Clinton Challenges Obama to…a Lincoln-Douglas Debate?
NEW YORK, N.Y. — Lev Raslin and J.P. Gooderham were the first to bring this news item to my attention, and since that time, I’ve received a flood of e-mails with links to a report from the Associated Press that indicates that Senator Hillary Clinton has challenged Senator Barack Obama to a “Lincoln-Douglas style debate.” Before you get too excited, note that Clinton is referring to the original Lincoln-Douglas debates: a format that features no moderator and allows the candidates to pose issues themselves (and to pose them to each other). These debates would be ninety minutes long; the original debates, it should be noted, were well over twice that length.
So, the bottom line: we wouldn’t hear a rousing Obama AC or a killer Clinton spread. (But this format still sounds like a refreshing change from what currently passes as “debates”!)
Popularity: 9%
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 24.6.64.186
April 26th, 2008 18:43
definitely excited to see this if it does happen.
Posted from: 24.215.129.217
April 26th, 2008 19:12
Petition to have Jon Cruz judge this round. (Does no moderator mean no judge?)
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 26th, 2008 19:19
I think I’d be biased. :o)
Posted from: 24.215.130.4
April 26th, 2008 19:21
Jon, who really wants to see Clinton spread?
Posted from: 68.173.139.74
April 26th, 2008 19:48
anon…you and i know that anonymity on vbd is futile.
Posted from: 76.167.241.95
April 26th, 2008 21:12
This would be a mistake for Clinton if it actually took place. She has good momentum coming out of Pennsylvania. Now she’s getting greedy.
Posted from: 74.63.75.227
April 26th, 2008 21:19
are you kidding me? clinton would crush obama
Posted from: 76.167.241.95
April 26th, 2008 22:42
do you think the american public would be sitting at home taking a diligent flow? would they be looking for dropped arguments?
remember in 2000 when al gore looked like a know-it-all and was crushed for it?
Posted from: 68.193.253.36
April 27th, 2008 05:11
The judges would be the American people, who by and large are lay judges. One have to go big picture and definitely avoid PoMo and theory. You can see that a kritik would get Sen. Obama in trouble (the Rev’d Jeremiah Wright card just sucks).
That said, the Clinton proposal, for two minute segments, is rather silly. That sounds more like Public Forum. Maybe Hill and Bill vs. Barak and Michelle.
(New York CC vs. Illinois OO).
BC
Posted from: 66.0.17.228
April 27th, 2008 06:45
anon, you are hilarious, especially because your joke is so original.
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 27th, 2008 06:59
Of course, she’s not really talking about a debate where judges flow; she is talking about the 1800s-style Lincoln-Douglas debates, in which the candidates set the issues and can respond to each other. I don’t know if proposing extra debates is “greedy”; the reality is that he has a huge cash-on-hand advantage right now, and debates generally don’t cost the candidates money. Plus, her performance in the debates seem to be the one place pundits in the media give her a lot of credit — I think there’s only been one debate out of the twenty-one so far where she wasn’t said to be the “winner” or have the “best performance,” etc. — so I can understand why she’d want to have one.
I’ve long been fearful that her policy wonkishness would be condemned in the media, much as Gore’s know-it-all-ness was. (Not to mention that, as we all know, women are held to a different standard in debates in general.) That doesn’t seem to be the case, though, at least among the media elite.
In any case, CNN suggests that she may be making up for the cash difference through an ability to “set the tempo” with more strategic ads, which force the Obama campaign to respond: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/27/ad.buys/index.html
But, ultimately, this debate proposal is all hypothetical, anyway; Obama has already said he won’t have another debate before Indiana and North Carolina vote.
Posted from: 68.193.253.36
April 27th, 2008 08:06
Well, the two-minute speeches HRC proposed don’t count, in my mind, as the constituent elements of a fruitful debate. 5-6-3-4-2 would allow a bit more extensive discourse. Maybe the NFL should offer to sponsor Presidential debates.Perhaps even 6-3-7-3-4-6-3 :)
You could run commercials during Prep Time.
Don’t think that wouldn’t be something I would propose, either :)
BC
Posted from: 67.40.152.116
April 27th, 2008 08:34
Since Sen. Clinton has not shot at winning the nomination without amassing an incredible number of Super D’s through shady means, why would Barry give up anything at this point?
Instead of asking for a debate, she should be asking her people to do some math. Unless she can pull out gigantic margins in EVERY primary from here on out, the ONLY way she can win is with Super D’s selecting her in spite of the majority of democratic voters choosing Barry.
If Sen. Clinton truly believes that her own ambitions are more important than the unity of the Democratic party, then she ought to continue. If she does, it’s going to be a mess here in Denver this summer!
It’s time to get real people. Do we really want John McCain to have a reasonable shot at the Presidency??!?!
Posted from: 74.36.136.254
April 27th, 2008 09:27
Obama will flip neg.
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 27th, 2008 10:05
Just to note: the majority of voters (so far) have actually chosen Senator Clinton. Yes, I understand that delegates were not awarded in Florida and Michigan. But the contests were still preference polls, and people still voted. (No one was told to not enter their names in Michigan. But if you choose not to count Michigan’s votes, Obama has a majority that could be overtaken in the upcoming contests. Since “popular will” has been an important and valid theme put forth by the Obama campaign, it seems fair for the superdelegates to consider the popular vote when making their decisions.)
We’ll see what the final count is once everyone votes. I don’t blame Obama for any of this, obviously, since the delegate system was created ages ago, but I ultimately consider the real shadiness to be the way delegates are awarded in the first place. It’s even more preposterous and undemocratic than the Electoral College. (And I’m glad the NFL chose this very topic as a PF resolution not too long ago!)
Anyway, they both need to win superdelegates, and if that process is shady, it’s shady for both of them, as superdelegates are charged to vote on their conscience and neither of them can without them.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
April 27th, 2008 11:38
the democratic primary has been reduced to gimmicks.
Posted from: 206.111.183.254
April 27th, 2008 12:20
oh reebs…as opposed to the substantive discussion of issues that occurs in…what political forum?
i miss fred thompson. http://www.fred08.com/
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
April 27th, 2008 12:24
Obama is going to run so much theory
Posted from: 67.40.152.116
April 27th, 2008 13:10
Many people in both Florida and Michigan did not show up to the polls because they knew their votes weren’t going to count. Those states chose not to follow the rules set by the DNC. The votes should not count when a state chooses to avoid the rules.
Senator Clinton cannot win the nomination through the system as established. She is simply causing more division and strife because of her own ego. You can click the link for my name if you want to do the math.
The race has been close, but she’s lost. If Clinton and her supporters want to cling on to a glimmer of hope that’ll be based in party backchanneling, so be it. But, when the party is fractured and McCain does the unthinkable and becomes the worst president in American history, the Clinton camp will only have themselves to blame.
Do the math. She cannot win.
It’s time to get to business and show the American people how much of a wretch John McCain will be to us as our leader.
Posted from: 67.163.20.6
April 27th, 2008 13:23
obama won’t run theory. he’d run the project. hilary would run a fem k and maybe theory.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
April 27th, 2008 13:48
dude, that’s why i’m watching the NBA playoffs.
Posted from: 71.33.130.46
April 27th, 2008 14:12
Jon,
Hillary is not leading in the popular vote. She’s leading in the popular vote if:
1. You remove caucus states (tell me how these aren’t preference polls)
2. Add Florida (a state which Hillary agreed wouldn’t count)
3. Add Michigan (a state which Hillary agreed wouldn’t count)
It’s all about counting every vote, right? Except those states that don’t matter and those black votes that the Clinton’s discounted, right? Hillary is running a parody of a real political campaign.
Posted from: 68.173.139.74
April 27th, 2008 15:29
^^ No it’s not.
When were 17 year olds allowed to vote? I don’t care they will turn eighteen by the November election, they aren’t 18 NOW.
I would have no complaints were it standard but this a selective thing like in the Iowa Caucasus.
Posted from: 75.189.154.195
April 27th, 2008 15:29
The only caucus states that are removed for certain purposes of calculating the popular vote are those that either don’t keep a track of individual preferences, or refuse to release those counts. Hence they aren’t really polls of individual preference, but at best polls of the preferences of certain portions of a particular state. The other argument against using caucuses to determine the poplular vote is that they unfairly restrict access to the vote because of the way they ae held. No absentee balloting, you have to appear at a particular time, etc. In Washington, there was both a primary and a caucus, and even though the primary was non binding, there was a vastly larger turnout for the primary. Obama won both, but the primary by a very small margin and the caucus by a much larger one. It should not be suprising that Obama is accused of being elitist and out of touch when much of his success has been built upon caucuses which essentially disenfranchise many working class people who are forced to choose between the vote and a day’s wage because of the way caucuses are held. Obama’s willingness to embrace and defend such an undemccratic and classist system is clear evidence that he is more concerned with winning than making sure we have a process in which everyone’s voice is heard.
As for Florida and Michigan, Clinton never agreed they wouldn’t count. She agreed not to campaign in them, and agreed to the DNC decision to strip them of their delegates, but not of their votes. She did after all choose to keep her name on the ballot in Michigan. It has been clear since the beginning that the delegate ban would not be permanent, and even Obama is open to seating the delegations from both states eventually. He simply wants to disenfranchise the voters there for the purposes of helping him gain the nomination. He has blocked revotes in both states precisely because he knows that if they occur that in all likehood Clinton would wind up with more popular votes. Furthermore, Obama was the only candidate to break the pledge against campaigning in Florida giving a press conference there, as well as running ads there as part of a national TV buy before the primary. No one had to take the pledge and no one had to take their name off the ballot in Michigan. Obama did so because he knew he would lose there and he wanted to delegitimize the results. Clinton kept her name on the ballot in Michigan precisely to make it clear that the votes of all people mattered to her. Obama choose not to do the same for his own reasons. And of course just like every other issue that is problematic for him Obama rather than accept responsibility for his choices he simply complains how unfair anything that doesn’t benefit him.
It seems the Obama camp has little to offer in the way of accurate facts, but a lot to offer in the way of accusations of racism and calls for disenfranchising voters. Obama is lucky he will be running against the Republicans in the fall if he wins, because I am sure they will make him look upstanding in comparison to the tactics they employ. But right now he sure seems interested in giving them a run for their money in that regard.
Posted from: 69.117.58.3
April 27th, 2008 15:54
RJ answers the three points very well, so I don’t have much to add in the way of that.
Posted from: 67.40.152.116
April 27th, 2008 16:49
You’re right — Hillary didn’t campaign in Florida. She just held house parties attended by her elite buddies so that they could compile some additional cash for her campaign.
But, Florida and Michigan are big states. It makes sense that the Clinton campaign believes that they matter more than the rules as set forth by the DNC.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
April 27th, 2008 23:40
The claim that Clinton did not promise that Florida and Michigan wouldn’t count is simply not true. “This election they’re having is not going to count for anything.” (Hillary Clinton, in reference to Michigan, WPost, 10/11/07) When winning Iowa and New Hampshire was top on her agenda she had no problem stating the obvious, which is an election where there is no campaigning and your opponent isn’t on the ballot ought not count. Of course, now that she lost Iowa, and trails in every reasonable metric of success, she has changed her mind. Hillary not only held multiple fundraisers in Florida but also flew into speak on election day–an event which was planned and announced, giving her substantial local media coverage on the day people went to the polls. The only reason Obama had TV ads in Florida (very few of them at that) is because he attempted to make an ad buy that excluded FL and was told it was impossible. At the end of the day anyone who thinks FL and MI fair democratic contests is unquestionably delusional. Saying that a contest where you are the only real candidate on the ballot and your opponent wasn’t allowed to campaign is a fair and democratic sounds like something out of a Baath party press release.
****
Caucuses obviously aren’t perfectly democratic. But the assumption that the nomination process should be perfectly democratic is highly questionable. One advantage caucuses have is that they measure both the breadth and intensity of support. But what was Obama suppose to do? Just not campaign in caucus states and disenfranchise everyone who lives in a state that doesn’t have a primary? That is ridiculous. You didn’t hear Hillary telling the people of Iowa and Nevada how undemocratic their system was. And quite frankly if I were a Hillary supporter I wouldn’t be preaching about the need for our nomination process to be perfectly democratic. Anyone with a calculator knows that Hillary is extremely unlikely to win the popular vote and mathematically unable to win the pledged delegates. Her only chance is with superdelegates. And if you are complaining about caucuses being undemocratic, there is no way with a straight face you can defend the superdelegate system. _
****
And finally, a note on Hillary’s fuzzy math. Even if you count Michigan and Florida and exclude the four caucuses that didn’t report exact turnout Hillary has only a 121k vote lead. Of course that is giving Hillary 328K votes from Michigan, and Obama 0. 240K people voted undecided, so barely half of the people who voted undecided would have to be Obama votes for him to retain his popular vote lead. If you include estimates for the four excluded caucus states, only about 4-5% of the undecideds would have to have been for Obama for him to keep his lead. In reality, this number is obviously much closer to 100%.
Posted from: 129.67.43.175
April 28th, 2008 04:26
All these arguments that essentially amount to “we would have won this basketball game if we’d been playing football” are absurd. Hillary agreed to participate in a primary system that determines the winner by delegate count. She agreed to a participate in a primary in which caucuses selected some of those delegates. She agreed that the delegates from Florida and Michigan wouldn’t count because they broke DNC rules.
Retroactively throwing doubt on the legitimacy of the process is the sign of a campaign that knows it has lost. Is the Democratic primary system “fair”? Probably not, but that’s the primary system both campaigns agreed to. We don’t know what the outcome would have been if we didn’t have caucuses, or only let big states determine the winner, or decided that the votes of African-Americans mattered less than those of middle-class whites. Obama has run a better, smarter campaign that was attentive to the rules of the primary process, and that’s why he’s winning.
Posted from: 66.193.5.99
April 28th, 2008 07:36
First to Michelin-
Obama held fundraisers in Florida as well, as well as held a press conference after one which was a violation of the pledge not to campaign that all candidates has made. At that fundraiser he promised to do right by the voters of Florida. I guess by do right he meant take their money and then ensure they get no say in the process.
If we are going to talk about DNC rules, we might ask why the DNC didn’t follow its own guidelines and strip states that went early of half their delegates instead of all of them, why other states who moved up their dates (like NH) against DNC guidelines were not sanctioned, and why the DNC allowed the candidates the prerogative to veto any revote in Florida and Michigan but didn’t provide that same opportunity before stripping them of their delegates in contradiction of their stated guidelines to begin with.
Ryan’s claim about Clinton’s statement is also deeply flawed. She said that Michigan wouldn’t count, not that it SHOULDN’T count. What she meant was that it was not going to make a difference because she, as did everyone else, assumed the nomination would be wrapped up long before it has. She clearly believed Michigan should be included in some way because she kept her name on the ballot there. Obama choose not to, he was not prohibited from doing so despite Ryan falsely implying that. The pledge not to campaign was between the candidates and the state parties of the early voting states. No one was forced to take it, or prohibited from doing anything. Obama decided to take his name off the ballot in Michigan because he knew he would lose there and he wanted to delegitimize the contest. He has blocked revotes in Florida and Michigan because he knows that if they occur he will most likely lose those as well, and the lie that he continues to try to perpetuate that he has the nomination secured will be exposed. If Obama has the nomination won, why would he block revotes in Florida and Michigan? If he cared about the party why would he want to jeopardize its standing in two of the most important swing states? These actions make it clear that 1. Obama does not have the nomination locked up, and 2.That Obama is only concerned about his own ambitions and not the good of the party. No one would claim that the situations in Florida and Michigan are ideal, but not counting those states at all is not fair either, nor is it in the interest of the party. Obama made very poor choices in taking his name off the ballot in Michigan (and apparently he would have done the same in Florida of he could have) and blocking revotes in each. Those were his choices and he has to accept responsibility for them. All the candidates had to play by the same rules, which Obama didn’t even adhere to, so for him to be upset because the party is moving to bring Michigan and Florida back into the fold as everyone said the whole time would eventually be done is ridiculous. And Ryan’s justification for Obama running ads in Florida is just pathetic- he did not have to do a national buy, he choose to. He has more money than any candidate in history so I think he could have afforded to pay for those ads to be put out locally if he had to.
The bigger problem with what both Dan and Ryan are arguing is that they falsely claim that Clinton is trying to delegitimize the process, when in fact it is Obama who is doing that. Contrary to what Dan claims no where was it ever stated or agreed to that whoever had the most delegates would get the nomination. The nomination goes to the first candidate that gets a majority of delegates (2025 I believe), not to the one who is leading if they come up short of that number. The Obama camp has attempted to create the narrative that if the candidate with the lead in delegates does not get the nomination because the superdelegates vote for someone else then this is somehow illegitimate. The problem with that is the whole point of superdelegates is to exercise independent judgment as who the best candidate would be, not to rubber stamp the results of the primary contest in the case that the leading candidate does not have broad enough appeal to seal the deal and obtain the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination. If a candidate has a lead, but that lead fails to secure them the nomination then that lead isn’t significant. If the lead was truly significant then the superdelegates wouldn’t even be an issue because the candidate in the lead would have enough delegates to secure the nomination. From the beginning what everyone understood was that if you didn’t have 2025 you would not be guaranteed the nomination, and would have to appeal to the superdelegates to select you as opposed to someone else. The superdelegates are free to vote for whoever is leading, but they are also totally free to not do so. This is not a fully democratic process, and I have never claimed it should be. I have only claimed that if one is going to base their appeal to the superdelegates on some sort of argument appealing to the will of the people, then states in which caucuses are held raise problems in that argument. In Washington state where both a caucus and a non-binding primary were held the results were very different. Obama won both, but the primary was much closer. Which should be counted as the will of the people?
This race is so close that I don’t think the superdelegates should decide based on who has a slightly better number is a designated column, but who they deem to be the better candidate for the party. That is what the rules allow for, and in fact were set up in order to achieve. The difference between the two camps is that the Clinton camp is playing by those rules and trying to make its case for why the superdelegates should vote for her, but they have never implied that it would be illegitimate for the superdelegates to select Obama. Obama on the other hand has argued that the superdelegates must vote for him or the process is illegitimate because he has the lead, and to not do so would supposedly overturn the will of the people. When Michelin, Ryan, and Dan falsely claim that Obama has already won according to the math they are presupposing that the superdelegates must go with the leader, which is not what the rules state, and is basically an attempt to delegitimize the process in the middle of the game because that is what has to be done to guarantee victory. If Obama had a problem with the independence of the superdelegates why didn’t he bring that up before it became apparent that he wouldn’t be able to win the nomination without their support? Obama is basically trying to extort the nomination out of the superdelegates through the threat that his supporters will sink the party in November if he does not get his way. If the unity of the party and defeating the Republicans in November was what truly mattered then I fail to see how they could behave this way. He may very well succeed in doing this, and there is nothing inherently wrong with him doing so, but if he is going to pursue such a strategy it is the height of hypocrisy to claim that Senator Clinton is valuing her ambition above the good and unity of the party when it is blatantly obvious that is what he is doing.
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 28th, 2008 07:39
If we’re “playing by the rules,” then Senator Clinton has every right and reason to stay in. Neither of them are going to reach the number of delegates needed to win the nomination without superdelegate votes. (This situation is analogous to 1984, when Walter Mondale didn’t get the “magic number” without superdelegate votes; what isn’t analogous is that the press and Mondale campaign surrogates weren’t beating a drum demanding that Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart withdraw for the good of the party. And, to preempt: Mondale’s loss had nothing to do with the passionate and divided — and it was truly passionate and divided — primary. It had to do with a massively popular, persuasive incumbent President and seemingly good economic times and foreign policy progress. These conditions don’t exist today.)
Anyway, the rules — “the primary system both campaigns agreed to” — state that the superdelegates should exercise their judgment as to who the best candidate is. And if that doesn’t reflect the delegate lead, then to repeat the line from Dan, “that’s the primary system both campaigns agreed to.” And before I am criticized, remember, as Ryan said, “the assumption that the nomination process should be perfectly democratic is highly questionable.”
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 28th, 2008 07:40
I just noticed RJ made a long post before mine; sorry if my post was in any way repetitive.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
April 28th, 2008 07:57
To everyone who has ever attacked obama for blocking revotes:
YOu’re dumb, and here’s why. The rules for voting in the primaries specifically state that you can only vote in one party’s primary. There are thousands of voters that went to the republican primary that have stated they would have voted in the dem primary if it was going to count. Any sort of revote at this time would not allow for all people to fairly participate because some people had already voted. Second, on top of all the voters who have already been disenfranchised, there are all sort of logistical issues that need to be dealt with. When can they hold it so it doesn’t interfere with the rest of the primaries? How can they get the State Election Committee to agree to it (in florida)? How can you ensure that all people that wish to vote will? What about republicans trying to throw a wrench into the process? There are several issues with an election now that need to be fixed before you can have the revote
Posted from: 66.193.5.99
April 28th, 2008 09:16
Anyone who had any knowledge of the way the DNC and the convention works knew that the stripping of Florida and Michigan’s delegates was not an irreversible act. That is why the elections proceeded and why so many people voted in them. Some people may have made the choice not to do so, but that was their choice. It is unfortunate we find ourselves in this situation, but that is no more unfair than the DNC stripping all voters of this state of any say which itself is not consistent with the party rules, or with the fact that caucuses make it impossible for some people to participate. Obama should have never taken his name off the ballot, and he should have never agreed to not campaign in these states. These were all choices that his campaign made; they were not forced to do anything. He wanted to pander to people in Iowa and New Hampshire and that was his right, but it is also fully the right of the DNC to exercise its authority to make the decision to have a revote count, etc. Obama’s desire to keep these states from counting has been clear from the beginning, but that should not be valued above the interests of the party and the voice of the people. And if as all his supporters claim he has the nomination locked up, then it wouldn’t make a difference anyway, so why not do it. We all know why he won’t do it, because he knows his claim to have captured the nomination are a bunch of non sense, and he knows that if he actually has to earn the nomination outright he very well may lose.
While there would no doubt be logistical issues in any plan, none would be significant enough to justify discounting all the people of an entire state from having any say. The problem of cross over Republicans has been in play in every primary since March began, it is not unique to these revotes. Obama may be ahead, but being ahead doesn’t mean superdelegates should vote for you if they believe someone else is the stronger candidate. Especially when your lead is so insignificant in size, and is based more on the idiosyncrasies of the process rather than the truly expressed will of the people. The superdelegates should decide based on who will be the best candidate for the party. No candidate has earned a lead that entitles them to the nomination, simply to the right to appeal to those superdelegates as to why they would be best. Obama needs to stop trying to make it seem like the nomination is being stolen from him- no one can steal from you what you haven’t earned in the first place, and you haven’t earned anything if you don’t get to 2025. My suspicion is that the superdelegates will go for Obama because they don’t want to be held accountable for their decision and would prefer to pass the buck by saying that they didn’t actually make the decision they just deferred to the “will of the people”, no matter how ill defined that may be. This is ultimately an abdication of the responsibility they were entrusted with, but it is fully within their rights to do so. If however, McCain carries Michigan and Florida and goes on to win the election, then I can promise you every superdelegate who gives Obama the nomination is going to have a lot to answer for.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
April 28th, 2008 09:28
Michigan will not go to McCain. The heart of the Clinton voters will not swing, and Obama will carry michigan. Florida might go McCain, but the rest of the south is in play for the dems with obama. Clinton might be able to win the traditional swing states, but she brings nothing into play, and allows the RNC to run their traditional strategy against the Dems.
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 28th, 2008 10:12
I think anyone who says Michigan will categorically not go to McCain is, to quote you, “dumb.”
Michigan is a state that was long a stronghold for the “Reagan Democrats” that Clinton has been winning back to our party and that Obama has largely failed to attract. (I’d argue that her ability to get these folks involved again in Democratic parties is one of the great unremarked events of this campaign, but that’s a story for another thread.) If Obama is the nominee, he will need the strong support of Clinton — which he will have, because, as he has claimed, she is a mega-partisan Democrat — and will need to adjust his message to appeal to those groups.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
April 28th, 2008 10:45
It’s not that Michigan couldn’t swing right. It’s just that McCain is a hack, and is destroying his campaign with every week. He’s said numerous times that he’s not sure what his stance is on certain issues, including economics, abortion, disease. He’s a war hawk that if the DNC has any common sense (which is a big if), then McCain will collapse.
Although I do like how Jon use my insults to respond to me. Nice job! ;)
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 28th, 2008 10:52
Don’t get me wrong; I think the Democratic nominee — Senators Clinton or Obama — is going to win by a sizable margin in November. The closeness in the polls right now is no surprise, since this is the time of the year where polls are often close. In any case, it’s always the time of the year where polls can be discounted. They’re not likely to reflect what will happen months down the line.
I’m not sure, though, why McCain’s self-destruction would affect him only Michigan in and not in Florida. Wouldn’t it affect him in all the states?
Also, why is the South specifically in play for Obama? I’ve seen this claim in some places but I’m not sure I quite get the empirical data behind it. (I’d obviously love it if the South were in play, as it was in the 1990s with Bill Clinton.)
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
April 28th, 2008 11:39
The rediculous amounts of first time voters and minority voters turning out for obama. Clinton could only get those votes if somehow they can be convinced she legitimately won the nomination (i.e. if Obama gives some great concession speech at the convention supporting Hilary).
The difference is Michigan is a more favorable state for the Dems. A lot of working class, union members, people who are more in favor of govt spending.
Florida has an older population, which means they want less government involvement, and lower taxes. Michigan is a stronger state fort the Dems, whereas Florida is traditionally a Red State.
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 28th, 2008 11:44
You’re making some sweeping generalizations about older voters that I don’t think are true. Older voters want less government involvement? Why are so many older voters indicating in preference polls that they want (government-run) universal health care? What about social security? Medicare?
I agree that Obama has been great in mobilizing both groups you list. It seems to me, though, that to really put states in play, you need to get groups that are historically “swing” votes over to your side. Despite the hype, I haven’t seen strong indications that Obama has been winning them over. In fact, the largest swing group I’ve seen participate so far have been blue collar voters who voted for Reagan/elder Bush…and they’ve largely been voting for Clinton.
The real point I’m trying to make is that I WANT these states to be in play, but probably both candidates need to work hard to make that happen.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
April 28th, 2008 11:59
They don’t want the gov’t taking their money is my point.
The thing about obama is that he creates votes. He’s not trying to necessarily move voters over, but to get new voters to show up. These votes aren’t traditional swing voters because they haven’t voted before.
Basically, Clinton gets back at the Regan/Bush 1 votes better, and gets some new voters. Obama takes some of the Regan/Bush 1 voters, but takes new voters.
I’m not saying it’s going to be easy. But he at least makes the Republicans spend more money in their traditional market to get those states to stay red, allowing the dems to use their hopefully superior financing to capitalize elsewhere.
It’s not that clinton can’t win. To put it into a debate context, she’s running the same strat that has become stock, whereas Obama has found a new, attractive case position. Obama’s upside is higher, but the risks are also higher. I think, with a weak opposition in McCain, that rolling the dice is the smart move in this case.
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 28th, 2008 12:19
I guess, though a major new AP/Ipsos poll indicates otherwise nationally. (Though I’d concede that these kinds of polls don’t take into account the fact that our electoral system requires winning states, not a national vote.) Here’s a link to an article discussing it:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/28/poll-shows-clinton-has-better-shot-of-beating-mccain/
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
April 28th, 2008 12:28
It’s also weird to do polls this early. I think no more that 10-15% of either group would swing if the other candidate wins, but right now, that number appears to be double
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
April 28th, 2008 12:37
RJ, few lingering questions:
You said this: “It should not be suprising that Obama is accused of being elitist and out of touch when much of his success has been built upon caucuses which essentially disenfranchise many working class people who are forced to choose between the vote and a day’s wage because of the way caucuses are held. Obama’s willingness to embrace and defend such an undemccratic and classist system is clear evidence that he is more concerned with winning than making sure we have a process in which everyone’s voice is heard.”
1) What was Obama suppose to do? Use magical powers to change the system? The only thing he has done to embrace the caucus system is compete their and win. The only thing he could possibly have done differently is ignored caucus states or ask that they be excluded. This would be infinitely less democratic than the caucuses themselves…entire states would just be completely ignored.
2) What has Hillary done prospectively to criticize a caucus system? Clearly, after she looses she whines. But you didn’t hear her complaining about Iowa being undemocratic beforehand.
You then say: “This is not a fully democratic process, and I have never claimed it should be. I have only claimed that if one is going to base their appeal to the superdelegates on some sort of argument appealing to the will of the people, then states in which caucuses are held raise problems in that argument.”
HAHAHAHHA (try and reconcile that with your previous statement…)
Your attempt to simultaneously say that Obama is a power hungry anti democratic classist because he wins caucuses and that there is nothing at all wrong with the superdelegates overturning the will of the people is laughably absurd. What could possibly be more classist and undemocratic then a group of elite party insiders making the decision?? The system isn’t perfect, but its the system we have. I agree that the superdelegate are perfectly free to overturn the will of teh voters. But I do not have the audacity to then cry illegitimacy because of problems with caucuses or the exclusion of MI and FL. That is quite, frankly, hypocrisy at its best.
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
April 28th, 2008 12:56
Also, another problem with a revote is that it would undermine the punitive nature of excluding MI and FL. For the process to have any semblance of legitimacy, the national party has to set the rules. The rules can’t be broken. If we allowed MI and FL to revote we would be giving them exactly what they tried to get by cheating….a very significant say in the process. That would send the wrong message–that just ignore the rules, at the end of the day the perceptual issues of excluding you will outweigh are concern for the rules. So for instance, lets say we decided to ban caucuses, something Clinton supporters should favor. And Iowa refuses to break with tradition. Well, how does the national party get the authority to keep Iowa from having a caucus rather than a primary, if no one takes it seriously when it says the delegation won’t be seated.
Posted from: 66.193.5.99
April 28th, 2008 14:17
Sorry for the lenght, but I can’t resist a nice, sharp political debate.
Ryan wrote:
1) What was Obama suppose to do? Use magical powers to change the system? The only thing he has done to embrace the caucus system is compete their and win. The only thing he could possibly have done differently is ignored caucus states or ask that they be excluded. This would be infinitely less democratic than the caucuses themselves…entire states would just be completely ignored.
Obama could first of all stop trying to perpetuate the lie that the superdelegates not selecting him would be overturning the “will of the people” on the basis that he leads in pledged delegates. The pledged delegate count is not a reflection of the will of the people because much of his lead in this area is based upon caucuses which are not truly democratic. Clinton won the popular vote in Texas and Nevada, but because of the way the caucuses in those states work Obama got more delegates. Obama won the caucuses in Washington (which included the voices of very few voters) by a wide margin, but the primary (which included the voices of a far greater number of voters) by very little. Because the caucuses selected the delegates his delegate haul there is not reflective of the will of the people in that state. The pledged delegate count is not a reflection of the will of the people and Obama needs to stop pretending that it is.
Let me be clear-I am not suggesting that the caucus states shouldn’t count. As long as they get delegates at the convention they are counting, so that is not even the issue. I am arguing the a lead in pledged delegates shouldn’t be viewed as legitimizing Obama’s claim to the votes of the superdelegates and delegitimizing Clinton’s claim, based on some sort of myth about the superdelegates supporting Clinton being overturning the will of the people. The problem is that caucus results do not reflect the will of the people to a great extent, so if you want to claim that a lead in pledged delegates means something special, you better have a different reason then that it represents the will of the people to legitimize that claim. If we are going to accept that what matters is how many delegates you have accumulated according to the rules, whatever they maybe, then there is no longer any reason to object to the superdelegates choosing whomever they please because now we are no longer basing the argument on the “will of the people”. While you claim I can’t embrace the autonomy of the superdelegates without accepting the caucuses, the fact is you can’t embrace the caucuses without embracing the superdelegates’ autonomy. If the will of the people was truly the paramount consideration we wouldn’t have autonomous superdelegates or caucuses, but if we have one we can’t simply reject the other.
The flaw in your argument is that it conflates the superdelegates not basing their votes on who did really well in the caucuses, with the caucuses not counting. No one is saying that the caucuses don’t count-we are just saying that they don’t bind, or tie the hands of the superdelegates. The only argument as to why they should is the absurd claim that the pledged delegate count reflects the “will of the people”, which it clearly does not. As I have said before, I am willing to respect whatever the superdelegates decide as legitimate because I recognize that the process is not a purely democratic one. It is Obama supporters who refuse to recognize this, and who are essentially trying to delegitimize the process because they want to claim it is undemocratic to have the superdelegates exercise independent judgment. The problem is that to make that argument you would have to show that Obama is the choice of the “will of the people” which requires you to ignore the fact that the process by which he gained his lead is not in fact one based fully on democratic principles. The only way to know the will of the people in a race this close would have been to have primaries in all the states and territories, but that did not happen. The result between the two candidates is so close that to claim that the fact that one is leading by a razor thin margin reflects the “will of the people” is silly. It just reflects that one of the two candidates is the fortunate beneficiary of a fractured and imperfect system, and if that is the case then there should be no problem whatsoever with superdelegates making an independent judgment as to whom they think is the best candidate. No one will have been robbed, and the “will of the people” will not have been overturned because we are stuck with a process that is incapable of expressing with any certainty what that will is. You are stuck in a bind because the very values you are appealing to delegitimize Senator Clinton’s claim to the nomination, would equally undercut the basis of Senator Obama’s claim to it.
To further clarify, I have never said that I had a problem with the process having certain undemocratic features. My point was simply that even if we did want to base the race upon some sort of measure of the will of the people, that such a standard wouldn’t necessitate choosing Obama. To use a debate analogy, I could reject that we should use your framework and yet still argue that under your own framework you still lose.
Ryan goes on to claim that for the superdelegates to choose the nominee is classist and elitist, and I don’t completely disagree; but that is the way the process works, and it can’t be changed now. If we are going to by force of public opinion delegitimize any practices that we deem to be insufficiently democratic, then it is clear we would have to call the integrity of the caucuses into serious question. Since that is the basis for Obama’s claim to the “will of the people”, we should rather conclude that there is no clearly expressed “will of the people”, and that in such a case rather than clinging to insignificant marginal differences in certain imperfect measurements, we should respect and allow the superdelegates to exercise independent judgment about who the nominee should be. The superdelegates are not overturning the will of the people, they are being called into to resolve the race because the will of the people was incapable of doing so. If primaries had been held in all 50 states and Obama had won more votes then he might be able to claim that the superdelegates had overturned the will of the people. Right now all he can claim is that he has played the first part of a broken and imperfect game slightly better, and hope that convinces the superdelegates to select him. But he needs to stop trying to mask and rationalize his attempted extortion of the nomination by means of a pure power play as some sort of matter of democratic principle. He may very well get the nomination because people are afraid he will tear the party apart if he doesn’t get it by indicting the undemocratic nature of the process. This is the height of hypocrisy however, because the very lead he claims is being stolen from him was gained through an undemocratic system in the first place. If the supers want to give the nomination to Obama then so be it, but let’s not delude ourselves into believing they were under some sort of obligation to do so out of respect for democratic principles. The only person with a legitimate claim to the nomination is the one the undecided superdelegates deem to be the more deserving. That could be Obama or Clinton and it would be legitimate. Obama and his supporters cannot admit this however, because if they do so they know that the supers will most likely break for the tougher and more tested candidate. They therefore bitterly cling to the fictitious and self serving narrative they have concocted to ensure they are in a position to pressure the party into giving into to their demands no matter how flawed and contradictory their argument is.
As for Ryan’s point about the need to penalize Florida and Michigan, the fact that they would have to do revotes would be penalty enough because of the cost, or stripping them of some of their delegates could achieve the same end, not the total stripping of them in contradiction of DNC guidelines as was done. Even if we counted the original votes neither state got the economice benefit of the campaigns competing there which ensures that they have suffered. There is no need to cling to the unwise, dranconian measures the DNC stupidly imposed to ensure a sufficent level of deterrence to keep states in line. To do so is only serving to disenfranchise voters and hurt the party’s chances in November.
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
April 28th, 2008 16:46
Nor can I resist a good political debate, but I actually don’t disagree with much of what you said in your last post. I completely agree that superdelegates have the right to select whoever for whatever reasons they feel are important. The implications of overturning the pledged delegate leader in terms of what it might do to the party ought to be taken into consideration. It is worth noting that Obama has never attempted to deny superdelegates the right to make their decision. He has just attempted to persuade them to defer to him. This is fundamentally different that Clinton’s attempt to have the Rules Committee seat the delegates of MI and FL. Clinton is attempting to change the rules ex post facto, Obama is attempting to convince the superdelegates how to use their discretion within the existing rules. If Obama actually tried to get the superdelegates votes nullified, that would be entirely different.
I also don’t disagree that the delegate selection process doesn’t perfectly represent the will of the people. It obviously doesn’t. And in a world where Clinton actually wins the popular vote, I think you are right it would be disingenuous for Obama to say the superdelegates, if they were to select clinton, were overturning the will of the people. In fact, a situation where the popular vote and the delegate count give different results is probably precisely the sort of scenario that superdelegate were created to solve. My primary disagreement with you earlier was your implication that Obama was elitist, classist, and undemocratic merely because he won caucuses…you seem to be backing away from that. I do think that your insistence that Obama is lying when he claims that he has support of the people is a bit ridiculous, when Obama still retains the popular vote and a definitive lead in the national polls. And how can you possibly say Obama is lying, when Hillary is now making the EXACT same claim, with the only basis being her wins in Michigan, which we all agree, was not a perfectly democratic contest. If caucuses ought to be excluded as measurements of the people’s will, why the hell is Michigan, a state whose contest made a mockery of democracy, a fair measurement of popular will. At best, perhaps neither candidate should be making claims as to who has the people’s supports, given the ambiguity of making that determination. But if Obama is a liar, well so is Clinton.
I think your point that the costs of a revote would be sufficient punishment is fair. But it was the costs that were the primary barrier to a revote. Michigan and Florida wanted the DNC, or even Clinton donors, to pay for the revote. If the states had been willing to pay, in all likelihood the revote would have happened. If there had been a revote, the campaigns would have put tons of money into these stats, so your argument about the economic benefits, doesn’t make sense. I think you are right that there are other solutions, like stripping them of some of their delegates. The problem is this decision should have been made before the fact, when it could still be made objectively. Now, any decision is necessarily not going to be a fair assessment of how to punish states who disregard the DNC, but rather a reflection of the political beliefs of the Rules Committee. The decision that was made up front, before either states voted, was not to seat their delegation. That is the decision that should be respected. But Obama, offering reasonable flexibility, is very open to ideas like seating only part of the delegation, or something to that extent.
Posted from: 66.193.5.99
April 29th, 2008 10:39
I can’t find much to disagree with in Ryan’s last post, but I would still disagree with him that Obama’s attempt to delegitimize the autonomy of the superdelegates is anything but a pure political power play. I don’t begrudge him for his attempt to do this (it is actually pretty smart politics on his part), but I do think it leaves him wide open to charges of hypocrisy; and for someone claiming to be engaging in a new kind of politics that is a significant charge in my mind.
I doubt we will ever agree on the issue of Florida and Michigan, but I continue to find the inisistence by the Obama camp that everyone knew and agreed these states wouldn’t count to be a self serving ficition. If everyone knew these states would never count, why did the state parties of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina feel the need to secure a pledge from the candidates not to campaign there? Why would candidates campaign in an election that didn’t count at all? I think a much fairer reading of the situation is that everyone knew that these states would at some point be brought back into the fold, and that the popular results from these contests would have an impact on the race. That is precisely why Obama withdrew his name from the Michigan ballot- to try to minimize the importance of that election? Why go to the trouble of removing your name from a contest if the contest truly meant nothing? The situation is far more complex than that and these appeals to “the rules are the rules” arguments are rather weak. The rules aren’t the rules in that sense because the rules are that the rules can and often are changed. This mess exists because no one foresaw that this race will be as close and long as it is. Ultimately the party needs to do what is in its best interest and is fair to the voters in these states, and if that disadvantages Obama that is largely the result of his own choices.
That being said, if Obama does win the nomination one good way for him to help mend the party would be to get Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, and the other idiots at the DNC who got us into the Florida/Michigan mess expelled from the party.
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 29th, 2008 11:03
Donna Brazile is a disaster.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
April 29th, 2008 11:16
kicking Howard Dean out would be a fatally bad move, for several reasons:
1. He’s on board with the 50 states campaign. Look at where all the “swing states” are located. All are in the north (minus florida) in territory that should be a cakewalk for the democratic party. The Republicans fight for every state because they know the Democrats won’t. Only since Dean has taken over have they started to work to build a party base in every state. Texas, North and South Carolina, Montana, Nevada, Kansas, and even Idaho are potentially up for grabs this November because the Democrats are getting people who want to vote democrat, but can’t stand that they won’t be heard, to vote for Obama or Clinton.
2. He’s willing to attack the Republicans. The ads in 2004 were god awful. The Dems were out funded, out strategized, and out campaigned due to a weak Chairman. They wouldn’t fight with Gore to bring up legitimate issues in the 2000 election (Not saying it would have changed, but just staying idle was not the right move).
Dean is different. he has personally been ripping McCain, and has been willing to fund multiple ads against McCain already. I doubt either candidate would win in November if there wasn’t a turnover in DNC Chairmen.
Don’t blame Dean for local politics. Blame everyone, from Clinton and Obama, right down to the state legislatures who didn’t do enough to work to make their primary happen for real. We’ve made so many improvements as a party, and now is the wrong time to abandon ship.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
April 29th, 2008 11:17
Oh, and Dean/Gore were the starters of the grassroots, internet funding for political campaigns. This has basically funded obama’s campaign, and has helped significantly with the Clinton campaign. The money that both candidates are bringing in is absurd, largely because they’re revolutionizing how to raise money
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
April 29th, 2008 11:26
While I am not as astute as RJ or RC, I will say that there’s a fundamental addition problem with the Clinton campaign’s math.
(1) They think that only big states matter. Apparently, only those places have democrats who can vote.
(2) They think they can win this primary.
If Clinton’s ambition is the most important thing, then vote for her. But, if you care about not fracturing our party and prolonging this thing longer than necessary, then this should be a done deal.
Our opinions about the goodness or badness of Hillary v. Barry can be debated forever. That part is subjective. The math is not.
Michelin
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 29th, 2008 11:41
I disagree with Michelin’s post for the reasons stated above. The “math” is not definite. It is possible for Clinton to end with a popular vote lead, and if I were a superdelegate, that would be all the justification I’d need to pledge for Clinton. And the “math” also indicates that neither of them will end up with the number of delegates needed from the primary. It’s not over until the superdelegates are counted. Whether that’s a good thing or not is obviously open for debate. There are many valid reasons to say that Clinton should not be the nominee. Simply saying that the math — in a vacuum — makes impossible for her to win is not one of them. (And for the record, from past conversations, I think Michelin is one of the most politically insightful folks around!)
Phelan: Al Gore did nothing to generate grassroots, Internet funding. This isn’t surprising, since his disastrous campaign was probably the most top-down operation in recent political history. Bill Bradley made some early strides in this area, but really, Howard Dean deserves all the credit. And I do commend Barack Obama on grasping early on the importance of Internet fundraising in this election as well.
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
April 29th, 2008 11:48
As a post script… according CNN.com:
Barry has 1727 pledged delegates.
Hillary has 1589 pledged delegates.
To get the nod, you need 2025.
In realistic terms, how does the Clinton camp propose to overcome that deficit and get enough of the remaining (436 out of 713) delegates to win?
That would mean that she’d have to get 61.15% of the remaining delegates. How does she propose to make that happen in…
Guam, IN, NC, WV, KY, OR, SD, PR, and the remaining 300ish Super D’s?
The polling in these states vary, but still doesn’t give her enough at current estimates. Barry does well on the islands, in western square states, and rolled up and smoked a Clinton blunt in several southern states. He has a minor Super D disadvantage.
She does well in places with an eroding industrial economy. Much like those economies, though, her lead ain’t what it used to be, which is a bad trend for her. PA is a great example of that — a nice win, but should’ve been much more significant. She NEEDED it to be more significant to have a shot at doing more to crowd out the small states she doesn’t care about.
I keep plugging the site that’s linked to my name. Do the math yourself. Be realistic. You may love Hillary, but she’s lost.
michelin
Posted from: 66.193.5.99
April 29th, 2008 12:11
Neither Hilary or Barack can win the nomination, both need the superdelegates to give it to them. It is possible that the superdelegates could choose either, and I don’t believe that choosing one over the other would be illegitimate, even if they choose Obama. What I do believe is illegitimate is claiming that only Obama can win, or that only he can win legitimately. The whole point of the superdelegates is to excercise independent judgment as to who would make the best candidate if the expressed will of the people in their nominating contests is inconclusive. The same thing happens in the electoral college when no one wins a majority of electoral votes- it goes to the House of Represntatives. I think this is wise because in such a closely contested race we risk mob rule breaking out if it becomes purely a struggle to see who can place more leverage on the decision makers to side with them. I want the superdelegates to select who they feel the best noiminee for the party would be. I am not asserting any entitlement to their favor for my candidate as many Obama supporters seem to do for their’s. The whole point of a superdelegate is that no one is entitled to their support. Michelin’s math only proves that Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with more pledged delegates. But having more pledged delegates doesn’t mean squat, having a plurality of the delegates or 2025 of them is all that matters.
As for Dean and his 50 state strategy, most people I talk to about it now refer to it as his 48 state strategy. If he was truly comitted to a 50 state strategy he would have never approved the use of the nuclear option on Florida and Michigan. I supported him in 2004, but I think he has not been a good chairman and the party needs a fresh start as far as I am concerned.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
April 29th, 2008 12:15
Gore might not have done it very much, but at least deserves some credit as I believe he started the idea to experiment with it. But yes, the credit goes to Dean. I do think that while Clinton might be missing out on a huge section of funding if things fall apart for Obama (which is still possible), Clinton could capitalize more in the general election from the internet than she is now. I think (and somewhat rightfully so) that her campaign did not expect the waves of support that came for obama, and therefore did not see a need to change from what they’d done in the past. If she wins the nomination (hopefully whoever wins the nomination is determined at the least before VBI), she’ll meet with the obama strategists and figure out how to set up a more efficient internet campaign.
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
April 29th, 2008 12:26
As a response to Jcruz… according CNN.com:
Barry has 1727 pledged delegates.
Hillary has 1589 pledged delegates.
To get the nod, you need 2025.
In realistic terms, how does the Clinton camp propose to overcome that deficit and get enough of the remaining (436 out of 713) delegates to win?
That would mean that she’d have to get 61.15% of the remaining delegates. How does she propose to make that happen in…
Guam, IN, NC, WV, KY, OR, SD, PR, and the remaining 300ish Super D’s?
The polling in these states vary, but still doesn’t give her enough at current estimates. Barry does well on the islands, in western square states, and rolled up and smoked a Clinton blunt in several southern states. He has a minor Super D disadvantage.
She does well in places with an eroding industrial economy. Much like those economies, though, her lead ain’t what it used to be, which is a bad trend for her. PA is a great example of that — a nice win, but should’ve been much more significant. She NEEDED it to be more significant to have a shot at doing more to crowd out the small states she doesn’t care about.
I keep plugging the site that’s linked to my name. Do the math yourself. Be realistic. You may love Hillary, but she’s lost.
michelin
Posted from: 74.73.176.171
April 29th, 2008 12:33
I am pretty certain that while Al Gore was a visionary in terms of the potential of the Internet, he was not a visionary in terms of Internet fundraising. I believe Bill Bradley did more with netsroots work in 2000, though again, Howard Dean really revolutionized the way money is raised.
That may just be my very biased memory, though — as I’ve said elsewhere, if you think my support for Senator Clinton is vehement, you should have seen how I was about Senator Bradley.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
April 29th, 2008 12:54
michelin, you have the names backwards in the delegate counts
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
April 29th, 2008 15:35
#58: I do not have the names backwards…
Barry Obama
Pledged:
1,491
Superdelegates
236
Total:
1,727
Hillary Clinton
Pledged:
1,332
Superdelegates
257
Total:
1,589
Needed to Win: 2,025
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
April 29th, 2008 20:46
my apologies, on my screen it appeared as if you had Obama with ~1200 delegates to Clinton’s ~1300. However convenient laptops are, they aren’t the easiest to read small print off of
Posted from: 67.40.152.116
April 30th, 2008 10:15
#60: no problem.
I know this ain’t a TOC war story, but this is the future of our nation at stake. We’ve had the worst president in recent memory plunder for eight straight years. McCain, (another guy who may be worse than W) is knocking on the door!
So seriously: do any of the Clinton defenders have word from the Clinton campaign about how they’re going to overcome a giant deficit to win?
The easier question: do Clinton campaign people (or her supporters) really believe that Barry will not be able to get at least 38.86% of the remaining delegates?
This is why I say the math is undeniable. Barry may not be loved by all. However, at this point, he only needs to be endorsed by a shade under 39% of democratic delegates to be our nominee. He has not done that poorly in any recent contest for any kind of delegate. It’s over for Clinton and she’s f-ing it up because of her own ambition.
michelin
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
April 30th, 2008 12:48
and for the record, Obama turned down the challenge.
Posted from: 66.193.5.99
April 30th, 2008 14:19
To answer Michelin-
Despite your continued claims that this is a matter of math, this race will come down to superdelegates and who they want to select to be the party’s nominee. Obama has tried to make it seem as if it would be illegitimate for the superdelegates to break for someone other than the pledged delegate leader, but in fact that is the whole point of superdelegates in the first place- to exercise independent judgment. Clinton is going to need an overwhelming majority of the uncomitted superdelegates to choose her, but it is quite possible that could happen if a concensus develops that she is the stronger candidate. The Obama camp is obviously very scared this could happen which is why they continue to try to push Clinton out of the race and continue to attack her. If the nomination were wrapped up what sense would it make to continually attack the candidate whose supporters you will need in November? There is also the issue of Florida and Michigan. As I have pointed out before if Obama has the nomination won, why wouldn’t he simply allow Florida and Michigan to be seated so there are no hard feelings come November and he is in a strong position to carry these states. He can’t do that because his lead is extremely tenuous, and the supers are rightfully hesistant about taking responsibility for giving him the nomination because they don’t want to be blamed if Obama winds up losing in the fall. Obama will most likely only secure the nomination through the threat of tearing apart the party if he doesn’t get it. He is clearly winning to risk bringing the party down with him, and blaming Clinton for his inability to secure the nomination is only serving to alienate her supporters who he needs come November. It is not Clinton’s job to help Obama because he is selfishly willing to tear the party apart to further his own ambition. Clinton should stop when Obama secures 2025 delegates. If this race is so damaging to the party then the superdelegates should step in and stop it. That is there job, not Hillary’s. They are most likely not going to do that because they don’t want to take accountability for selecting Obama. In fact, in the last few days we have begun to see more superdelegates coming out for Clinton then at any time since before the voting began. This race is far from over, and if Obama continues to stumble accross the finish line he is going to have a hard time convincing the remaining uncomitted superdelegates to hand him the nomination.
Posted from: 67.40.152.116
April 30th, 2008 20:40
RJ:
That’s real interesting analysis, RJ. According to AP (as reported on YahooDOTcom), her superdelegate lead is smaller than before (7 came out for Barry and 4 for Clinton this week). Granted, Hillary has 23 more superdelegates than Barry, but given the number of super d’s who’ve decided to lend their support, that difference is marginal.
You are absolutely correct that the super d’s should decide. But, the party has given them a strong encouragement to do so by the end of June. We’ll have a decision by then and it’ll be Barry v. Johnny for the fate of the world.
If Clinton supporters will choose not to vote or vote for McCain in November, then they will be to blame for the McCain reign of terror. [This is the same argument Hillary made about voters for Nader in the 2000 election, so it’ll make sense then too].
michelin
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
May 1st, 2008 00:10
While, at this point, I see no reason not to just let the process run its course. Michelin is definitely right, any objective observer knows Barack has already won this. While just looking at the numbers is enough to make the case more than 60 percent of the remaining superdelegates can go to Clinton and Barack will still win. But, the reality is that it extraordinarily unlikely that the remaining superdelegates will break for Clinton. Clinton was the presumptive nominee for all of 2007. Anyone who wanted to support her had every reason to endorse early, and no reason to wait. A Clinton endorsement was a no risk proposition. So people who haven’t endorsed her at this point, clearly are harboring strong doubts. That is why the vast majority of post-Super Tuesday endorsements by superdelegates have been for Obama. Even this week, one of the worst weeks in Obama’s campaign, he keeps rolling out more endorsements. It is now being reported that dozens of superdelegates have secretly promised support to Obama. There is just a collective action problem. Everyone fears retribution if Hillary is the nominee, so they are reluctant to endorse Obama, unless they know everyone else is. Even more compelling there is a good Politico piece out explaining how most of the remaining superdelegates are are DNC members…a group not too likely to buy Hillary’s argument, which relies on a forceful indictment of the DNC. The final nail in the coffin is the fact that Hillary just won’t win the popular vote. Period. Even from the most generous perspective, where FL is included and the four caucuses with out popular vote tallies are excluded, she is still behind by roughly 200k votes, about what her margin of victory was in Pennsylvania. The populations of North Carolina and Indiana combined are roughly equivalent to Pennsylvania. So she is going to need to pull off a 10 point victory in both states. Thats just not going to happen. (Yes, I’m extremely oversimplifying.) And all of this is to say nothing of the fact that a lot of Clinton superdelegates are likely to switch to Obama. Some already have. Say all you want but its over. I’m willing to take 100:1 odds on Obama? What about 1000:1? I doubt there are any takers. The real question is not who wins, it’s how much damage Hillary is willing to do our chances in November before she finally bows out.
Posted from: 66.193.5.99
May 1st, 2008 09:26
If Hillary is damaging the party and hurting its chances in November then the superdelegates should endorse Obama now and end this- that is their responsibility and role. The reason they aren’t doing that is because they don’t want to be held responsible for deciding the nominee. Obama must be perceived as being extremely weak if the superdelegates won’t end this race for him now if he has “won already” as you claim, and the race continuing is hurting the party. What I think is really hurting the party is that we are burdened with a candidate who didn’t have to build a real winning coalition because of the flawed nature of the nominating system- that being the joke that is the caucuses, the proportional distribution of delegates, the way that distribution of delegates is titled towards certain groups based on past voting patterns, and the exclusion of two large major swing states from the calculus at all.
Obama could very well win lose in November, and it will not be Clinton’s fault. It will be the fault of a party that should have learned from its past mistakes and not nominated another McGovern, Dukakis, Kerry type. Obama’s best hope of victory is to convince enough people to vote against the Republicans. This is going to be made a bit more difficult by the fact the guy we have to vilify was only four years asked to be our VP by the loser who is now one of Obama’s biggest supporters. Obama himself says McCain would be better than Bush. That is probably true, but not exactly good politics, and is only going to make his job more difficult.
Obama is a potential disaster for the Democratic party. He was too good to be true, and having him as the nominee makes McCain an even more formidable candidate for the Republicans. Anyone with half a brain should have realized that Obama’s weaknesses would eventually be exposed, and while the post partisan, post racial, new kind of politics Obama might have been a great candidate to run against McCain, the actual Obama isn’t. Even if his wins an Obama administration could be the best thing that has happened to the Republican party since the Carter administration.
Clinton could still win. She is closing in North Carolina, and has a good chance to win Indiana. She is strongly favored in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Puerto Rico. At the end of the race Obama will be in a very weak position to argue that he is the better candidate. He will ultimately be forced to threaten the destruction of the party to get the nomination. He may hold the chips for that threat to be successful, but anyone who actually cares about the Democratic party should hope that there is still the possibility that the nomination can be decided based on who will make the best nominee and President, not based on whose supporters are more likely to desert the party if their candidate is not handed the nomination in spite of his inability to close the deal, and his ever growing weaknesses and liabilities.
Obama supporters obviously care more about being able to worship in their superficial little cult of personality, then about whether the Democrats have the strongest nominee come this fall, or whether the Democrats win or not. The argument that Clinton needs to drop out because Obama supporters are willing to let the Republicans win in November if he doesn’t get the nomination may have a lot of truth to it. But let’s just be clear that Obama and his supporters are just as guilty, if not more guilty, of the very thing they are accusing Clinton of. If Obama has already won, it would probably be a good idea for all his supporters to be kissing up to Clinton’s supporters to make sure they don’t defect or stay at home come the fall. No matter how bitter a primary battle, that is what always happens when the race is actually over. The very actions of Obama and his supporters prove how hollow their claims about the race being over are. If there strategy for uniting the party as the nominee is basically to say your stuck with me because otherwise the Republicans will win, then we may very well be in serious trouble come November.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
May 1st, 2008 09:49
“closing” being defined very broadly when Obama has been leading since December without more than 1 poll giving clinton a lead, and that poll’s margin in clinton’s favor is less than the margin of error, and is about a tenth of the undecided voters.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
May 1st, 2008 09:50
and that poll being the second smallest surveying size of the realclearpolitics average:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nc/north_carolina_democratic_primary-275.html
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
May 1st, 2008 09:54
As for Indiana, Clinton is ahead, but a majority of polls don’t even have 90% of voters making a decision
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
May 1st, 2008 09:56
and (sorry for the 4 posts, but I keep having new thoughts), the poll with clinton having a lead was done right after rev. wright’s most recent statements, and before Obama’s response.
Posted from: 67.40.152.116
May 2nd, 2008 07:43
If our “strongest” candidate is someone who’s running a latently racist and issue-distracting campaign, then I guess you should vote for Hillary. I mean, shouldn’t Hillary be sucking up to Barry supporters by being the first to insinuate that he’s a muslim (and therefore a bad man)?
It’s funny that Clinton supporters forget (much like they forget that the Clintons were the ones who got NAFTA in the first place) that Bill ran a campaign with a message of hope for something better against the first Bush go around. Were we worshiping at his alter of personality? I know some interns were, but what about the rest of us?
As for the super d’s making a decision… if you click my name on this posting, they are. Now it’s 9:4 in Obama:Clinton super d endorsements this week. Slowly but surely they’re realizing that the best candidate we have to beat John McCain is Barry (not the vitriol spewing Hillary).
We’re ready to accept Clinton people for the Barry in 08 race against Johnnie Mac. Our arms are open.
michelin
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
May 2nd, 2008 10:14
And here’s another thing:
How dare she. How dare she criticize Rev Wright, Obama, and their church. How dare she say that it is offensive and irrationial to speak out like he did. How dare she say that she would have left the church upon hearing of those statements. She has no basis from which to be criticizing either of those two men for their stances on their church. They both grew up in an era (moreso wright than obama, but still) where neither of them were allowed to be considered equals. They grew up in an era where they were to be neither seen nor heard. She has no basis, no history, nothing that could ever justify her unwarranted and down right appalling criticisms of the church of the Trinity United Church of Christ. She should be thankful that neither of those men, nor the church decided to stand up for themselves and demand her apology for criticizing something she can only hope to understand.
Posted from: 66.193.5.99
May 2nd, 2008 13:23
It is not suprising to see false and ridiculous charges of racism coming from Obama supporters. I am suprised you didn’t include doctored you tube videos like most seem to be doing today. The Obama crew must be getting very desperate.
I have not forgotten NAFTA, and in fact don’t have a major problem with it. I am sure there could be adjustments to it, but no one is actual saying we should revoke it, and with good reason. It may be a politically charged issue in a Democratic primary, but overall it has been good for our economy. In fact, here in North Carolina many people, especially those who work for companies who were heavily involved with the tobacco industry, have benefited greatly from NAFTA and in all likelyhood would be out of a job if not for it. NAFTA is a problem politically because its costs are concentrated, and its benefits dispersed; and so those baring the costs are going to devote a lot of political capital to opposing it, whereas those who benefit (which is esssentially all consumers in the form of lower prices and more goods) do not devote any political capital to supporting it. Both Clinton and Obama are right to be concerned about labor and environmental standards, but also right to stop well short of revoking NAFTA. There is no difference between the two candidate on this issue, just pandering by both.
I am not really sure how to address the Wright issue. Apparently Obama first said he couldn’t condem Wright, but now apparently that has changed. I have no idea what to make of the issue, other than that people’s outrage over Hillary’s response to the issue is simply another example of the rank hypocrisy that we all come to expect from the Obama camp.
As for Michelin’s gracious offer to accept all the Clinton supporters on the Obama bandwagon, I find it suprising that he believes all those people who are supporting Clinton’s supposdely racist campaign will find the Republican’s appalling enough to support Obama come the fall. I am long past the point where I could ever vote for a Republican in a presidental election, but I can say that the attitudes of Obama and his supporters is the best thing McCain has going for him. It is no wonder McCain is continuing to gain on Obama in the polls. I fail to see how anyone who is even open to voting Republican would not be leaning McCain right now if the alternative is Obama. I hope there are enough people who, like me, aren’t even willing to consider that option; but I sad feeling that there aren’t. Obviously that is not what Obama supporters believe because all we seem to hear is how they are going to destroy the party of their guy is not given the nomination in spite of his inability to actually earn it with the threat of mass destruction. Those superdelegates coming out for Obama is proof his attempt to extort the nomination out of the party seems to be working, not that Obama is the best candidate. In fact most seem to be intentionally avoiding making any such claim. No one wants to take responsibility for the disaster that could be awaiting. When half the Democratic party doesn’t even want you as their nominee, it is probably a good idea not to go around accusing people who you need to vote for you of being racists. Those victories in Red Caucus states aren’t exactly going to carry the general election for you.
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
May 2nd, 2008 18:19
I don’t run the Obama campaign. If I did, the gloves would’ve come off a long time ago and Hillary would be buried. She has so many skeletons in her closet that it’s not even funny. But, Barry has a mission to make his campaign as post-political as possible, which isn’t something to be admonished.
Let’s be clear about something: it’s not groundless to say that the Clinton campaign has engaged in latently racist tactics. After all, it was them — NOT the Republicans — to insinuate that Obama is a Muslim. They were also the ones who leaked photos of Barry in the land of his grandfather wearing a traditional outfit. They were also the first to imply that Barry was a drug dealer because he admitted to having experimented with drugs in his younger days (like nearly everyone in his generation). I mean, it’s not like there are many Americans think all non-white men are drug dealers, right? C’mon RJ, do you really think that stuff isn’t racist? If you don’t, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
As for NAFTA… first, Senator Clinton campaigned in Ohio and Pennsylvania about her willingness to get away from NAFTA. Her people even contacted the Canadian Government to say that she was merely using that as a campaign concept, but not something she’d implement. Then, she turned around and said that Obama’s campaign was the one who did such a silly thing!
Second, NAFTA has been a complete disaster for the manufacturing sector of this country. Ask the people who were in union jobs about how well NAFTA has worked out for them. The fact that Clinton has campaigned against it (yet was a chief proponent of making it happen) is quite telling.
As for the super d’s… your arg is just plain goofy on this point. You first (rightly) said that the super d’s should intervene and pick the candidate who they believe has the best chance to win. They’ve started doing that and have been doing so since Super Tuesday. Then, when I point out evidence to counter your claim about HC’s super d lead, you say it’s not right that they’re stepping in to end the BS that’s being perpetuated AND STARTED by the Clinton camp.
If you want to support your candidate until the end, that’s cool. I just don’t understand singing on the mast of a sinking ship, especially when the tactics used by the campaign have been despicable.
michelin
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
May 2nd, 2008 20:29
RJ, it isn’t desperation. It’s just that obama supporters are fed up with the lack of offense against clinton, or even refusing to call her out for her blatantly racist antics.
Posted from: 75.189.154.195
May 2nd, 2008 22:54
In response to Michelin & Pwneill-
I would love to see the Obama camp come after the Clintons. The Republicans spent 8 years and millions of dollars trying to pin all sorts of crazy things on them and wound up with nothing except a personal affair that in the end the American people saw rightly as simply a political ax to grind and nothing more.
I really don’t have the inclination or the time to completely dispel the list of lies that have been put forth on this thread, but I will point out a few of the more outrageous. First of all, the Clinton campaign has never insinuated Barack Obama was a Muslim. Bob Kerrey once said that Obama’s exposure to Muslim culture as a youngster could actually be an asset to America in restoring our image in the world, and he was branded as smearing Obama for saying this; yet Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan has consistently made the same point and there was never any outcry about it. This seems to only become a problem when there is an opportunity to dishonestly accuse the Clinton campaign of racism.
On your point about NAFTA, it is just a flat out lie. It was the Obama campaign who had secret talks with Canada about NAFTA, which Obama lied about, until it was eventually leaked by the Canadian government what had occured. There has never been anything but wild accusations with zero evidence to support it that the Clinton campaign ever did such a thing. The name of the Obama official who did so was Austan Goolsebee, a chief economic adviser. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04nafta.html?ex=1362286800&en=b1b2ec15c4b97c16&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss). What was the name of the Clinton adviser who did this? Maybe it was the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny? I could understand how you might be so deluded as to believe this racism non sense, there is at least some degree of subjectivity involved in that claim, but it is really sad when you are so far gone that you state clearly factually inaccurate statements like they were the gospel truth. You are giving W and his supporters a run for their mon