittergate and Bill Ayers.
7. That dude from the IAM
6. Robert "Social Security is a bad deal for African-Americans" Johnson
5. Amping up the hawk-talk on Iran
4. Those Florida Donors who whined to the DCCC
3. Harold Ickes
2. Lanny Davis
And the number one reason I am looking forward to Clinton dropping out ...
1. Mark Penn
I was hoping I could get a list that consisted entirely of surrogates, but I couldn't come up with ten that I have real distaste for.
Matt's correct here. Clinton cannot win big enough here to change the bottom line: she doesn't have enough delegates, she doesn't have the popular vote, and that remains true even if Michigan and Florida are seated at the convention, and she can't convince enough superdelegates to offset that.
It's pure ego that keeps Clinton in this race.
After tonight, Gore and Carter will endorse Obama and demand Clinton drop out.
Clinton is toast.
The whole thing reminds me of something out of Sartre.
If a victory is told in detail, one can no longer distinguish it from a defeat.
I can't imagine why anyone would think a Hillary loss will spare us from Lanny Davis op-eds.
What is her plan? I mean, if Obama is caught, in the infamous phrase, with a live boy or a dead girl, he'll be rejected and she'll get the nomination even if she's suspended her campaign. Is she just keeping going she needs him to slip, laugh maniacally, and declaim "Fools! I'll destroy you all!", and it's slightly more probable if constant 16 hour days of campaigning are keeping him stressed and ensuring that such a breakdown will be captured by news cameras?
Yeah, all we'll hear about is %, but the delegates are what count. Or should -- dems the rules!
it's slightly more probable if constant 16 hour days of campaigning are keeping him stressed
Clinton figures that if she continuously pounds Obama with criticism and outrage at the slightest provocation, he will eventually say, "fuck it, I'm so stressed. Somebody get me a live boy or dead girl to climb into bed with." When you think about it, this strategy is about as good as any the Clinton campaign has devised thus far.
I'm tired of Hillary Clinton. Not in an angry way, but in a bored way. Enough is Enough. Oregon/May 22nd = the end.
Nicholas: Wolfson and Lanny Davis both count for 2, and Mark Penn counts for 3. That's how you start to make a list of ten surrogates...
1) I thought Hillary was over $10 Million in debt -- and only has $9 Million to cover it. Whereas Obama's warchest is around $42+ Million.
2)Is Hillary gonna write another $5 Million check to herself?
Make her spend it all, Barack. I'm starting to enjoy this.
Who knows? Billy Ayers may pose a threat to Obama, given Ayers' bombing desires have not been satisfied, and he lives in Obama's neighborhood. Ayers did run with a crowd that posed as much threat to their neighbors as their targets, given their pyrotechnical ineptitude. Maybe the Transformative Senator should just stay out on the trail, in order to make sure the ambitions of the Experienced Senator are thwarted.
Dear Lord,
I humbly beseech you to take the life of Satan's servant Hillary Clinton, in whatever manner thy, in thy infinite wisdom and compassion, deem fit, and send her on her way to her eternal punishment.
No reason to drop out? She has zero chance of winning, is detroying her reputation, and is in debt--all to spend 20 hour days to travel around the country amongst the hoi palloi she despises.
And she's destroying the party for no reason other than to assuage her fragile ego.
Okay, so I take that back, we're dealing with a Clinton, so id and ego before everything else.
Make her spend it all, Barack. I'm starting to enjoy this.
Posted by Don Williams | April 22, 2008 8:06 PM
HAha thanks, keeping that in mind does help.
Matt,
So what about the 40-some percent of Democrats who support Hillary? Are they selfish as well?
Kuros,
No, they are either stupid, uninformed, or actively evil. In fairness, I'd say 30% stupid, 50% uninformed, and 20% actively evil.
LarryM,
I think perhaps 10% of us cling to guns, 25% of us to religion, 50% to disliking people who are different than us, and another 15% of us cling to anti-trade sentiment.
There's certainly nothing wrong with preferring Clinton to Obama. There's moreover no reason for anyone who has prefered Clinton to start preferring Obama based on his lead. But based on his lead, Clinton can't win. So Clinton fans are in this strange situation, that they should want the candidate they prefer to quit the race. Of course that would be pretty easy if Clinton herself recognized that she should quit. They don't call her divisive for nothing.
Clinton now leads in the popular vote.
I wonder, has anyone even bothered to ask themselves what is the purpose, intent, or even moral relevance of these DNC "rules" Howard Dean has imposed upon the voters of Florida and Michigan, particularly when balanced against the basic civil right to vote and have one's vote counted?
Let's ask ourselves about our deep moral convictions regarding the DNC's rules that were purportedly violated by Florida and Michigan, which Howard Dean claims warranted the DNC's actions of stripping them of their representation. Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries, like numerous other states, states that weren't punished in the most drastic way possible, by stripping the voters in those states of their Constitutional rights to representation. Only Florida and Michigan had their representation at the convention stripped. And why? Do any of us actually care whether Florida, Michigan, California, South Carolina, New Hampshire or any of the other states' legislatures moved up their primaries? Does moving up the date of their primaries disenfranchise some minority segments of those states' populations? Did moving the dates create some barrier that would make it more difficult for voters to vote, such as historic injustices like applying literacy tests, or land ownership requirements, or any other historically egregious voting equity violations? No. No, there was nothing patently unfair, or even comprehensibly wrong with these states moving up their primaries. What IS unfair, unreasonable, and IMO unconstitutional is denying only these two states equal representation.
And what is the significance of this strange checker board arrangement of primary dates anyway? In fact, in recent history the votes of the citizens in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary states carry vastly more significant weight than that of their fellow citizens in other states, based upon this arbitrary primary schedule. What of Constitutional equal protection provisions?
None of it makes a lot of common sense, yet astonishingly, Obama supporters, such as Howard Dean, expect us to blindly accept and support this dubious, twisted travesty of democracy they're trying to sell the American public? WHAT?!? Have the American people lost the ability to reason? If these kinds of shenanigans took place in an election the United States had undertaken to monitor in a fledgling democracy, we would declare the election a fraud.
The fact is that Florida's and Michigan's votes WERE officially and legally certified by the Secretaries of State in those states. Much as the "rules is rules" advocates like to talk about the DNC's rules, they refuse to acknowledge the controlling voting LAWS. These figures ARE part of the National popular vote totals.
Now, you might complain that the candidates didn't campaign in Florida - well, then Senators Obama and Clinton are on equal footing there, and official elections were held and record numbers of voters went to the polls in Florida and VOTED.
Or you might complain that Sen. Obama's name wasn't on the ballots in Michigan, while Clinton and Obama Supporter Dodd did not choose to withdraw their names from the ballots.
And what sort of legal argument Senator Obama might use to make his case that these voters should be stripped of representation? He removed his own name from Michigan's ballots voluntarily, but apparently he thought better of removing his name from Florida's ballots. Further, in both of these states, when given opportunities to correct the wrong DNC Chairman Dean perpetrated against the voters in these states, by agreeing to revotes, Sen. Obama alone blocked all attempts at revotes, knowing that Sen. Clinton had, and still has, significant leads in polls those states. Astonishingly, in reality, Sen. Obama is arguing that democratic voters in Florida and Michigan, so important to any victory for the democratic party's nominee in the general election, should pay the ultimate consequence, disenfranchisement, for the actions of their republican majority legislatures. Yet he is unwilling to live with the consequences of removing his name from Michigan's ballot, and he is unwilling to live with the legally certified voting results. Hmmm . . . this seems like a self-serving and meritless argument.
So, yes - Senator Clinton now leads in the popular vote, and I'd like to remind the Super Delegates (who few of us even knew existed a year ago), that Senator Obama said, in his speech after Super Tuesday that the Super Delegates must not overturn the will of the people, as well as what Speaker Pelosi said recently, that "[i]t will do great harm to the Democratic party if it is perceived that the Super Delegates overturn the will of the people. That is consistent with the delegate voting his or her conscience.”
There are several states who have yet to vote in this primary, and THIS TIME, their votes will matter as much as any other voters in the country - INCLUDING Florida's and Michigan's voters, whose votes MUST be counted - that is, if we still consider ourselves a free and democratic country.
Clinton now leads in the popular vote.
I wonder, has anyone even bothered to ask themselves what is the purpose, intent, or even moral relevance of these DNC "rules" Howard Dean has imposed upon the voters of Florida and Michigan, particularly when balanced against the basic civil right to vote and have one's vote counted?
Let's ask ourselves about our deep moral convictions regarding the DNC's rules that were purportedly violated by Florida and Michigan, which Howard Dean claims warranted the DNC's actions of stripping them of their representation. Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries, like numerous other states, states that weren't punished in the most drastic way possible, by stripping the voters in those states of their Constitutional rights to representation. Only Florida and Michigan had their representation at the convention stripped. And why? Do any of us actually care whether Florida, Michigan, California, South Carolina, New Hampshire or any of the other states' legislatures moved up their primaries? Does moving up the date of their primaries disenfranchise some minority segments of those states' populations? Did moving the dates create some barrier that would make it more difficult for voters to vote, such as historic injustices like applying literacy tests, or land ownership requirements, or any other historically egregious voting equity violations? No. No, there was nothing patently unfair, or even comprehensibly wrong with these states moving up their primaries. What IS unfair, unreasonable, and IMO unconstitutional is denying only these two states equal representation.
And what is the significance of this strange checker board arrangement of primary dates anyway? In fact, in recent history the votes of the citizens in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early primary states carry vastly more significant weight than that of their fellow citizens in other states, based upon this arbitrary primary schedule. What of Constitutional equal protection provisions?
None of it makes a lot of common sense, yet astonishingly, Obama supporters, such as Howard Dean, expect us to blindly accept and support this dubious, twisted travesty of democracy they're trying to sell the American public? WHAT?!? Have the American people lost the ability to reason? If these kinds of shenanigans took place in an election the United States had undertaken to monitor in a fledgling democracy, we would declare the election a fraud.
The fact is that Florida's and Michigan's votes WERE officially and legally certified by the Secretaries of State in those states. Much as the "rules is rules" advocates like to talk about the DNC's rules, they refuse to acknowledge the controlling voting LAWS. These figures ARE part of the National popular vote totals.
Now, you might complain that the candidates didn't campaign in Florida - well, then Senators Obama and Clinton are on equal footing there, and official elections were held and record numbers of voters went to the polls in Florida and VOTED.
Or you might complain that Sen. Obama's name wasn't on the ballots in Michigan, while Clinton and Obama Supporter Dodd did not choose to withdraw their names from the ballots.
And what sort of legal argument Senator Obama might use to make his case that these voters should be stripped of representation? He removed his own name from Michigan's ballots voluntarily, but apparently he thought better of removing his name from Florida's ballots. Further, in both of these states, when given opportunities to correct the wrong DNC Chairman Dean perpetrated against the voters in these states, by agreeing to revotes, Sen. Obama alone blocked all attempts at revotes, knowing that Sen. Clinton had, and still has, significant leads in polls those states. Astonishingly, in reality, Sen. Obama is arguing that democratic voters in Florida and Michigan, so important to any victory for the democratic party's nominee in the general election, should pay the ultimate consequence, disenfranchisement, for the actions of their republican majority legislatures. Yet he is unwilling to live with the consequences of removing his name from Michigan's ballot, and he is unwilling to live with the legally certified voting results. Hmmm . . . this seems like a self-serving and meritless argument.
So, yes - Senator Clinton now leads in the popular vote, and I'd like to remind the Super Delegates (who few of us even knew existed a year ago), that Senator Obama said, in his speech after Super Tuesday that the Super Delegates must not overturn the will of the people, as well as what Speaker Pelosi said recently, that "[i]t will do great harm to the Democratic party if it is perceived that the Super Delegates overturn the will of the people. That is consistent with the delegate voting his or her conscience.”
There are several states who have yet to vote in this primary, and THIS TIME, their votes will matter as much as any other voters in the country - INCLUDING Florida's and Michigan's voters, whose votes MUST be counted - that is, if we still consider ourselves a free and democratic country.
Yawn. FL and MI pushed their dates ahead of where they were allowed, which is why both the Democrats and Republicans penalized precisely those two states. If there was no penalty for holding an early primary, every state would have voted in January. Of 2007.
But, Teri, if you're really so convinced that a crime is being perpetrated against FL and MI by the national Democratic Party, you must be absolutely furious with Hillary Clinton for supporting the DNC's decision to strip them of their delegates. Right?
Teri B.,
FL and MI pushed their dates ahead of where they were allowed, which is why both the Democrats and Republicans penalized precisely those two states. If there was no penalty for holding an early primary, every state would have voted in January. Of 2007.
But, Teri, if you're really so convinced that a crime is being perpetrated against FL and MI by the national Democratic Party, you must be absolutely furious with Hillary Clinton for supporting the DNC's decision to strip them of their delegates. Right?
Hilariously, even under Teri's ridiculous definition of the popular vote (completely disregarding caucus states, pretending that it is legitimate to say Obama got 0% of the vote in Michigan!) -- Obama is *still leading Clinton* in the popular vote.
Why are all the Clinton supporters on these blogs such complete idiots? It's really amazing.
Comments closed May 06, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
You should do a top ten list of reasons why you cannot wait until HRC drops out.
I think one should be: Never having to read an op/ed by Lanny Davis again.
Posted by nattyb | April 22, 2008 7:03 PM