Echoes of 2000

[Isaac]

First off, thanks to Matt for his hospitality. I'll try and blog a bit about the exciting NBA playoffs, which seem to have started months ago and show no signs of ending (or, for that matter, fatigue). But Hendrik Hertzberg's Comment in this week's New Yorker is a good place to start, because it makes the connection between Hillary Clinton's popular vote strategy, and the HBO movie 'Recount,' which premiered last night and was both diverting and unexceptional.

The problem with the Clinton strategy--and I don't mean in political terms--is not that it shows her willingness to change positions in the name of political expediency. Rather, it's that if the popular vote had been the metric all along, Obama would have used a different strategy that did not rely so heavily on caucus states and their (generally) small populations.

The strange thing about 2000 was that it was Bush who pursued a strategy that should have netted him a popular vote win; he spent many of the campaign's last 72 hours in states like California and New Jersey, where he ended up getting destroyed. Meanwhile, Gore was working hard to win Florida and thus an electoral vote majority, but still managed to beat out Bush by half-a-million votes.

Incidentally, is there any doubt that if the Florida recount had gone the other way, Karl Rove would have been branded as a dope for allowing his candidate to spend time outside of Florida and Pennsylvania in that last week before the polls opened?

Comments

...Karl Rove would have been branded as a dope...

The standards for brilliance/dopiness of political strategists are ridiculous. You only really get tested a few times in your life, certainly no more than a dozen times at most, and based on this statistical noise you are christened either genius or idiot.

Posted by JH | May 26, 2008 6:54 PM

Passes the spellcheck, but link's broken.

The insidious element of the late Clinton strategy is that it suggests playing by the stated rules is for suckers. That's straight out of Bush/Rove 2000.

An interesting issue is the extent to which primary strategy dictates general election strategy. Obama's decision to concentrate on smaller and/or caucus states early on may determine how he competes -- and where he competes -- in the general. The exclusion of FL and MI from campaigning means that they're going to get early, special treatment. And so on.

That doesn't apply quite so much to McCain, because of the multi-polar nature of the GOP primary.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 26, 2008 6:57 PM

Don't worry, Lanny Davis has come to the fairest conclusion in Michigan: award Clinton delegates not only for the 55% of the vote that she won as the only name on the ballot, but also award her 50% of the uncommitted vote for some reason. That would leave her with a good 75% of the total delegates of a state that she agreed shouldn't count in the first place. These people are horrible.

Posted by mad6798j | May 26, 2008 7:39 PM

If FLA had gone the other way, Rove would have engineered a strategy to win the election in the House of Representatives, and the MSM would not have said a word.

Posted by Rich | May 26, 2008 7:54 PM

It's not that caucus states have smaller populations, it's that caucuses, by their nature, have fewer participants than primary elections. Comparing the two in this way is comparing apples to oranges and severely disadvantages states which chose to save money by holding caucuses instead of elections.

Posted by neil | May 26, 2008 8:16 PM

Is Mr. Chotiner related to Murray Chotiner, Richard Nixons' Karl Rove?

Posted by SLC | May 26, 2008 8:18 PM

Its not like we need any more proof, but Bill Clintons comments on behalf of Hillary today are incendiary beyond belief (evoking Watergate and Whitewater coverups???)

The Dems, Emily List, et. al, Robert Kennedy Jr., (who the Clintons are now exploiting to the harm of Obama), Senator Feinstein and other Clinton supporters need to pull the plug on them for their own good and tell them SHOW SOME DIGNITY AND CLASS AND GET OUT… YOU LOST!!!.

They are now somewhere between Lieberman and McCain.... So fucking selfish and destructive.

His not so subtle gambit… threaten to destroy the Dem chances in November if she does not get the VP node…. Their thinking assassination (no, they do not get any benefit of the doubt) she will be VP-- and gosh golly, incite enough racists and she and Bill have a good shot back selling the US interest to foreign governments direct from the Lincoln Bedroom.

The reason they are so desperate?? That $105 million includes Futures (kickbacks) in the Third Term Clinton White House, which for a long time looked like a good investment. They are panicking because they may have to pay back their bribes with interest and not from the seat of the White House. Ouch! Corrupt foreign governments will look for some steep penalties.

Posted by Meta | May 26, 2008 8:51 PM

This is the first place I've read this observation and agree wholeheartedly. Both candidates worked to optimize their delegate counts, and one ended up with more delegates. Any other metric is irrelevant because then both candidates would have worked to optimize that metric.

In a football game, it's total points that wins it. Whoever gained the most yards is irrelevant.

Posted by Tony Gualtieri | May 26, 2008 8:57 PM

That monster Bill Clinton is playing this issue up in a particularly obnoxious way. It's past time for people to realize that he was a war criminal who should be hanged by the neck until dead, a horrible president and a selfish monster. It's also clear that he is the person behind his wife's increasing psychotic effort to destroy the Democratic party (a worthy goal, but given that their motives consist of a boundless desire for power and bottomless corruption, they earn no points for that).

May he die quickly of a fast acting cancer, and spend eternity burning in the fires of hell where he gets raped on an hourly basis by Satan himself.

Posted by LarryM | May 26, 2008 9:27 PM

Just watched the HBO Recount a few hours ago, and although nothing special, it was fun to see that as good an actor as Kevin Spacey is Tom Wilkinson may be even better.

Wow, wrote that before I read this:

"May he[Clinton] die quickly of a fast acting cancer, and spend eternity burning in the fires of hell where he gets raped on an hourly basis by Satan himself."

Typical Obama supporter, all about the hope & love and reconciliation. Fuck the Obamasphere.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 26, 2008 9:39 PM

My personal theory about the level of vituperation from the Obama supporters is that it isn't about the nomination or election, but about making sure there is no one around the blogosphere after January with access or credibility who will offer any criticism of President Obama or his programs in any form.

The blogosphere will soon become the propaganda machine of Obama.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 26, 2008 9:50 PM

I'm not a particular fan of Obama, aside from seeing him as the lesser of three evils. I'm motivated by extreme hatred of the Clintons (and McCain). The Clintons are worse; McCain likes to murder innocent people out of warped and misguided visions of martial honor, whereas the Clintons favor killing innocents in the service of their unmitigated lust for power. May they both burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.

Anyone - supporter of Obama or not - who can't see the deeply evil corruption of the Clintons at this point is a sad, sad case. It's worse than Bush dead enders.

Posted by LarryM | May 26, 2008 9:58 PM

Bob, you sound like a pussy. Why do you care what LarryM says? Awww, are the Obama supporters too mean for you? Poor baby, you gonna vote for McCain now?

Posted by Debbie | May 26, 2008 10:01 PM

Typical Obama supporter...

Bob, you might want to learn to read. Since when are Obama supporters in favor of destroying the Democratic Party?

"It's also clear that he is the person behind his wife's increasing psychotic effort to destroy the Democratic party ...(a worthy goal, but given that their motives consist of a boundless desire for power and bottomless corruption, they earn no points for that)."

As for Bill, he has lost it. Check out the quotes over at CNN. She's "winning the general election?" Huh? You want to overthrow delegate counts for polls? (BTW, SurveyUSA recently showed Obama beating McCain in both PA and OH ... so much for polss.) Bill is starting to freak me out a bit. I really think he's gone 'round the bend.

Posted by LFC | May 26, 2008 10:03 PM

My personal theory about the level of vituperation from the Obama supporters is that it isn't about the nomination or election, but about making sure there is no one around the blogosphere after January with access or credibility who will offer any criticism of President Obama or his programs in any form.

The blogosphere will soon become the propaganda machine of Obama.

That's one theory.

Another might hold that the Clintons' political strategy is to use ridiculous arguments and false claims to needle their opponents into lashing out and making gaffes, and the outrage is a predictable consequence. The Obama campaign appears to be wise to this strategy, but Obama's supporters--myself included--don't seem to possess the same equanimity.

But that's all I can write for now; I have to run to a dissent suppression meeting at local Obama beer hall. We're getting storm trooper uniforms tonight!

Posted by southpaw | May 26, 2008 10:06 PM

Incidentally, is there any doubt that if the Florida recount had gone the other way, Karl Rove would have been branded as a dope

I've said for years, and still say, that if George W. Bush gets better than 15% of the popular vote (which he legitimately did), then Rove is a genius.

Posted by ed | May 26, 2008 10:18 PM

The Clinton's don't seem desperate to me.

The couple of hundred uncommitted superdelegates are the desperate ones now.

They know that Hillary will either get every last delegate she demands in the Florida and Michigan settlement on the 31st and be less than 100 delegates behind Obama with a lead in the "more important" popular vote, or she will protest any other result all the way to the convention.

There is no way out for the uncommited superdelegates, they will either have to steal the nomination for Hillary, or face the wrath of the Clintons.

Posted by Mike Furlan | May 26, 2008 10:20 PM

They know that Hillary will either get every last delegate she demands in the Florida and Michigan settlement on the 31st and be less than 100 delegates behind Obama with a lead in the "more important" popular vote, or she will protest any other result all the way to the convention.

She doesn't have any lead in the popular vote. That's false.

Clinton's "popular vote" count excludes four states entirely: Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine. Obama won three of those four by significant margins, and lost Nevada narrowly.

Posted by southpaw | May 26, 2008 10:25 PM

of course . . . you're right on you're larger point about her being indefatigable and the supers being scared.

Posted by southpaw | May 26, 2008 10:32 PM

If this is Florida 2000, Hillary is playing the Bush role, complete with Brooks Brothers riot. I can hardly contain my joy at the idea of busloads of Clintonites descending on my neighborhood (well, a mile or so away).

Posted by KCinDC | May 26, 2008 10:37 PM

"She doesn't have any lead in the popular vote. That's false."

Of course it's false. And her proposed settlement should be laughed at.

But if Hillary has 10% of Democrats believing that Obama is a muslim, it wouldn't surprise me that she could get 51% to go along with the bogus popular vote theory as well.

The uglier this gets, the more Obama will be attacked for destroying the party by refusing to drop out.

Dean, Gore and the all the other uncommitted super delegates desperate to find a way to appease the Clintons without looking too sleazy as they steal the nomination from Obama.

Posted by Mike Furlan | May 26, 2008 10:40 PM

She doesn't have any lead in the popular vote. That's false.

Just because it's a lie doesn't prevent the Clintons from spouting it or prevent their most virulent supporters from repeating it ad nauseam.

Even if they did have it, it's a worthless metric that is not worth overturning the leader in pledged delegates for.

Posted by ben | May 26, 2008 10:40 PM

I think choosing political expediency was the problem for Gore in 2000. Kevin Spacey says at the end of Recount, "our biggest mistake was not asking for a statewide recount." And that's exactly right. Gore chose only to contest the counties in Florida that he thought would increase his vote total. He wanted to make sure that every one of his votes was counted, but refused to risk having every vote counted.

Obama's success has come from his campaign's willingness to contest every delegate from every county in every state. With Dean's 50 state strategy and Obama's delegate strategy, the Democratic party is bringing new people in and expanding the electoral map. I say good riddance to the failed strategies of the past. I'm sick of hearing about the importance of the popular vote and the evils of the electoral college from people in NY and CA. There is zero chance of changing the system, so let's figure out a way to win with the system that we already have. Obama's use of the internet to raise money is a great start.

Posted by Just Karl | May 26, 2008 10:44 PM

"Even if they did have it, it's a worthless metric that is not worth overturning the leader in pledged delegates for."

It only has to be persuasive.

The delegates will claim that they are acting in the best interest of the party when they nominate Hillary.

There is no party rule that the winner of the majority of pledged delegates must be the nominee. This is exactly what superdelegates are for, to fix a "flawed" nominating process.

Posted by Mike Furlan | May 26, 2008 10:47 PM

Aww, the nomination and likely the election are already settled, and I am not interested.

I am interested in progressive policy.

Will we see:

"Obama's budget/program is not good enough, we can do better with this majority, and his budget should be DOA in Congress."

or

"Hey, Obama has carefully negotiated with the marginal Republicans to reach 60 votes, and the coalition is very fragile. I know the amendment of Senator X would be an improvement, but it could break the coalition. We all need to phone & write the Senator to withdraw her amendment."

I'm betting the latter. Obamabots, flacks, hacks & whores are all so invested in his success that will support his Republican-lite legislation.

And try to drive away or discredit and resistance to Obamism.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 26, 2008 10:49 PM

It only has to be persuasive.

Luckily, it hasn't been proven so quite yet (according to superdelegate endorsements).

The bigger problem will be if she tries blackmailing the party by threatening to undermine Obama's candidacy and disrupting the convention.

Posted by ben | May 26, 2008 10:52 PM

Bob, you sound like a pussy.

I can't believe any progressive woman would use that despicable sexist expression.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 26, 2008 10:52 PM

Mike,

If you think Howard Dean has any desire to appease the Clintons, think fucking again.

Bob,

That is very a serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

Posted by scythia | May 26, 2008 11:01 PM

Mike,

If you think Howard Dean has any desire to appease the Clintons, think fucking again.

Bob,

That is a very serious, thoughtful argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

Posted by scythia | May 26, 2008 11:01 PM

"flacks, hacks & whores"

Who's complaining about "despicable sexist expressions", pussy?

Posted by ben | May 26, 2008 11:08 PM

"If you think Howard Dean has any desire to appease the Clintons. . ."

I don't think he wants to appease the Clintons, I think he is afraid of the Clintons. And he knows that if an argument can be made that the nominating contest is tied, the safe choice is to give it to Hillary.

If you steal the nomination from Obama, he will not spend the rest of his life hunting you down , the way the Clinton's will, if you don't steal the nomination for them.

Posted by Mike Furlan | May 26, 2008 11:09 PM

Dean beat their waterboy in '05, and he beat back their coup after '06. There is no one in the Party I trust more to hold his ground against the Clintons.

I also don't think Gore's a huge fan, nor really has much to lose by standing up to them.

If anyone can stand up and tell Hillary "no," it's those two.

Posted by scythia | May 26, 2008 11:15 PM

Hillary has her head stuck up her rear-end and has gone completely insane. She needs to be fitted for a straitjacket and placed in a psychiatric ward. She's a cancer within the Democratic Party and wants to destroy it because she can't accept defeat.

Posted by jerry | May 26, 2008 11:53 PM

Every once in a while I check out the Obamasphere to see if anyone here gives a fuck about progressive policy. I have my answer.

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 26, 2008 11:59 PM

You fucking Clinton dead enders are too stupid to live. Please, I beg you: this isn't about Obama, whatever feelings you may have about him. He is himself an imperfect candidate, to say the least. But can't you see that you are supporting corrupt, evil, devil monsters? These people make John Wayne gacy look like a humanitarian. Hell, they make Cheney look good by comparision, and that takes some doing.

God, I can't believe I opposed the impeachment of that rapist peice of shit. The world would be a much better place if that evil peice of dung had been impeached.

May he burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.

Posted by LarryM | May 27, 2008 12:02 AM

Look, I reluctantly support Obama as the lesser of three evils. But I have no love for the Democratic party, and, if the devil Clintons destroy the Democratic party, it will be a good thing. But make no mistake, if that devil woman steals the nomination, it WILl destroy the party.

I have far more contempt for you moronic Clinton deadenders than I do for the worst Bush deadender.

May you ALL burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.

Posted by LarryM | May 27, 2008 12:08 AM

bob,

please put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, you worthless, deluded peice of shit.

Posted by LarryM | May 27, 2008 12:09 AM

Every once in a while I check out the Obamasphere to see if anyone here gives a fuck about progressive policy.

Like the gas tax holiday? The bankruptcy bill? Responsible national defense policy? What in the world are you talking about, Bob?

Posted by Just Karl | May 27, 2008 12:11 AM

Scythia, if Gore's not a fan, it would have been nice if he'd stood up and denounced Hillary's comparisons to the Florida recount, complete with a tour through Palm Beach County. It probably wouldn't have affected her more fanatical followers, who would have written him off as yet another sexist Obamabot, but the press might have noticed.

Posted by KCinDC | May 27, 2008 12:11 AM

And one more thing bob. Please stop lying about caring about progressive policies. No one who cares about progressive policies could possibly support the Clintons, who are the worst enemies of progressive policies in at least the last 35 years.

Posted by LarryM | May 27, 2008 12:12 AM

They know that Hillary will either get every last delegate she demands in the Florida and Michigan settlement on the 31st and be less than 100 delegates behind Obama with a lead in the "more important" popular vote, or she will protest any other result all the way to the convention.

Oh, nonsense. Within a few weeks of June 3, Obama will have enough delegates to claim a victory even if Michigan and Florida are counted the way Clinton wants them to be. Her own delegates (mostly super, but probably some pledged as well - it's already starting to happen) will be defecting, and virtually all of the remaining superdelegates are going to endorse Obama. Obama will be up to 2210 before July, and Clinton will have no real choice but to drop out.

I don't think he wants to appease the Clintons, I think he is afraid of the Clintons. And he knows that if an argument can be made that the nominating contest is tied, the safe choice is to give it to Hillary.

Except that this is nonsense. I kind of was afraid of this before May 6, and if Obama had done poorly that day, I could maybe see this playing out. As it stands, he's already been crowned by the media and the superdelegates are flowing pretty much entirely in his direction. Clinton's campaign is looking more and more ridiculous. Beyond that, the nomination is not in Dean's power to give. Even the Florida and Michigan delegates aren't really in Dean's power to give - he doesn't fully control the Rules and Bylaws Committee. And even if those are all given to Clinton, she's still going to lose. Obama is winning by nearly 200 delegates now. Even if Michigan and Florida are assigned full delegations, Clinton would need something like 75% of the remaining superdelegates to win. Since May 6, Obama has gained 60 superdelegates, and Clinton has gained 10, per Democratic Convention Watch. So he's been getting 86% of the superdelegates, and he only needs, at most, 25% of the remainder to win.

It's over.

Posted by John | May 27, 2008 1:18 AM

"No one who cares about progressive policies could possibly support the Clintons"

Hey, psycho, show a single word in my comments supportive of the Clintons.

This is just the "with us or against us" sickness of the Obamabots. After the inauguaration I fully expect it to continue, as in you either support the Obama program or you're a racist Republican. Y'all will find an enemy to define yourselves,

Posted by bob mcmanus | May 27, 2008 1:28 AM

Hey, psycho, show a single word in my comments supportive of the Clintons.

So . . . concern troll, then?

In seriousness, though, your prediction is off. There are few things more certain than the new president losing popularity after a little while in office. If Obama is lucky enough to be elected, he'll have a honeymoon and then most of his supporters will drift slowly away and return to issue-based politics. Any president has a base of some 20%-30% that just has faith in him, and he'll have to work for his portion of the other 70-80% by getting stuff done--which is as it should be. Presidential campaigns are transitory things, and the enthusiasms they create don't last much beyond inauguration day.

In any case, you're putting the cart before the horse. Let's get a progressive administration; then we can gripe about how it's not progressive enough.

Posted by southpaw | May 27, 2008 1:56 AM

Y'all will find an enemy to define yourselves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection

Posted by scythia | May 27, 2008 2:44 AM

Meta: "They are panicking because they may have to pay back their bribes with interest and not from the seat of the White House. Ouch! Corrupt foreign governments will look for some steep penalties."

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Indeed, there's little doubt that Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich for money - and the Israeli Mafia is behind Marc Rich - and therefore Hillary.

Not to mention the Saudis (or Mossad, it's hard to say), who have Huma Abedin looking over Hillary's shoulder every day (and night, by some accounts.)

John: "It's over".

Yeah, I thought so, too, at one point. Not any more. Clinton will never drop out. She will go on to the convention, tie it up in knots, then file lawsuits claiming all sorts of bullshit to tie up the entire Democratic campaign. You think 2000 and Bush and the hanging chads were bad? Clinton has news for you.

And if the DNC caves and gives her the VP slot, she'll undermine Obama during the campaign OR if he wins anyway, she'll undermine him for the next four years. Either way, her goal is to guarantee (in her own mind, anyway) the nomination in 2012.

This bitch is a "Manchurian Candidate" bought and paid for by the people who really run this country to sabotage Obama's chances. She isn't a member of "The Family", a right wing religious cult, and hangs out with right wing Republican Senators at "prayer breakfasts" for nothing.

Face it, folks, by allowing Clinton to get in the nomination process, the Dems have lost the election already. And Bush will seal the deal by launching strikes on Iran before the election to give McCain, the "war hero", the necessary "war bounce."

It's over, all right - and the Dems have lost it again.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 27, 2008 2:44 AM

Oh, God, no. I hope the fuck you're wrong, R.S. Samantha Power called it. She is a basilisk.

Posted by Trevor | May 27, 2008 3:34 AM

"The strange thing about 2000 was that it was Bush who pursued a strategy that should have netted him a popular vote win; he spent many of the campaign's last 72 hours in states like California and New Jersey, where he ended up getting destroyed. Meanwhile, Gore was working hard to win Florida and thus an electoral vote majority, but still managed to beat out Bush by half-a-million votes."

I remember assorted Democratic partisans making the argument in the last weeks of October 2000 that the popular vote didn't matter, it was the Electoral College result that counted, and warning against a Bush attempt to appeal to his popular vote victory and use that to peel electors from Gore if Bush won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College.

This probably kept Gore from using exactly this strategy when the actual results came in. It would have been his best strategy post-election.

Posted by Ed | May 27, 2008 4:53 AM

"Oh, nonsense. Within a few weeks of June 3, Obama will have enough delegates to claim a victory even if Michigan and Florida are counted the way Clinton wants them to be."

But on May 31 either:

1. Clinton "wins" Florida, and Michigan. And "wins" Michigan by the biggest margin of the campaign, 102 to 28. Then there is even more pressure on the superdelegates to do the right thing and give the nomination to the candidate "best equipped" to beat John McCain.

or

2. Starts the appeals process the keeps the nomination in doubt until the convention, again hoping the something happens to Obama. If the miracle doesn't happen, she undermines Obama by faning the resentment of her supporters at the nomination being stolen from her by the conspiracy of Democratic party insiders, the media, and those uppity black folks.

"Clinton's campaign is looking more and more ridiculous."

To any fair minded person with a brain, of course.

And that was Obama's assumption about the qualities of the American people when he started his campaign. We'll see if he was right.

Posted by Mike Furlan | May 27, 2008 6:33 AM

Clinton "wins" Florida, and Michigan. And "wins" Michigan by the biggest margin of the campaign, 102 to 28.

Don't fret. This ain't happenin'. The Dems are not going to vote for Hillary's "fuzzy math". The explosion among the million upon millions of new voters Obama has brought to the table would destroy the party.

Starts the appeals process the keeps the nomination in doubt until the convention...

Also not gonna' happen. Howard Dean will make sure of that. The supers are slowing grinding Hillary to dust. May 23-25, Obama picked up 9. Hillary picked up one, but lost one to a switch so netted zero. She's been on the losing end of the supers every week since Super Tuesday.

Once the primaries are over and Obama has the unbeatable number, her money and press will dry up. Without those, she has not oxygen. As they say at Quizno's, "Mmmmmmm. Toasty!"

Posted by LFC | May 27, 2008 10:01 AM

Bob McAnus:

"Just watched the HBO Recount a few hours ago, and although nothing special, it was fun to see that as good an actor as Kevin Spacey is Tom Wilkinson may be even better."

They were both great and I love John Hurt. The movie was pretty accurate and covered a lot. Did Katherine Harris have a Republican lobbyist advising her? The Republican strategy of disenfranchising blacks was the most scandalous bit I thought.

It was pretty funny though how the "activist" conservative Supreme court trumped the liberal Florida Supreme Court, who had previously trumped Harris. And it was funny how Scalia et al. went liberal and employed the equal protection clause for the first and last time. And how they added that it was a one time deal, i.e. a future liberal Supreme Courts couldn't employ this opinion to argue a tie goes to the house. Will be interesting to see what happens next time, although I think Obama will win by a fair margin this year.

As a Nader voter it was funny to me how Dennis Leahry bitched about us. I'm still unrepentant.

But Hillary's lawyerly ways and arguments reminds of the Republicans of 2000. Principles be damned, whatever it takes to win!

The most hilarious thing though was the Republican Riot.

Posted by Peter K. | May 27, 2008 12:11 PM