Suburban Guerrilla

« Yay

Rev. Wright To Preach Revival in Philadelphia »

So The Press Tells Candidates When To Quit?

Apr 30th, 2008 at 1:58 pm by Susie

Eric Boehlert on the unprecedented drive by the media to decide the Democratic primary.

Posted in Media, Politics As Usual

39 Responses to “So The Press Tells Candidates When To Quit?”

on 30 Apr 2008 at 2:12 pm1Linkmeister

Have you ever heard a broadcast of the Ignoble Awards? The tool used to cut off acceptance speeches is a little recording which says (in a squeaky voice): “Please Stop. I’m Bored.”

Similar dynamic here, I think.
on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:01 pm2snuzy mandrake

well, first this is hardly something only the press is doing. a lot of politicians have also called clinton to drop out.

and second, boehlert doesn’t address the reasons that people think she should drop out: that she has little to no chance of actually winning. in other words, the people calling for a clinton concession would disagree with the premise in boehlert’s second sentence, they would argue that clinton’s campaign is not, in fact, “comptetitive” because she can’t win.

actually, i think the bigger problem is the media’s failure to report on the most basic point about the primary race: this is a race for delegates. there’s no such thing as “winning” a state when delegates are assigned proportionately by district. indeed, clinton is credited with “winning” nevada even though obama got the most delegates from that race. similarly, obama is said to have “won” missouri even though the delegate assignment was a tie. the media keeps treating this like it is the electoral college, when in fact it’s quite different. as a result, although obama essentially got an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates in february, the press reported it as if he simply “won” a bunch of small-to-medium size states. because the media doesn’t report the contest for what it is, a race for delegates not for states, the entire narrative of the race is distorted
on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:40 pm3DrexelDem

To follow up on Snuzy’s points, I’d add that Boehlert also completely failed to mention the Huckabee campaign. The MSM was openly derisive of Huckabee, and once McCain more or less wrapped it up on super tuesday, the calls for Huckabee to quit were all over the place. I like Boehlert, but to ignore that obvious counter example to the idea that it’s “Clinton rules” at play behind the calls to drop out is, well, not good.

Furthermore, just about everything about this primary is unprecedented. But with regards to the media making a candidate drop out, there actually is a precedent. Mike Huckabee.

I think that the only reason that Clinton can continue and be taken seriously is because the Clintons are royalty of the party. If the tables were turned, and Obama ended February 160 delegates behind with essentially no path to victory, his candidacy would have been over a while ago.

Susie, any thoughts on the Women’s Voices Women’s Votes shenanigans?
on 30 Apr 2008 at 3:59 pm4brendancalling

“unprecedented”?

Umm, I guess you were somewhere else in 2000 and 2004?
on 30 Apr 2008 at 4:10 pm5Historiann

Yes, in the end this is a race for delegates–pledged and unpledged. So I’m assuming that no one here will scream bloody murder if the Superdelegates decide the race for Clinton, because she’s proved her greater electability in key states although she may still come up a few dozen pledged delegates short? That’s the rules, after all, Snuzy–the Superdelegates can do whatever they darn well please. At this point, the race is for the Superdelegates. This last month of campaigning and primaries is for some pledged delegates, but the wider subtext is all about electability and who has the strength and stamina to make it through the general campaign. Neither Clinton nor Obama will cross the finish line without the help of the Superdelegates, and you can be sure that those Superdelegates can read the recent polls showing Obama’s national lead collapsing and his once formidable lead in NC declining, and Clinton’s lead in Indiana persisting and even growing. He may yet turn things around–then again, if she wins big in IN and only loses narrowly in NC, he may not.

Bohlert’s history lesson is execellent, by the way, although (like brendancalling) I think some mention of the “Dean scream” of 2004 and the terrible condescention Al Gore suffered is warranted. (But the 2000 and 2004 primaries wrapped up pretty early by comparison.) Gee, I wonder what’s different about Hillary Clinton? I wonder what makes the treatment she’s received in the press and by her own party members so different than the respect afforded even longshot primary candidates? I’m still scratching my head on that one…
on 30 Apr 2008 at 5:21 pm6brendancalling

drexel dem: “But with regards to the media making a candidate drop out, there actually is a precedent. Mike Huckabee.”

And let’s not forget ron paul’s supporters who took over the Nevada state party convention the other day. Paul was ridiculed by the media, and was never a serious candidate (they said). And yet his supporters are not going away, and I don’t believe Paul has dropped out either.

Like Drexel Dem, I am also interested in any thoughts on “the Women’s Voices Women’s Votes shenanigans”.
on 30 Apr 2008 at 5:34 pm7snuzy mandrake

So I’m assuming that no one here will scream bloody murder if the Superdelegates decide the race for Clinton, because she’s proved her greater electability in key states although she may still come up a few dozen pledged delegates short?

actually, she’s probably going to be over 100 pledged delegates short (she’s currently 150 pledged delegates behind). obama has such a large lead, there’s really no way for her to catch up.

oh, and it is also quite possible for obama to “lose” indiana (i.e. lose the popular vote there) but still get more delegates than clinton. the delegate-rich districts are districts that have historically voted democrat in the past. indiana is one of the reddest states in the midwest. the only blue bits are in the heavily black suburban chicago area, indianapolis and the area around indiana university. those places are the places with most of the delegates and those are all places that obama is likely to do well at (especially in the gary-hammond area in the NW)

and the fact is that superdelegates are not heavily breaking in clinton’s direction. just today, obama picked up two more. politico reported today that the 80 or so congressional supers who are still officially uncommitted are privately supporting obama and will commit just after the last vote in early june.
on 30 Apr 2008 at 5:35 pm8snuzy mandrake

drexel dem: “But with regards to the media making a candidate drop out, there actually is a precedent. Mike Huckabee.”

or john edwards. plenty of people demanded he drop out from the moment he came in second in the iowa caucus.
on 30 Apr 2008 at 5:42 pm9Zon

Snuzy, you said:
boehlert doesn’t address the reasons that people think she should drop out: that she has little to no chance of actually winning

On the contrary, Boehlert does explicitly refer to other candidates who had no chance of winning but who were not called upon to drop out (e.g., Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy). Candidacies can be symbolic, and there is nothing wrong with that. Or, candidates can try to win, and there is nothing wrong with that either. (Unless it is Hillary, in which case “she will do anything to win” is said derisively– as if all politicians don’t want to win.)

I actually think that the reason some people want her to drop out is because her candidacy threatens Obama– not because she has no chance of winning. If she had gotten only 25% of the vote rather than nearly 50%, no one would be strenuously demanding that she get out, because she would not be relevant. The fact that she is still garnering a large percentage of votes indicates that she is relevant. Despite the fact that she will not win the nomination (in my view), a lot of voters still want to show their support for her candidacy. So why not let them do it? (Perhaps because it shows Obama’s weakness?)
on 30 Apr 2008 at 5:45 pm10zuzu

and second, boehlert doesn’t address the reasons that people think she should drop out: that she has little to no chance of actually winning.

Did we read the same article? He made the point explicitly that no one ever has been asked to drop out before they’re ready, regardless of whether they have a realistic chance of winning.

I’m sure people *thought* that Jackson or Kennedy or Hart should have dropped out because they had no realistic chance of winning. But the point that Boehlert is making is that there was no concerted media campaign to actually get them to quit. So why should Clinton be treated any differently than Jesse Jackson or Gary Hart?
on 30 Apr 2008 at 5:51 pm11Zon

DrexelDem, you said:
I think that the only reason that Clinton can continue and be taken seriously is because the Clintons are royalty of the party.

Let me offer another possibility: I take Clinton seriously because she is the first ever viable female candidate for president. I respect that, I respect the work she has done on behalf of women and families, and I wanted to support that with my vote (even though I know she won’t win). I think a lot of other women feel that way, and they are voting for her in large numbers. Are you arguing that I and other like-minded women should be deprived of the opportunity to make that symbolic vote?
on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:11 pm12Historiann

Zon, you are right–the shrieks and screams for WWTSBQ (as they say at Corrente) get louder the more she wins. (What else can explain that odd editorial the New York Times ran the very night she clinched PA by nearly 10%?) But Gary Hart presumably was just as competitive, and although 1984 was a little before my political memory formed, I believe his supporters were very passionate about him and eager to see him win. (Although, to be fair: Fritz Mondale may have saved him from nearly as great a humiliation in the general election as Mondale suffered!)
on 30 Apr 2008 at 6:13 pm13Bob

Historiann @ 5: “So I’m assuming that no one here will scream bloody murder if the Superdelegates decide the race for Clinton…”
I will. Haven’t seen you in comments before but this has been covered quite a bit here. I won’t bother with the long version but the superdelegates are part of the process - I understand that. They are also most decidedly anti-democratic part of the process. If Obama goes to Denver with a clear lead in popular vote and delegates and the SD’s overturn the clear preference of the majority of the people who voted in the Democratic primaries they will tear the Democratic coalition apart and destroy the party’s ability to win for at least the 2 or 3 elections. If I wanted to belong to a party where the nomination was decided by party insiders I’d be fighting for that. I want to belong to a party that practices democracy.
on 30 Apr 2008 at 7:30 pm14David Parsons

The two candidates are basically tied right now (Ms. Clinton has a tiny edge in the popular vote, Mr. Obama has a slightly larger edge in the delegate vote) so it’s not going to be as simple as that. What if Ms. Clinton rolls up large enough victories in the remaining states so she’s got a clear lead in the popular vote and the only thing keeping Mr. Obama competitive in the delegate vote is his vote suppression in Michigan and Florida? Would it then “tear the party apart” if the superdelegates decided to make up for the disenfranchisement of Fl and Mi by voting en bloc for Ms. Clinton?

You can dream up scenarios that set up a straw man against one candidate or another, then claim that nominating the straw man will tear the party apart, but those scenarios are just dreams and should not influence either candidate’s decision to pursue the nomination up to the moment where they start taking the vote for the party nominee at the convention. Either of them can win. They both have convincing narratives to sway the superdelegates to their side. The ongoing wall of sexist revulsion from the media about having A! Girl! sullying their dream narrative of Manly Man™ vs wimp (with the Republican old white guy as the Manly Man™) is not, and should not be, one of those narratives.
on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:25 pm15Historiann

Thanks, David Parsons–better than what I could have said.

The Superdelegates are anti-democratic–but then so are caucuses, and rejiggering delegate counts on the basis of how loyal a district has been in the past, rather than allocating them according to the strict divide of the popular vote. I’m all for abolishing the Superdelegates–but this year, this is what we’re stuck with.
on 30 Apr 2008 at 8:39 pm16white_n_az

Bob @ 13…Inventing the scenario and wrapping yourself in the cloak of democracy doesn’t seem to consider that more people have voted for Hillary than Obama so far. Just sayin’

The problem with Obama is that he is tanking big time. He is not electable. He may win NC in a squeaker but he’s got a 35% head start but he will go down in Indiana by double digits, big double digits in WV, KY and his only prospect of any brightness remaining is OR.

I think that if Obama wins the nomination but gets crushed in November (my expectation), that scenario would be extremely damaging to the party.
on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:29 pm17DrexelDem

Some responses.

Zon @ 11:Are you arguing that I and other like-minded women should be deprived of the opportunity to make that symbolic vote?

No, by all means, make your symbolic votes. It would be nice if Clinton could run a campaign for those symbolic votes without calling the likely Democratic nominee totally unqualified and an elitist racist, but hey, I’m young and naive, and don’t understand how the REAL politics works.

David Parsons @ 14:The two candidates are basically tied right now (Ms. Clinton has a tiny edge in the popular vote, Mr. Obama has a slightly larger edge in the delegate vote) so it’s not going to be as simple as that. [BREAK] …the only thing keeping Mr. Obama competitive in the delegate vote is his vote suppression in Michigan and Florida?

People won’t take you seriously when you say things like that. I won’t respond to the “substance” of this charge, as it’s pretty obvious to all but those most inebriated on the Clinton kool-aid.

white_n_az @ 16: The problem with Obama is that he is tanking big time. He is not electable. [BREAK] I think that if Obama wins the nomination but gets crushed in November (my expectation), that scenario would be extremely damaging to the party.

I’d like to stress my sincere belief that BOTH Clinton or Obama could defeat McCain in November. All the fraidy cat Democrats who see shadows of Rove everywhere they go notwithstanding, Bush and the Republicans are horribly unpopular for obvious reasons. Once we have a nominee and train our fire on John McSame the white house is ours.

And to Susie in the post above this, telling us all to “grow the fuck up” for expressing concern about a group ostensibly out to register single women (who, as Bowers noted earlier, are not actually a core Clinton demographic) were calling African Americans in Virginia and North Carolina telling them that they needed to vote…after the deadline. Yeah, nothing to be concerned about there, just move along!

Have you listened to the “Lamont Williams” phone call? That’s not a legitimate robocall. Besides the incompetent targeting and missed deadlines, the call doesn’t identify the organization.

I’m beginning to think that “Clinton Derangement Syndrom” doesn’t mean what you all think it means…
on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:37 pm18snuzy mandrake

Ms. Clinton has a tiny edge in the popular vote

actually, she doesn’t. or, at least she only does if you count both FL and MI, and don’t give obama any votes from MI at all and if you don’t fully count all the caucuses. if you count all the contests where both clinton and obama were on the ticket, obama is ahead by about 300k votes and clinton is unlikely to make up that difference in the remaining contests.

nd the only thing keeping Mr. Obama competitive in the delegate vote is his vote suppression in Michigan and Florida?

that’s not true either. if FL and MI had counted (and estimating the obama vote in MI using the % of people who say they favored obama in the exit polling), clinton would still be over 100 pledged delegates behind. it’s a proportionate system. clinton’s “big win” in PA barely netted her many delegates. the bottom line is that obama got an insurmountable lead when he swept 11 contests in a row in february. FL and MI wouldn’t change that, which is all the more reason that i am disappointed that obama didn’t get behind a revote for FL and MI.
on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:48 pm19Susie

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/30/201822/287
on 30 Apr 2008 at 11:33 pm20David Parsons

#17,#18. Jerome Armstrong wrote something a few days back about the popular vote totals, using figures he got from a right wing weblog (not the sort of site you’d expect to take much interest in either Democratic candidate, other than to see them crushed into the ground) and it showed a slight (~12000 votes) Clinton lead in the popular vote and a slight (~9) Obama lead in the delegate count. I realize that the Obama campaign is engaged in a massive voter suppression campaign, but (a) there’s no question that people voted in Florida and Michigan and (b) voter suppression is a Republican game, and I’m not going to play Republican games, PARTICULARLY not the sort of Republican game that the GOP used to overthrow the democratically elected government of thr United States in 2000.
on 01 May 2008 at 12:31 am21white_n_az

snuzy…

actually, she doesn’t. or, at least she only does if you count both FL and MI, and don’t give obama any votes from MI at all and if you don’t fully count all the caucuses. if you count all the contests where both clinton and obama were on the ticket, obama is ahead by about 300k votes and clinton is unlikely to make up that difference in the remaining contests.

and IF pigs had wings they still couldn’t fly.

Someone would have to be completely stupid not to realize the details of MI (where the dude stupidly removed his name from the ballot so of course he didn’t get any votes). FL was the same for both completely ignoring that he ran ads in FL and actually talked to reporters after a fundraiser last November in violation of the party rules but nevertheless…

In terms of votes cast…Hillary is leading. You can put any spin on it that you wish but all it does is deny the truthfulness of that statement.

Those numbers include all published counts of both primaries and caucuses.

I could just as easily bring up the fact that if the Democrats operated by the Republican rules (winner take all), this primary would be over and Hillary would have closed Obama out but of course that is not the rules that we are going by.

More to the issue, when you’ve got democrats rejecting Obama’s endorsement (MI), Obama tanking in white voter support (last Survey USA had him at 30% in NC), Hillary clearly demonstrating greater strength against McCain (electoral-vote.com and the latest AP/IPSOS poll), it’s clear who the stronger candidate will be in November.

I was under the impression that Dems actually wanted to win this time.
on 01 May 2008 at 8:44 am22Zon

DrexelDem:
No, by all means, make your symbolic votes. It would be nice if Clinton could run a campaign for those symbolic votes without calling the likely Democratic nominee totally unqualified and an elitist racist, but hey, I’m young and naive, and don’t understand how the REAL politics works.

I didn’t call you young and naive (perhaps we’re the same age, for all I know) and I didn’t imply that you don’t understand real politics. C’mon, don’t put words in my mouth. All I’m saying is, there are a lot of people who want to cast votes for Clinton for a variety of reasons, including the fact that feminism really matters to them— so let the race go on and let the chips fall where they may. Sounds like democracy to me.

Clinton has not called Obama “totally unqualified” or an “elitist racist”. Her campaign has at times gone more negative than I would wish, but frankly both campaigns have attacked one another, and this is all to be expected in a political campaign. Obama has been questioning Clinton’s character and judgment since the beginning of the campaign– again, fair game for such a contest, I think. In any case, Clinton has made it very clear in recent days that Democrats should rally behind the nominee. However, it seems that until she totally falls on her sword, some people will stick with the “she will do anything to win” narrative rather than consider alternative possibilities (like, that she has constituencies who deserve the opportunity to voice their support through voting).
on 01 May 2008 at 10:30 am23Bob

Of all people who have shown up at caucuses or cast a vote in a primary Obama has a lead of somewhere between 1 - 2.5 million votes. Popular vote totals listed in caucuses are grossly undercounted. The only way you can show Clinton having a lead is by pretending undercounts don’t exist and including FL and MI - the latter a state in which Fidel Castro Sen. Clintons was the only name on the ballot.
But keep screaming about democracy and counting every vote. The twisting and manipulating necessary to call Clinton the leader in popular speaks volumes regarding your view of democracy. I’ll give you all a hint: “Clinton Regardless of the Cost” is not the rallying cry of lovers of democracy.
on 01 May 2008 at 10:47 am24Bob

One last point regarding the straw man argument that I’m using a straw man argument: actually, no – you all are wrong. I’m not dreaming up some unlikely scenario. The only way Clinton goes to Denver with a lead in popular vote is by A. her running the table from here with something in the neighborhood of 80% and/or B. forcing the DNC to include vote totals from MI and FL – the former a state in which hers was the only name on the ballot – Castro would be so proud! A real democratic action that would be.
I am not grasping at straws or creating far-fetched scenarios. What I’m doing is paying attention to actual vote totals. You can talk all day about Clinton getting 80% of the vote in some remaining state all you want – I can’t say it’s impossible – I can say it ain’t gonna happen. But we’ll wait and see. And after the last primary when all the splits fell within 50/50 – 55/45 all you smug Clinton supporters will feign surprise and act as though it was realistic to assume she could hit that 80+% figure.
Who is grasping at straws and who is dealing with real numbers and realistic outcomes?
Oh, David Parsons @ 20 – including information Jerome Armstrong (already rolling my eyes in disbelief) took from some wingnut site (because, hey, they have no vested interest in any of this – rolling my eyes so aggressively they just popped out of my head and down the hall) to “prove” Clinton has a lead in the popular vote is about as disingenuous as it comes. CDS lives.
on 01 May 2008 at 12:08 pm25David Parsons

Bob, are you trying to talk me into agreeing that voter suppression is a *good* thing by insulting me and claiming that Ms. Clinton is a /communist/?

I do not think this is likely to be any more successful than insults and calling Ms. Clinton a Republican has been.
on 01 May 2008 at 12:34 pm26zuzu

actually, she doesn’t. or, at least she only does if you count both FL and MI, and don’t give obama any votes from MI at all and if you don’t fully count all the caucuses.

The DNC can’t simply discount vote totals certified by Secretaries of State. Its remedies are limited to stripping delegates. The votes are out there, and they’re valid, no matter whether Florida and Michigan are seated at the convention.

As for Michigan: Yes, absolutely, those votes should count. Obama voluntarily removed his name from the ballot. Why should Clinton be penalized (or, more importantly, why should the voters who voted for her be disenfranchised0 just because he lost a game of political chicken?
on 01 May 2008 at 12:52 pm27Bob

David: I really try to honor Susie’s rules on civility in comments but when you twist all I wrote above into my saying Clinton is a communist all I can say - in all honesty and sincerity - is you are either a moron or a liar.
zuzu - Go ahead - count MI. That will prove beneficial to the Democratic Party by taking the African-American candidate who played by the rules and actually followed through with the pledge he signed and did what all the candidates said they would do and received more popular and delegate votes overall and letting him know a really comfortable seat has been reserved for him in the back of the bus and in no way shape or form should anyone view that as a slight, no siree bub, he just has to “wait his turn”…..
I swear for commenter’s on a site who seem so sure of their political acumen the degree of self-delusion practiced here is stunning.
Clinton at all Costs!!!!
on 01 May 2008 at 5:10 pm28zuzu

zuzu - Go ahead - count MI. That will prove beneficial to the Democratic Party by taking the African-American candidate who played by the rules and actually followed through with the pledge he signed and did what all the candidates said they would do and received more popular and delegate votes overall and letting him know a really comfortable seat has been reserved for him in the back of the bus and in no way shape or form should anyone view that as a slight, no siree bub, he just has to “wait his turn”…..

Bob, you really need to read the pledge and the DNC rules. Obama didn’t have to withdraw his name from the ballot; all the candidates pledged to do was what they were already bound to do under the DNC rules (20.C.1.b if you bother to look them up), which was not to “campaign” in any state that broke the timing rules, as that term was defined in the rules.

If the pledge required candidates to withdraw from the ballot in any state that broke the timing rules, why didn’t Obama do so in Florida? Answer: he never had to, just as he never had to do so in Michigan. Plus, under Florida election law, if he withdrew his name from the primary ballot, he’d have had to have withdrawn it from Michigan.

Mind you, far from following all the rules, Obama’s press conference in Florida may very well have violated the ban on campaigning, which means that the DNC is within its rights to strip any Florida delegates from him even if they seat the state delegation.

Also, I wonder if you’ve given the slightest consideration to how all these bloodcurdling screams for Hillary to drop out BECAUSE SHE’S DESTROYING THE PARTY!!!! even though she’s still competitive and no other candidate in history has ever been pushed to drop out no matter how far behind he was look to women? Because it’s not like women have never been told to step aside for a less-qualified man before.
on 01 May 2008 at 5:11 pm29zuzu

Plus, under Florida election law, if he withdrew his name from the primary ballot, he’d have had to have withdrawn it from Michigan.

Correction: he’d have had to have withdrawn it from the ballot in the general election, not Michigan. Michigan didn’t have such a rule.
on 01 May 2008 at 5:17 pm30snuzy mandrake

The votes are out there, and they’re valid

as i said before in another thread, an election where voters are told before hand that their vote will not count is not a real election. i’ve gotten union elections overturned for the very same reason. there’s no question the press about how the contests wouldn’t count seriously depressed turnout. FL and MI remain the only contests so far (out of the 40 plus) where republican turnout was more than democratic turnout

Why should Clinton be penalized (or, more importantly, why should the voters who voted for her be disenfranchised0 just because he lost a game of political chicken?

because a vote with only one candidate on the ballot is not a valid vote. especially when exit polls show that many voters actually wanted to vote for obama.

but the funny thing about your argument is that you’re acting as if the total number of votes is what this contest is about. it’s not. it’s a race for delegates. the popular vote comes into it only as a pitch to superdelegates to convince them to go to your candidate. essentially it’s saying to the superdelegates: you should honor the preference of the majority of the democrats when making up your mind. but because MI and FL were billed as non-counting votes and because the turnout was depressed, they simply are not good methods for measuring the preference of democrats in that state. that’s doubly so for MI where democrats who prefered obama weren’t permitted to show their preference. you can’t exclude obama supporters in michigan on a technicality when your argument is more of a moral argument than an argument about the actual process for choosing the candidate. it makes no sense.

and yes, it also makes no sense under the “moral argument” to not count michigan or florida democrats at all. i agree with that. but that just means that moral argument itself is weaker. the bottom line is that this is a race for delegates, not overall votes. if you’re trying to use votes to sway superdelegates, you need a stronger case than the clinton-campaign’s spin where not counting all votes in MI is horrible and yet disenfranchising obama supporters in MI is just fine.
on 01 May 2008 at 5:24 pm31Bob

zuzu: Please point to one example of me saying Sen. Clinton should drop out of the race. Arguing the reality of the present vote totals coupled what’s left on the table is not the same as arguing she should drop out.
As for your claim Obama is less qualified, sorry, utter rubbish. Sen. Clinton is a second-term senator with no other political experience. Sen. Obama is a first term senator with time also served in a state legislature. The experience argument is a desperate straw-grasping exercise on the part of people who want Clinton at all costs. That it plays into the hands of the Republican Party should make any so called leftist ashamed to use it, but after watching Clinton and her supporters for the last few months nothing about them any longer carries the capacity for surprise with me.
on 01 May 2008 at 5:34 pm32David Parsons

Bob: “Fidel Castro Sen. Clinton” is what you said, no?

If you’re just going to phone it in, it’s kind of pointless to argue. At least you’re just another guy on on a weblog instead of someone with a newspaper column, and nobody cares if you make ridiculous claims in support(?) of your candidate. The people in the press who are making the same sort of (unfounded, ignorant, and sexist) claims may not get any more traction than you’re getting, but it’s shameful to know that this sort of institutional petulance is now the norm for the forseeable future on the mainstream press.
on 01 May 2008 at 5:40 pm33zuzu

as i said before in another thread, an election where voters are told before hand that their vote will not count is not a real election.

There was a property-tax measure on the ballot, so it wasn’t a pure primary.

And beyond that, 1.7 million Floridians came out to vote in the primary, which smashed prior turnout records for the primary. Are you going to tell them that their votes don’t matter one whit? After 2000, you’re going to tell them that?

In addition, the counting or not counting of their votes (really a misleading characterization, since the only thing the votes might not count for would be for delegate selection) was then, and remains, very much an unsettled question because the Florida Dems were in the process of fighting the nuclear-option decision by the Rules Committee when the primary happened, and they’re currently preparing to bring their case before the Rules Committee, and, failing that, the Credentials Committee or the Convention itself.

because a vote with only one candidate on the ballot is not a valid vote. especially when exit polls show that many voters actually wanted to vote for obama.

There wasn’t only one candidate on the ballot; there was also Gravel, Kucinich and Dodd. Obama shot his own self in the foot on this one; if many voters wanted to vote for Obama, he should have stayed on the ballot so they would have a chance to vote for him.

the bottom line is that this is a race for delegates, not overall votes. if you’re trying to use votes to sway superdelegates, you need a stronger case than the clinton-campaign’s spin where not counting all votes in MI is horrible and yet disenfranchising obama supporters in MI is just fine.

Once more, with feeling: Obama made the choice to take his name off the ballot in Michigan. He doesnt’ get to just count every vote that wasn’t cast for Clinton because a number of those uncommitteds were likely Edwards supporters.

In a primary, it’s often the case that there are states or parts of states in which certain candidates’ names don’t appear on the ballot. And this is usually due to financial constraints or inability to comply with fairly onerous balloting rules. That doesn’t make the results any less valid for those whose names are *on* the ballot.

Face it. Obama rolled the dice, and now his choices are coming back to bite him on the ass. He made a decision that had short-term benefits in Iowa, but is now coming back to haunt him.
on 01 May 2008 at 5:42 pm34zuzu

Sen. Obama is a first term senator with time also served in a state legislature.

How much time is the question. The Illinois legislature meets only four months out of the year, and for the first seven years, his party was out of power. Has he released those legislative records yet?
on 01 May 2008 at 5:45 pm35zuzu

but the funny thing about your argument is that you’re acting as if the total number of votes is what this contest is about. it’s not. it’s a race for delegates. the popular vote comes into it only as a pitch to superdelegates to convince them to go to your candidate. essentially it’s saying to the superdelegates: you should honor the preference of the majority of the democrats when making up your mind.

And the funny thing about *your* argument is that you’re conveniently forgetting that Obama does not clinch the election just by being *ahead* in pledged delegates. You’re conveniently forgetting that *neither* candidate gets to the magic number (2025 or 2209, depending on how Florida and Michigan are counted) without the involvement of superdelegates.

The supers decide this, and the supers are not bound by any rules whatsoever. None. Nada. So they can decide it on pledged delegates, they can decide it on popular vote, they can decide it on momentum, they can decide it on who they think has the better shot in November, or they can simply flip a coin.

Please stop acting as though Obama is entitled to the nomination when he can’t win outright.
on 01 May 2008 at 6:18 pm36Bob

Jonah Goldberg:
Major Premise: Hitler and many top Nazis were vegetarian
Minor Premise: Many modern liberals are vegetarian
Conclusion: Modern liberals are Nazis

David Parsons:
Major Premise: Bob pointed out the ballot in MI only had one name - Clinton
Minor Premise: Bob pointed out the resemblance to elections in communist Cuba where only Castro is on the ballot
Conclusion: Bob said Clinton is a communist

Btw - extra points for working the word “sexist” in. Yeah - it’s clear as could be that I’m being sexist by pointing out only Clinton’s name was on the ballot.
I would provide a syllogism for that but seeing as it’s a laughably ridiculous claim I’ll just let it go. And get back to making sexist arguments about Comrade Clinton.
A few times in the last few days I’ve used the phrase “grasping at straws” – thanks for not making me bad on that.
on 01 May 2008 at 9:28 pm37white_n_az

nice elevation there Bob…

I hope that somewhere in your delusions that you don’t actually think that you do your candidate any favors.
on 02 May 2008 at 9:45 am38snuzy mandrake

Once more, with feeling: Obama made the choice to take his name off the ballot in Michigan.

and

And the funny thing about *your* argument is that you’re conveniently forgetting that Obama does not clinch the election just by being *ahead* in pledged delegates. You’re conveniently forgetting that *neither* candidate gets to the magic number (2025 or 2209, depending on how Florida and Michigan are counted) without the involvement of superdelegates.

The supers decide this, and the supers are not bound by any rules whatsoever. None. Nada. So they can decide it on pledged delegates, they can decide it on popular vote, they can decide it on momentum, they can decide it on who they think has the better shot in November, or they can simply flip a coin.

and i think you are misunderstanding what i am saying. i’ll try one more time:

this is a race for delegates. 80% are pledged, 20% are not (the so-called super-delegates). as you point out, superdelegates can choose a candidate based on whatever criteria they want. they aren’t required to vote any way at all.

obama has an unbridgable lead in the pledged delegates. but his margin isn’t wide enough to win without the superdelegates. and so one pitch that some clinton supporters are making to the superdelegates is that they should support whoever has the most support of democratics overall, not just the person who happens to get the most pledged delegates.

but that brings up the question: how do we measure who has the most support of democrats overall? the polls flip-flop practically every day, never leaving the margin of error. so that’s where the popular vote in the primaries and caucuses that have been held so far comes in. it is the method for measuring the preference of the people.

and what i’m saying is that when you have a race with none of the other major candidates on the ballot except clinton, where the people are told before hand that their primary vote won’t count, where the fact that there were more republican votes than democratic votes in the only two states that had “non-counting” primaries suggesting lower turnout than would have otherwise occurred, where exit polls showed that a substantial percentage of voters preferred candidates who were not on the ballot and who had not dropped out of the race and that, in fact, a portion of clinton voters preferred other viable candidates who were not on the ballot, i submit that means the MI vote is not a good measure for the preference of the people. FL too, although admittedly for not as many reasons as MI.

the fact that obama may have made a bad choice in taking his name of the ballot has nothing to do with the preference of the people. if you’re using the democrats as a whole’s real preference as a pitch to superdelegates to vote a certain way, you need to find a way to measure the preference of voters that isn’t as falty as the MI (and FL to a more limited extent) votes are.

that’s what i mean. and that’s what i meant by “funny” above. obama’s choice to remove himself from the MI ballot is about as relevant to the “follow the majorities preference” pitch as the fact that the state of MI was stripped of all of its pledged delegates. both are technicalities that weren’t good decisions at the time but have no bearing on who the people in MI actually want as their presidential candidate.

as i’ve said many many times before, i would have preferred that MI and FL didn’t have all their delegates stripped from them, and once they were stripped,i wanted to have a rerun in both states. unfortunately that’s not how things went. but the fact that they didn’t go that way doesn’t make the flawed MI and FL votes unflawed. they still are not a good way to measure the actual preference of the democrats in that state.
on 02 May 2008 at 3:15 pm39zuzu

and what i’m saying is that when you have a race with none of the other major candidates on the ballot except clinton, where the people are told before hand that their primary vote won’t count, where the fact that there were more republican votes than democratic votes in the only two states that had “non-counting” primaries suggesting lower turnout than would have otherwise occurred, where exit polls showed that a substantial percentage of voters preferred candidates who were not on the ballot and who had not dropped out of the race and that, in fact, a portion of clinton voters preferred other viable candidates who were not on the ballot, i submit that means the MI vote is not a good measure for the preference of the people. FL too, although admittedly for not as many reasons as MI.

And again: Who was it that voluntarily withdrew his name from the ballot, denying the voters a meaningful choice? Who blocked a revote? That’s the question you’re not answering here.

Why should Clinton be penalized because Obama wanted to play political games? Why should the voters in those states who *did* come out to vote (and 2.3 million of them did) be disenfranchised because Obama played political games and Donna Brazile and the DNC inexplicably went nuclear on their state parties?

Comments RSS

So The Press Tells Candidates When To Quit?

39 Responses to “So The Press Tells Candidates When To Quit?”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Archives

My Liberal Identity:

Categories

Tags

Pages