Comments on: Heh http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/ Keeping a jaundiced eye on the corporate media. Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:02:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Bob http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141922 Bob Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:30:53 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141922 http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2008&base_name=mcauliffe_on_michigan http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2008&base_name=mcauliffe_on_michigan

]]> By: Bob http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141917 Bob Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:40:20 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141917 Fercrisake, the Democratic Party is an independent political organization which is free to set and enforce its own rules - what part of that don't you understand? I agree the penalty handed down was severe. That being said it was handed down in a perfectly legal fashion. Both sides agreed at the time, made adjustments and continued with their campaigns. No vote is being suppressed, no one is being disenfranchised, etc. You can argue this all day long using all sorts of phrases to describe it but for the last effin time YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE IN A PRIMARY. So your argument boils down to this: both Clinton and Obama agreed to the sanctions, both kept their mouths shut about the issue for months (the original agreement was signed in August 2007), Clinton eventually realized she needed those votes (to include MI where hers was the only name on the ballot – Castro would be so proud!) to have any chance of winning (and even then only by having superdelegates overturn the will of the voters), and – voila! – she suddenly becomes a defended of every vote counting! Seeing as both campaigns made adjustments based upon this what your argument boils down to is “seeing as the DNC has screwed up they need to make another mistake to solve the problem.” I would prefer they stop making mistakes. Fercrisake, the Democratic Party is an independent political organization which is free to set and enforce its own rules - what part of that don’t you understand? I agree the penalty handed down was severe. That being said it was handed down in a perfectly legal fashion. Both sides agreed at the time, made adjustments and continued with their campaigns. No vote is being suppressed, no one is being disenfranchised, etc. You can argue this all day long using all sorts of phrases to describe it but for the last effin time YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE IN A PRIMARY.
So your argument boils down to this: both Clinton and Obama agreed to the sanctions, both kept their mouths shut about the issue for months (the original agreement was signed in August 2007), Clinton eventually realized she needed those votes (to include MI where hers was the only name on the ballot – Castro would be so proud!) to have any chance of winning (and even then only by having superdelegates overturn the will of the voters), and – voila! – she suddenly becomes a defended of every vote counting!
Seeing as both campaigns made adjustments based upon this what your argument boils down to is “seeing as the DNC has screwed up they need to make another mistake to solve the problem.”
I would prefer they stop making mistakes.

]]> By: David Parsons http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141888 David Parsons Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:43:58 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141888 So you are claiming that Obama has run out of steam and that vote suppression is the only thing that will get him the nomination. Then why the devil are you supporting the man? Personally, I give him about a 75% chance of winning the nomination if he does it properly, because (a) he has not run out of steam, even though his campaign has gotten /really/ sloppy as the primary season continues on, and (b) the 50 state strategy *is* better than clinging frantically to a handful of big states and hoping they won't get pried away from the party. I care about his studied contempt for gay people (the "ex-gay" preacher in South Carolina), his pathetic compromise on healthcare, and the way he buys into the Republican plans for dismantling Social Security, but enough of the Democratic Party is frantic enough for The Win that they'll continue to ignore (or even applaud) those stances, and all it will take is some nuclear-grade rhetoric to sway superdelegates based on that. Can't you see this? Why is it so important to make up lies about the vote count and suppress votes in the hopes that the Democratic leadership will lose their nerve and throw the election before Mr. Obama has a chance to win, in the old-fashioned way, a nomination by constructing a solid campaign platform (a right-leaning centrist platform, but a solid one) and then convincing the nominating convention that his 50+/-e% of the committed primary vote is the percent that will win it all. It's possible that you're backing Mr. Obama just because you loathe the Clintons, but you're not going to convince me than a significant part of his non-Obamasphere-support is backing him just because he's NOT a Clinton and they'd flee for the abattoirs of the Republicans just because they couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for someone who's married to the Evil Bill Clinton. (Why am I -- someone who admits to preferring Ms. Clinton -- more (ahem) hopeful about Mr. Obama's chances than you are?) So you are claiming that Obama has run out of steam and that vote suppression is the only thing that will get him the nomination. Then why the devil are you supporting the man?

Personally, I give him about a 75% chance of winning the nomination if he does it properly, because (a) he has not run out of steam, even though his campaign has gotten /really/ sloppy as the primary season continues on, and (b) the 50 state strategy *is* better than clinging frantically to a handful of big states and hoping they won’t get pried away from the party. I care about his studied contempt for gay people (the “ex-gay” preacher in South Carolina), his pathetic compromise on healthcare, and the way he buys into the Republican plans for dismantling Social Security, but enough of the Democratic Party is frantic enough for The Win that they’ll continue to ignore (or even applaud) those stances, and all it will take is some nuclear-grade rhetoric to sway superdelegates based on that.

Can’t you see this? Why is it so important to make up lies about the vote count and suppress votes in the hopes that the Democratic leadership will lose their nerve and throw the election before Mr. Obama has a chance to win, in the old-fashioned way, a nomination by constructing a solid campaign platform (a right-leaning centrist platform, but a solid one) and then convincing the nominating convention that his 50+/-e% of the committed primary vote is the percent that will win it all. It’s possible that you’re backing Mr. Obama just because you loathe the Clintons, but you’re not going to convince me than a significant part of his non-Obamasphere-support is backing him just because he’s NOT a Clinton and they’d flee for the abattoirs of the Republicans just because they couldn’t bring themselves to pull the lever for someone who’s married to the Evil Bill Clinton.

(Why am I — someone who admits to preferring Ms. Clinton — more (ahem) hopeful about Mr. Obama’s chances than you are?)

]]> By: Bob http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141864 Bob Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:31:35 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141864 Unicorns are real! Unicorns are real!!! There, I said it a couple times, is it true now? No. Shit, how’d that happen? Make the absolutely false claim that Clinton has more votes all you like – it ain’t true. But perhaps I’m being too harsh. F it, as you would say, handle FL and MI any way you want – give all the delegates to Clinton and have the Superdelegates come through and hand her the nomination. That’s a great idea. Oh, btw, say goodbye to the African-American vote which goes roughly 88% Democratic, as well as those annoying “activists” she has so much contempt for. Guess I’ll never live to see another Democrat in the White House but then, this always has been about Clinton at all costs hasn’t it? Unicorns are real! Unicorns are real!!! There, I said it a couple times, is it true now? No. Shit, how’d that happen?
Make the absolutely false claim that Clinton has more votes all you like – it ain’t true.
But perhaps I’m being too harsh. F it, as you would say, handle FL and MI any way you want – give all the delegates to Clinton and have the Superdelegates come through and hand her the nomination.
That’s a great idea.
Oh, btw, say goodbye to the African-American vote which goes roughly 88% Democratic, as well as those annoying “activists” she has so much contempt for. Guess I’ll never live to see another Democrat in the White House but then, this always has been about Clinton at all costs hasn’t it?

]]> By: David Parsons http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141862 David Parsons Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:09:47 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141862 I think the Democratic Party will lose the election if they tell the Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan to go f themselves. If the goal of the Obama campaign is to crush the Clintons like bugs and to devil with the general, this is an acceptable strategy. If getting the Evil Party out of the White House is the goal, it's a mindbogglingly stupid strategy. (And as for Ms. Clinton's strategy being "incompetent", I will point out that she's got the most votes in the primary right now despite having made the midbogglingly stupid decision to bet it all on Super Tuesday.) And, while I'm at it, what happpened to the whole "hope" business and the alleged new ways of doing things? Is Obama's platform so pathetic (and is Howard Dean's 50-state strategy so incompetent) that his campaign must play procedural games to run out the clock before he gets to the convention floor and has his platform completely dismantled by the Clinton juggernaut? If so, that's quite a loser you're backing, and I must assume that you don't really want the Democrats to win the Presidential election. I think the Democratic Party will lose the election if they tell the Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan to go f themselves. If the goal of the Obama campaign is to crush the Clintons like bugs and to devil with the general, this is an acceptable strategy. If getting the Evil Party out of the White House is the goal, it’s a mindbogglingly stupid strategy. (And as for Ms. Clinton’s strategy being “incompetent”, I will point out that she’s got the most votes in the primary right now despite having made the midbogglingly stupid decision to bet it all on Super Tuesday.)

And, while I’m at it, what happpened to the whole “hope” business and the alleged new ways of doing things? Is Obama’s platform so pathetic (and is Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy so incompetent) that his campaign must play procedural games to run out the clock before he gets to the convention floor and has his platform completely dismantled by the Clinton juggernaut?

If so, that’s quite a loser you’re backing, and I must assume that you don’t really want the Democrats to win the Presidential election.

]]> By: Bob http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141848 Bob Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:00:37 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141848 David Parsons: First I meant to write 1 – 2 million votes ahead, not 2 -3 million. As to sources for the popular vote gap read here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/the-weighted-popular-vote_b_97962.html Or here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-christensen/dont-be-fooled-obama-is-a_b_96118.html As to your second point, that's the point, isn't it? Obama entered the race with a sound strategy based on the rules as they existed at the start. Clinton ran an incompetent campaign based upon the rules as they existed at the start. She wrote off the small states, overspent her record campaign budget early, and had no real plan beyond Super Tuesday. Now she's hopelessly behind (unless Obama gets caught in some huge scandal she ain't gonna pass him in delegates) and is so twisting the rules and demanding all sorts of changes and concessions. If you run an incompetent campaign (Fred Thompson anyone?) don’t be surprised if you’re losing. I don’t really blame Clinton – she’s doing what politicians do. But I do get tired of the sanctimonious and condescending lectures from her supporters about the dire threat to the republic if an independent political party (zero mentions in the Constitution) is actually allowed to, you know, act like an independent political party and set and enforce its own rules. I agree that the penalty is draconian. Were I the person making the decision back when it was being made I would have opted for something less severe. The point is once the penalty was announced both candidates tailored their strategies for the remainder of the primary season to reflect the penalty. Now we are going to drop the penalty and pretend that doesn’t reward one candidate at the expense of the other? David Parsons:
First I meant to write 1 – 2 million votes ahead, not 2 -3 million.
As to sources for the popular vote gap read here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/the-weighted-popular-vote_b_97962.html
Or here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-christensen/dont-be-fooled-obama-is-a_b_96118.html
As to your second point, that’s the point, isn’t it? Obama entered the race with a sound strategy based on the rules as they existed at the start. Clinton ran an incompetent campaign based upon the rules as they existed at the start. She wrote off the small states, overspent her record campaign budget early, and had no real plan beyond Super Tuesday. Now she’s hopelessly behind (unless Obama gets caught in some huge scandal she ain’t gonna pass him in delegates) and is so twisting the rules and demanding all sorts of changes and concessions. If you run an incompetent campaign (Fred Thompson anyone?) don’t be surprised if you’re losing.
I don’t really blame Clinton – she’s doing what politicians do. But I do get tired of the sanctimonious and condescending lectures from her supporters about the dire threat to the republic if an independent political party (zero mentions in the Constitution) is actually allowed to, you know, act like an independent political party and set and enforce its own rules. I agree that the penalty is draconian. Were I the person making the decision back when it was being made I would have opted for something less severe. The point is once the penalty was announced both candidates tailored their strategies for the remainder of the primary season to reflect the penalty. Now we are going to drop the penalty and pretend that doesn’t reward one candidate at the expense of the other?

]]> By: David Parsons http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141837 David Parsons Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:19:13 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141837 Mr. Obama has, as befitting a candidate who is taking Howard Dean's 5048 state strategy seriously, cleaned up in a lot of the smaller states that the Democrats usually shun. He's gotten a bucketload of delegates from those states, but not very many people voted/caucused there because the states are very small. So it's not that surprising that victories in 20 small states would not push the margin of popular votes very far in either directions. (And I was wrong about Jerome Armstrong's delegate count; he is claiming that Mr. Obama is up by 9 delegates, which is still in the John Edwards the Kingmaker category.) I'm not exactly sure where your "best estimates" come from, but they are /widely/ at variance with every other estimate I've seen, including the estimates from the Clinton-loathing press. (disclaimer: I don't read any Obamasphere weblogs aside from Atrios, who is doing a terrific job of keeping his biases muted. But I suspect that the methodology that's finding these huge popular vote gaps is shaky at best, outright propaganda at worst.) Mr. Obama has, as befitting a candidate who is taking Howard Dean’s 5048 state strategy seriously, cleaned up in a lot of the smaller states that the Democrats usually shun. He’s gotten a bucketload of delegates from those states, but not very many people voted/caucused there because the states are very small.

So it’s not that surprising that victories in 20 small states would not push the margin of popular votes very far in either directions. (And I was wrong about Jerome Armstrong’s delegate count; he is claiming that Mr. Obama is up by 9 delegates, which is still in the John Edwards the Kingmaker category.)

I’m not exactly sure where your “best estimates” come from, but they are /widely/ at variance with every other estimate I’ve seen, including the estimates from the Clinton-loathing press. (disclaimer: I don’t read any Obamasphere weblogs aside from Atrios, who is doing a terrific job of keeping his biases muted. But I suspect that the methodology that’s finding these huge popular vote gaps is shaky at best, outright propaganda at worst.)

]]> By: Bob http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141827 Bob Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:01:35 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141827 Is there no end to the delusions Clinton supporters will buy into? Obama has cleaned up in caucass states yet JA says Clinton is actually winning them. Sorry, no. The best estimates put Obama's actual popular vote totals 2 - 3 million ahead of Clinton. That you can find one Clinton supporter willing to play the game by Clinton rules doesn't change that. Is there no end to the delusions Clinton supporters will buy into? Obama has cleaned up in caucass states yet JA says Clinton is actually winning them. Sorry, no. The best estimates put Obama’s actual popular vote totals 2 - 3 million ahead of Clinton. That you can find one Clinton supporter willing to play the game by Clinton rules doesn’t change that.

]]> By: David Parsons http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141823 David Parsons Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:33:17 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141823 That would be nice. As I recall, Jerome Armstrong at myDD said that Ms. Clinton as up by ~14,000 votes with the best estimates he could find of the votes in various caucus states (I think he also showed her ahead in delegates (by the whopping total of 11 delegates, which, if so, would put Edwards right into the kingmaker position that his advisors were trying to finesse before he dropped out of the race) and that pretty much dead even tie is a *lot* better than the Obamasphere's frantic, unseemly, and destructive attempt to pretend that Florida and Michigan (and their 37(?) EVs) don't actually exist. That would be nice. As I recall, Jerome Armstrong at myDD said that Ms. Clinton as up by ~14,000 votes with the best estimates he could find of the votes in various caucus states (I think he also showed her ahead in delegates (by the whopping total of 11 delegates, which, if so, would put Edwards right into the kingmaker position that his advisors were trying to finesse before he dropped out of the race) and that pretty much dead even tie is a *lot* better than the Obamasphere’s frantic, unseemly, and destructive attempt to pretend that Florida and Michigan (and their 37(?) EVs) don’t actually exist.

]]> By: Bob http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141821 Bob Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:52:33 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141821 So David Parsons, tell me, if every vote must count you of course will demand a correct counting of popular vote totals in caucus states, right? So David Parsons, tell me, if every vote must count you of course will demand a correct counting of popular vote totals in caucus states, right?

]]> By: David Parsons http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141807 David Parsons Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:30:29 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141807 And Obama has the lead if you think that voter suppression is a good idea (and don't particularly care about the 37 EVs that will end up going to the Republicans as a result of it.) I think I prefer the traditional math where you add up all of the votes that have been cast, thanks. And Obama has the lead if you think that voter suppression is a good idea (and don’t particularly care about the 37 EVs that will end up going to the Republicans as a result of it.) I think I prefer the traditional math where you add up all of the votes that have been cast, thanks.

]]> By: memyself http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141806 memyself Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:03:04 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141806 If Obama's performance through May 20th is within even 5 points of his current polling he will have won a majority of the total pledged delegates. There are quite a few super delegates who have said they believe that they should vote for whoever wins the pledged delegate count. Between his already decided win in that category plus immense pressure coming from leadership these folks will probably declare. He will be very close to 2025 at that point and may be over. Hillary has the most votes if you count the dictator like race where she had no meaningful opposition on the ballot and DO NOT count the caucus states. Otherwise - not so much. News stories making fun of Clintonian mathematics are prevalent. No one buys that spin except her most ardent supporters. After NC she's not likely to even maintain that fictional "special math" lead. If Obama’s performance through May 20th is within even 5 points of his current polling he will have won a majority of the total pledged delegates. There are quite a few super delegates who have said they believe that they should vote for whoever wins the pledged delegate count. Between his already decided win in that category plus immense pressure coming from leadership these folks will probably declare. He will be very close to 2025 at that point and may be over.

Hillary has the most votes if you count the dictator like race where she had no meaningful opposition on the ballot and DO NOT count the caucus states.

Otherwise - not so much. News stories making fun of Clintonian mathematics are prevalent. No one buys that spin except her most ardent supporters. After NC she’s not likely to even maintain that fictional “special math” lead.

]]> By: zuzu http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141799 zuzu Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:43:27 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141799 <i>and yet there remains that little math problem that some love to ignore:</i> What, that neither Clinton nor Obama can get to the magic 2025 without the intervention of the superdelegates? and yet there remains that little math problem that some love to ignore:

What, that neither Clinton nor Obama can get to the magic 2025 without the intervention of the superdelegates?

]]> By: David Parsons http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141796 David Parsons Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:22:39 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141796 And yet more people have voted for her in this primary than have voted for any other Democratic candidate. Funny how that works. Oh, and I believe your delegate counts are wrong, too. And yet more people have voted for her in this primary than have voted for any other Democratic candidate. Funny how that works.

Oh, and I believe your delegate counts are wrong, too.

]]> By: memyself http://susiemadrak.com/2008/04/24/15/06/heh-45/#comment-141785 memyself Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:02:46 +0000 http://susiemadrak.com/?p=24620#comment-141785 and yet there remains that little math problem that some love to ignore: "before the Pennsylvania, Sen. Hillary Clinton needed to get at least 63% of the vote in the remaining states to have a chance to win more delegates than Sen. Barack Obama. Clinton now needs 296 of the remaining 435 delegates up for grabs (or approximately 68% of the vote.) In contrast, Obama needs 140 of the remaining 435 to have the majority (or about 32% of the vote.) Therefore, despite her win in the Keystone State, the results have in fact made it less likely Clinton can win." http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/04/pennsylvania-win-makes-clinton.html and yet there remains that little math problem that some love to ignore:

“before the Pennsylvania, Sen. Hillary Clinton needed to get at least 63% of the vote in the remaining states to have a chance to win more delegates than Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton now needs 296 of the remaining 435 delegates up for grabs (or approximately 68% of the vote.) In contrast, Obama needs 140 of the remaining 435 to have the majority (or about 32% of the vote.)

Therefore, despite her win in the Keystone State, the results have in fact made it less likely Clinton can win.”

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/04/pennsylvania-win-makes-clinton.html

]]>