Comments on: Word. http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/23/12/41/word/ Keeping a jaundiced eye on the corporate media. Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:21:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: snuzy mandrake http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/23/12/41/word/#comment-139275 snuzy mandrake Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:27:57 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/23/12/41/word/#comment-139275 <i>Besides, if Clinton does have a good couple of next few months, there’s a likelihood that she’ll be able to point toward having the pledged delegate lead, when counting the states of FL & MI. The popular vote also remains very much up in the air, especially if Clinton racks up very high win percentages in PA & PR, also when counting the states of FL and/or MI.</i> are those two things true? i mean, i've been playing around with various delegate calculator tools and there doesn't seem to be a way for clinton to make up her pledged delegate deficit. and, from what i've read, nor is it likely that she will be able to make up her large deficit of popular votes, even if MI and FL were counted, the odds are against it. and all of the efforts i've seen to show that clinton could catch up on the popular vote seem to be based on wildly unlikely assumptions (like a 20 point win in all remaining states, or the michigan votes for clinton counting but no MI votes counting for obama, etc) obviously, i could be wrong. but it looks all-but-certain that clinton cannot catch up on pledged delegates and is very unlikely to catch up with the popular vote. that's why even people in the clinton campaign are now giving her only a 10% chance of winning and are resorting to rather weak arguments about big-democratic states or electoral votes. but i agree with bredesan that the reason we have superdelegates is because they are allowed to vote differently than the vote in their home state. but the issue isn't whether they can do it, but rather whether having this system which gives such a large vote to party insiders is a good idea. and there is the issue of what critieria undecided supers will use in making their choice. there's no doubt that the way their state went, the popular vote, and the pledged delegate count will have an effect on some of their choices. Besides, if Clinton does have a good couple of next few months, there’s a likelihood that she’ll be able to point toward having the pledged delegate lead, when counting the states of FL & MI. The popular vote also remains very much up in the air, especially if Clinton racks up very high win percentages in PA & PR, also when counting the states of FL and/or MI.

are those two things true? i mean, i’ve been playing around with various delegate calculator tools and there doesn’t seem to be a way for clinton to make up her pledged delegate deficit.

and, from what i’ve read, nor is it likely that she will be able to make up her large deficit of popular votes, even if MI and FL were counted, the odds are against it. and all of the efforts i’ve seen to show that clinton could catch up on the popular vote seem to be based on wildly unlikely assumptions (like a 20 point win in all remaining states, or the michigan votes for clinton counting but no MI votes counting for obama, etc)

obviously, i could be wrong. but it looks all-but-certain that clinton cannot catch up on pledged delegates and is very unlikely to catch up with the popular vote. that’s why even people in the clinton campaign are now giving her only a 10% chance of winning and are resorting to rather weak arguments about big-democratic states or electoral votes.

but i agree with bredesan that the reason we have superdelegates is because they are allowed to vote differently than the vote in their home state. but the issue isn’t whether they can do it, but rather whether having this system which gives such a large vote to party insiders is a good idea. and there is the issue of what critieria undecided supers will use in making their choice. there’s no doubt that the way their state went, the popular vote, and the pledged delegate count will have an effect on some of their choices.

]]> By: joe http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/23/12/41/word/#comment-139246 joe Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:10:46 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/23/12/41/word/#comment-139246 MI and FL are losing traction and Dean is AWOL but I guess not nuch can be done on his end but it would be nice to see someone TRY to exert a little leadership...the bleeting of "if you count MI and FL" will matter not. The plea of disenfranchisement is weak since they can still vote in the GE. Altho I see hrc and co using the screwed up democratic primary/caucus process as the sole reason for her campaign failure. altho most people wont forget she was practically 20-30 points ahead in every state at one time... MI and FL are losing traction and Dean is AWOL but I guess not nuch can be done on his end but it would be nice to see someone TRY to exert a little leadership…the bleeting of “if you count MI and FL” will matter not. The plea of disenfranchisement is weak since they can still vote in the GE. Altho I see hrc and co using the screwed up democratic primary/caucus process as the sole reason for her campaign failure. altho most people wont forget she was practically 20-30 points ahead in every state at one time…

]]> By: joe http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/23/12/41/word/#comment-139239 joe Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:44:53 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/23/12/41/word/#comment-139239 and if his candidate was leading I would bet he would be all for following the "voice" of his state. pure politics. of course there are going to be superD's siding with hrc... kind of relates back to the question of mine no one wanted to answer..."I really think just trying to make a good choice and find the right, electable person"... why is OB seen by some to be completely unelectable? didn't hold hearings for the committee he chairs? too jr of a senator? links to chicago mob? church? spouse? diamonds? pearls? boxers? briefs?... and if his candidate was leading I would bet he would be all for following the “voice” of his state.

pure politics.

of course there are going to be superD’s siding with hrc…

kind of relates back to the question of mine no one wanted to answer…”I really think just trying to make a good choice and find the right, electable person”…

why is OB seen by some to be completely unelectable?

didn’t hold hearings for the committee he chairs? too jr of a senator? links to chicago mob? church? spouse? diamonds? pearls? boxers? briefs?…

]]> By: Spryboy http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/23/12/41/word/#comment-139231 Spryboy Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:29:35 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/2008/03/23/12/41/word/#comment-139231 Yeah, can't trust the little people. Gotta keep that democracy stuff at bay, you know. If the insiders in smokey back rooms don't like what the people are saying, then they can just over-turn it. I mean, at that point, why even bother with the pesky and expensive voting process? Just let the party leaders appoint the insider person they like! (rolling eyes) The "word" is B.S. Yeah, can’t trust the little people. Gotta keep that democracy stuff at bay, you know. If the insiders in smokey back rooms don’t like what the people are saying, then they can just over-turn it. I mean, at that point, why even bother with the pesky and expensive voting process? Just let the party leaders appoint the insider person they like!

(rolling eyes)

The “word” is B.S.

]]>