Whose shameless spinning is this? Scroll to next page for answer:
However, the popular vote is a deeply flawed and illegitimate metric for deciding the nominee – since each campaign based their strategy on the acquisition of delegates. More importantly, the rules of the nomination are predicated on delegates, not popular vote.
[...] Essentially, the popular vote is not much better as a metric than basing the nominee on which candidate raised more money, has more volunteers, contacted more voters, or is taller.
David Plouffe, Obama campaign manager, in a memo today to superdelegates.
Talk about moving the goalposts….
the whole memo does a far better job of explaining their position.
It also has some nice quote from the clinton campaign about how delegates are what matter.
but I know how hrc supporters are relying on changing rules after the fact to change the outcome of the race.
–ooops, i said “race”!!!
gotta go, time for my afternoon latte and biscotti.
cannot wait to get home and watch PBS tonight!
Man, I HATE white working people–and white women, I really, really hate white women!
why is this moving the goalposts? i mean, it is a contest over delegates, is it not? that’s what the contest has been all along and that’s what both campaigns have supposedly been aiming for when they planned their strategy.
“moving the goalposts” is when the campaign says the goal is X at one time and then later says the goal is Y. has there ever been a time that the obama campaign said it wasn’t about delegates? unless you can show that, you haven’t shown it’s about moving the goalposts.
as i’ve said before, the big problem with this campaign is that the press has pretended that this race is about something other than collective delegates. unless it is a winner-take-all system like the electoral college, concepts like “winning states” are completely meaningless in this race and yet thats all the media and pundits seem to talk about. the fact that plouffe knows what the contest is, despite all the spin in the other direction, is a point in his favor.
yep,
the rules were the rules, and HRC thought she was the anointed one.
Just like bush had no plan for iraq the day after the government fell, hrc had no plan for what to do after super tuesday.
she agreed to the rules vis-a-vis Mi and Fl until she decided to focus on these ridiculous scenarios whereby she thinks she can somehow pull this off.
but the math isn’t going to add up, and try as she might, she is not going to be able to claim that WVa is representative of the rest of the country.
So what are we left with again?
all politicians and their campaigns spin?
this is an argument in favor of one candidate over another?
weak.
I don’t see the goalposts moving, the attempt keeps getting longer & out of her reach. McGovern tells her to drop out, she lends herself another $6.4M & even Stephanopoulos says the fight is over. PUNT!
Susie,
Here’s a challenge, show me where the rules of the party state that the winner is based on popular vote. The nominee gains the nomination by winning the most delegates. Period.
If the the nominee was decided based on popular vote the candidates would place all their resources in big states and try to run up totals as high as possible. It’s not, it’s based on winning delegates that are assigned proportionately by district. The smart candidates plan their campaign accordingly.
You may not like this but those are the rules. My daughter gets upset when we play board games and the rules cause her to lose. She’s only 8 years old so I understand this behavior coming from her but your an adult you don’t have that excuse.
That said, Obama will win the popular vote count, so it’s time to let that irrelevant argument fall into the dustbin of taylor marsh’s wild imagination.
Oh, the answer to this question Whose shameless spinning is this? is Susie.
The nominee gains the nomination by winning the most delegates. Period.
And merely being ahead in pledged delegates does not equal winning the most delegates. There’s a magic number, and neither one, neither Clinton *nor* Obama, will reach it prior to the convention.
This thing’s being decided by superdelegates, and they don’t have to follow any rules at all in making their decision.
This thing’s being decided by superdelegates, and they don’t have to follow any rules at all in making their decision.
Correct and Obama received 4 super delegate endorsements today including Jennifer McClellan who switched form Clinton to Obama. Clinton received one, but nets zero due to McClellan’s move.
McGovern asked her to step down, so I assume he’ll be changing his vote to Obama.
Hillary needs 2 super delegates for every super that announces for Obama, that is not going to happen.
This is over, I understand your disappointment, but trying to dream up scenarios where Clinton will win is a waste of time.
Axelrod does micromarketing, right? In his day job? Just asking.
“Spinning” is, by any definition, inherently shameless.
No matter who does it or how it’s done.
We should all pay far less attention to these hirelings than we do.
hey lambert?
when you’re getting paid $10.00 to post”why won’t the bitch drop out” over and over again, you kinda lose your credibility.
Kthxbye.
And merely being ahead in pledged delegates does not equal winning the most delegates. There’s a magic number, and neither one, neither Clinton *nor* Obama, will reach it prior to the convention.
This thing’s being decided by superdelegates, and they don’t have to follow any rules at all in making their decision.
all of that is true. and yet, none of that contradicts what plouffe wrote in his memo to the supers, nor does it show how by writing that memo he has “moved the goalposts”.
i’m really curious to find out where susie thought the obama campaign put the goalpost before and how it is any different in plouffe’s statement.
To continue that article: “A Fair Plan” by John Baer, Phila. Daily News
why are you pasting all of that into the comments, t-bone?
susie already linked to that very same piece earlier today.
hrc - in defending her fight to the finish - states it is a 50 state election…I guess now all states matter…sorta…kinda…
brendancalling burbles:
Gore/Edwards 08
Hillary’s problem is that after last night’s thumping in NC, she can’t win either the pledged delegate count or the popular vote. So, the only hope she has is that the superdelegates ignore both of those metrics and give her the nomination anyway. The irony here is that such an outcome would fly directly in the face of HRC’s argument that the popular vote is the critical metric. She is toast, and she lacks the grace or class to get out of the race. Check out this video from today if you want to see a sore loser in action–
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMlfYgbOLVs
Okay, kids. Remember that whole thing about that guy winning the popular vote, but not the electoral college, and how it kinda sucked?
To me, it sounds like Obama’s campaign is saying that no, they didn’t win the popular vote, but who cares?
(And isn’t Clinton ahead in the states with the most electoral college votes, anyway?)
actually, the “micro-trend” guy is hrc’s fired campaign guy, mark penn.
nice try though trolly…
No, Lambert, you’re confused. Axlerod is the guy who does “astroturfing” for corporations!
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080314_121054.htm
uh, sorry, but I’m a very linear sorta clown.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
The rules were, the candidate with the most delegates (incl. supers) wins.
Both campaigns, if they were smart, focused on the delegates.
Candidate O does a better job of acquiring hits (delegates) than Candidate HRC.
Candidate HRC then says, “Wait-a-minnit! In a democracy, popular vote is the only acceptable metric! Wheee! I win!”
Candidate O then Opines, thru Campaign Manager P, “Wait-a-minnit! We all agreed that *hits* were what counted! What’s this Vox Populi, Baby?”
To recap: I’m very linear. Tell me again who is “moving the goalposts”?
uh, and because I’m such a naively linear clown, explain it in simple terms that I can understand, please. I’m not very bright.
You’re right, Susie. I have the jargon of the corporate shills mixed up.
Regardless of the jargon, Axelrod was the one I was thinking of. I mean, does he really pay $10 for a comment, or even a post? Because I need to sign up with him. Maybe some of the Obama commenters on this site could put me in touch?
Fermion:
I agree with you in more ways than you’ll ever know.
I love the linear riff, and your impersonation of a low information voter is superb. The part that you’re missing — or seem to be missing — is that “the rules” allow — indeed, even encourage — the SDs to exercise their independent judgment. Judgment is, unfortunately for you, not linear. One factor that might enter into the SDs judgment is the popular vote. It might seem unfair to them that that a candidate with fewer popular votes won the nomination; it would be too much like Bush v Gore in 2000, back when you were in Junior High. Alternatively, they might prefer a younger demographic and a narrower base, because they felt the future of the party was there. Alternatively, they might decide that although candidate A won the the popular vote, candidate B won the states that had to be won to win the electoral vote in the general. See? It’s non-linear. And anybody who thinks that the SDs have a duty to do anything other than exercise their judgment in this matter is either plan ignorant or flat-out lying.
Proforma closing question: Does this help, if that’s possible?
Lambert, I’ll say this for you, you never disappoint: “And anybody who thinks that the SDs have a duty to do anything other than exercise their judgment in this matter is either plan ignorant or flat-out lying.”
Thanks for clearing that up. See, the point is, David Plouffe was accused of “moving the goalposts” for pointing out that the goal from day 1 – according to the party’s own rules – is to get the right number of delegates, not the most votes* – there is no goalpost moving in that. But go ahead and hang on to your last desperate hope that the SuperD’s will come through for you and deliver the country from the candidate of the rabble and hand it to the candidate who so far has redefined “winning” about a dozen times – which, low information voter that I am and all - seems to be the very definition of “moving the goalposts”.
Really, honestly, your candidate ain’t gonna make it. So now if it’s not asking too much, stop pretending to be a Democrat and go do whatever you can to help McCain win (that’ll show us!!!) on wingnut sites.
* And once again, with feeling, go ahead and count FL and MI – if you’re gonna be honest far more people have voted in primaries and cauceses for Obama than Clinton, so even by that metric Obama is ahead. But if we only count votes when they favor Clinton….
Fermion,
Don’t bother with logic and reason, like The Corner and NRO those concepts don’t work here.
But lambert must be proud now that he sits beside Jonah Goldberg as one of the biggest idiots on the internet.
Well done lambert!
Hey I said it twice. Thought I was banned because your crappy blog keeps giving an error when I post. Fix it!
Lambert,
Here’s what I don’t get– Last night Hillary fell behind by another 200,000 in the popular vote. She isn’t to catch Obama in that metric or any other. So why are you still hanging your hopes on the popular vote theme?
And given that Hillary and her supporters have made such a big deal out of the popular vote, you’re in no position to expect that the SD’s should ignore the pledged delegate count AND the popular vote and give HRC the nomination anyway. She is going to lose on both counts.
Goalpost moving? Yeah, there’s been plenty of that:
* Clinton Conference Call With Reporters, January 9, 2008
WOLFSON: I guess one other thing I’d add is that, as you know, this is a race for delegates. And we currently enjoy a lead in delegates …and we believe that we will do very well in the states between now and February 5th and on February 5th. But this is a delegate race.
* MSNBC Appearance By Communications Director Howard Wolfson, January 25, 2008.
WOLFSON: we have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates. It’s a race that we are ahead in. We have more delegates than Senator Obama.
…[WOLFSON] We think that we are in the poll position because we have a lead, overall, in delegates. We think it is going to be very difficult for Senator Obama to make up that lead because of the way in which the party allocates its delegates proportionately.
* Clinton Conference Call With Reporters, February 6, 2008
Senator Obama does enjoy some advantages in the contests in the rest of February, but not in a way that should permit him to overcome our lead in delegates.
* Clinton News Teleconference, January 9, 2008
MCAULIFFE: I’ve said from day one, and this is the point I tried to make yesterday on television when everybody was asking me questions about after Iowa and New Hampshire what happens, I’ve always viewed it sort of as a 27-state contest.
But, listen, I always said we’re going to win some, we’re going to lose some. And at the end of the day it’s getting a basket of delegates.
Touché, memyself. Touché. Clintons, moving the goalposts. Right there in black and white. Game. Set. Match.
Fermion “The rules were, the candidate with the most delegates (incl. supers) wins.”
No, that’s not what the rules say.
The standing rule in Democratic conventions from time immemorial is that the candidate who garners at least 50% +1 of the delegates wins he nomination — not the candidate who leads in the delegate count in early May. FYI, that particular “50% +1″ threshold is 2,209 delegates if we count Michigan and Florida, or 2,024 if those two states are excluded (which IMHO is also political suicide for Democrats, but that’s for another discussion).
So until Sen. Obama finally surpasses that milepost, you can rest assured that he hasn’t won a damn thing.
Lambikins:
that wasn’t exactly a denial, was it lambert? you and armstrong williams go have your fun now.
The posters on this blog are pretty consistently disrespectful to their host. I don’t understand why, if you find Susie’s posts so repulsive and stupid, you keep returning and echo chambering each other to death. It’s really tedious, in addition to being inconsiderate. Susie isn’t mendacious or stupid or evil. Cut some slack, Jacks.
Watchu talkin’ ’bout sheesh? It’s in the nature of blog commenting to voice agreement or disagreement about posts made, especially when they don’t seem to the commentator to hold water. That in itself is not disrespectful. And I don’t see where most posts in this thread itself are disrespectful to Susie … maybe to Lambert in a few places, but he’s rather … disputacious ^_^ … himself these days, no?
Susie’s been a prolific and interesting post-er for years, as many here well know. Maybe at some point some of the rancor of this primary season will pass, and things will be a little less intense in the left blogosphere generally. Let’s hope.