NationStates Jolt Archive

Welcome to American Election 2: Electric Bogaloo
- Democrat Nomination edition

We offer cookies and coffee to all posters.

You're late. I already commented on this. WINNER!!!

http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/00761/_timeeconomist-titt_761780x.jpg (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=11332147)

IN CARTOONS there is often a moment when a hapless character, having galloped over a cliff, is still unaware of the fact and hangs suspended in the air, legs pumping wildly, until realisation dawns, gravity intervenes and downfall ensues. Hillary Clinton's campaign looks a bit like that this week.

MODEDIT: This is the third Democrat nomination thread. The previous one can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13686920#post13686920).

IN CARTOONS there is often a moment when a hapless character, having galloped over a cliff, is still unaware of the fact and hangs suspended in the air, legs pumping wildly, until realisation dawns, gravity intervenes and downfall ensues. Hillary Clinton's campaign looks a bit like that this week.

It's called the "Wile E. Coyote Effect".

Yeah, I want to see him go all out for the entire thing. It's time to start dunking in order to intimidate the opponents.

Also, he now has SEVEN supers today. I so underestimated. The waterfall is beginning.

EDIT: Make that NINE and a union. NINE in one day. Holy cow. Considering even with FL and MI counted he only needs about 100, that's enormous.

Does that take into account that if MI and FL are counted the threshold moves up to 2,209? (or something like that...)

So... Obama up by 9 superdelegates.

Given that I got deleted on my birthday, it would be at least poetic justice to see him surpass Hillary in the last thing she leads him in my B-day, today...

I mean, after harming the Democratic chances this much, she could go back to her sarcophagus.

Edit: And my birthday gift has arrived:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080510/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement

:D

More about my concern and disappointment that Obama isn't giving WV the Obama treatment, or as Obama apparently said in an interview once-

Appearing on ABC's Nightline back in November 2007, Obama slipped into Bob Dole mode for this slightly overconfident assessment of his electoral chances: "Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there."

The counter-narrative (counter to the fact that it is inevitable and matters little) is already being sewn- (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/09/west.virginia/index.html#cnnSTCText)
Some say it could send a sobering message to Obama's Democratic supporters.

West Virginia is expected to go for Clinton big time -- and the polls show it.

Clinton has a 43-point advantage over Obama, 66 percent to 23 percent, according to a survey from the American Research Group released Friday.

The poll was conducted after Tuesday's primary results and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Of course that's ARG, any followers of the 'Polls' thread will recognize them, but the rest of them aren't much kinder. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_upcoming_states.html)

Expect our favorite Clinton supporters and Clinton herself to be making hay out of things like this-
For the last two-thirds of the 20th century, West Virginia was a solidly Democratic state -- and it still is in state politics.

West Virginia had not voted for a non-incumbent Republican for president since Herbert Hoover. It even voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Then came 2000, when George W. Bush surprised everyone by winning West Virginia. How did he do it? With social issues, such as abortion, gays -- and most important -- guns, in a state where more than 70 percent of the voters have a gun in the household.

What you get in West Virginia is not so much Reagan Democrats as Bush Democrats.

Republicans believe they know how to beat Obama here.

"They would likely paint him, if he's the nominee, as a far-left liberal who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-civil union. That will not play well in West Virginia. Social issues register very high on the meter here," Bass said.

Democrats can fight back by running hard on the Bush economy. But they could be in for a surprise.

Mathematically it won't matter. Too few delegates are at stake for her to close the gap even if she won all of them. And as we've seen, if he did campaign and close the gap (and there is only so much you can close a gap that big) they'd make hay out of the effort put forth that still resulted in a loss. Or, as Newsweek's guy puts it (http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/09/wva.aspx)
That said, as much as any other post-Tuesday data point--Tim Russert declaring that "we now know who the Democratic nominee's going to be, and no one's going to dispute it," for example--Obama's West Virginia cold shoulder signals that his epic clash with Clinton is finally coming to an end. If the Mountain State had scheduled its primary for, say, April 29--i.e., the week after Pennsylvania--a 35-point loss in blue-collar country would've done him serious damage by amplifying the storyline du jour: namely, that Obama's Bubba Gap represented a potentially fatal flaw. But at this point, everyone knows that West Virginia's measly 28 delegates (or the 189 up for grabs afterwards) can't change the calculus of the race, meaning that they can't change the new narrative--Obama has the nomination sewn up--either. That's why the Illinois senator can get away with brushing off the entire contest. For her part, Clinton clearly wants West Virginia to count. "I think West Virginia is a test," she said Thursday in Charleston, noting that the state is rich in the "Catholic voters and Hispanic voters and blue-collar workers and seniors" that Dems will need to win in November. "It's a test for me, it's a test for Sen. Obama."

Unfortunately for Clinton, it's a test that Obama can afford to fail--and still finish first in his class.

Incidentally, he points out what's been pointed out here, that he's not giving it a total pass-
(For the record, Obama is still scrounging for votes--he's just not doing it in person. Since April 25, the Obama campaign has been airing an ad about soaring gas prices ("Nothing's Changed") on West Virginia TV. And on Wednesday, state field director Rachel Sigman urged supporters, via email, to "join us in West Virginia--just as so many of you did for North Carolina and Indiana--to go door-to-door and build our movement here." Chicago's goal, of course, is to get as many delegates as possible on Tuesday--without making it obvious that they're actually, you know, exerting any effort. *Obama has visited only once before, on March 20,* and plans to stop by Monday to visit a coal mine or something, but only because he's heading from Oregon to Washington, D.C. and it's, like, on the way.)


On the subject of Florida and Michigan, you know, the states she 'consistantly said we should count', you know, those states (http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/05/08/why-florida-and-michigan-won-t-matter-in-the-end.aspx)-
Finally, there's the stubborn little fact that Clinton completely opposed recognizing Michigan and Florida until after the primaries--i.e., when she realized she might need their delegates to win the nomination. "It's clear that this election they're having [in Michigan] is not going to count for anything," she said during an interview with New Hampshire Public Radio in October 2007. She wasn't alone. Two months earlier, Clinton adviser Harold Ickes actually voted to strip the rogue states of their delegates as a member of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws committee--"to prevent the gaming of the system," he said. Later than fall, Patti Solis Doyle, then Clinton's campaign manager, pledged not to compete in either contest--and was unequivocal as well. "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process... and the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role," she said. "Thus, we will... adhere to the DNC-approved nominating calendar." And when Michigan pushed for an early vote in 2004, then-DNC chairman--and current Clinton aide--Terry McAuliffe put his foot down. "If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," McAuliffe said (at least according to his memoir)."The closest [Michigan's delegates will] get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules." But when Clinton "won" Michigan on Jan. 15--and presumably caught a glimpse of the polling that showed her well ahead in Florida--she quickly changed her tune. "I believe our nominee will need the enthusiastic support of Democrats in these states to win the general election," she said on Jan. 25. "And so I will ask my Democratic convention delegates to support seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan." Ickes, Solis Doyle and McAuliffe immediately fell in line.
Don't you love the smell of opportunism in the morning?

Well, according to this guys math (which I haven't checked) it might not matter (something I've been saying at least in person for a while, that when the time comes, FL and MI will get seated because they don't matter.)-
Here goes. In Florida, the former First Lady "won" 105 delegates to Obama's 67, while in Michigan Clinton "won" 73 to uncommitted's 55. For the sake of argument, let's award all those uncommitted votes to Obama. That brings his two-state total to 122; Clinton gains 178. Has she caught up in the current pledged-delegate count? Nope. Obama led 1589 to 1424 before, according to RealClear Politics; he now leads 1711 to 1602. What's more, it's impossible for Clinton to close the gap by June 3--even with Florida and Michigan in her column. Assuming she wins 60 percent of the remaining primary delegates--a very generous assumption, considering that Obama is heavily favored in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana--she'd still trail by 55 (2059-2004) at the end of regulation.

In other words, close but no cigar. With Florida and Michigan in the mix--and the new magic number set at 2,209--both candidates would still need some superdelegate support to cross the finish line. In this case, Obama would wind up 150 short of a majority, a setback from the 88 he'd need if the rogue states weren't included in the count. But the news for Clinton is worse. Believe it or not, in my Florida/Michigan/60-40 fantasy scenario she'd wake up on June 4 further from the nomination than if we'd just given her 60 percent of the remaining primary delegates and left Florida and Michigan alone. That is, 205 superdels short vs. 199.

The argument goes, and we might see this at the end of the contests, that Obama should just give her what she wants because not only will it not matter, it will make things worse for her. With the slow march of Supers that has happened, I think this is even more likely.

And my birthday present has arrived! :D

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080510/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement

IN CARTOONS there is often a moment when a hapless character, having galloped over a cliff, is still unaware of the fact and hangs suspended in the air, legs pumping wildly, until realisation dawns, gravity intervenes and downfall ensues. Hillary Clinton's campaign looks a bit like that this week.

On an NPR quiz show this morning, they talked about it something like this:

You know how medical dramas always have that point at which the doctor steps back, pulls off his mask, and says "Let's call it," referring to time of death? Imagine if the patient then sat up on the table and yelled, "On to West Virginia!"

On an NPR quiz show this morning, they talked about it something like this:

You know how medical dramas always have that point at which the doctor steps back, pulls off his mask, and says "Let's call it," referring to time of death? Imagine if the patient then sat up on the table and yelled, "On to West Virginia!"

I love that show.

Does that take into account that if MI and FL are counted the threshold moves up to 2,209? (or something like that...)

Yes, that's figuring in the breakdown for each of them according to the vote, assuming he gets all of the undecided. It's also takes into account the 2209. I think he needs less than 90 now. It's soooooo over.

Yes, that's figuring in the breakdown for each of them according to the vote, assuming he gets all of the undecided. It's also takes into account the 2209. I think he needs less than 90 now. It's soooooo over.

According to that guy I quoted above, adding those states makes it even harder for her. Though I don't suspect that happening until after Puerto Rico and there are no 'what ifs' left to contemplate. I also don't know what that does to the popular vote count, which is one of her metrics. (likely it has to exclude some caucus states in order to work...)

According to that guy I quoted above, adding those states makes it even harder for her. Though I don't suspect that happening until after Puerto Rico and there are no 'what ifs' left to contemplate. I also don't know what that does to the popular vote count, which is one of her metrics. (likely it has to exclude some caucus states in order to work...)

I actually read that article. That's where I got my number except I used a more realistic outcome for the remaining contests. I went a lot closer to a split. It puts him just over 100 short. There is no way she's going to come out the remaining contests with a 20% lead.

Obama is doing what he needs to do. At the current rate he could have enough supers by the 20th when he is planning to declare victory. I have to say, the only game he can really play in terms of campaigning is to win the most delegates and he did so. There's pretty much nothing to say after that.

super update: obama takes the lead by pretty much everyone's count. so far today he's picked up the add-on from utah, two supers from the virgin islands - including one switcher (um, just now? he scored 90-something% in the virgin islands forever ago...), and one of the add-ons from ohio. clinton picked up an add-on from ma for a net loss of zero so far today. still haven't heard anything on the other add-ons from oh and ma.

oh, and apparently edwards seems likely to endorse obama sometime soon (though perhaps waiting until after west virginia), which more-or-less gives obama an additional 19 pledged dels.

I actually read that article. That's where I got my number except I used a more realistic outcome for the remaining contests. I went a lot closer to a split. It puts him just over 100 short. There is no way she's going to come out the remaining contests with a 20% lead.

Obama is doing what he needs to do. At the current rate he could have enough supers by the 20th when he is planning to declare victory. I have to say, the only game he can really play in terms of campaigning is to win the most delegates and he did so. There's pretty much nothing to say after that.

Ia! Ia! Obama Fthagn!

That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with mulluatoes, even death may die.

And with mulluatoes, even death may die.

I hate to be that guy that corrects people, but "Mulattoes".

I hate to be that guy that corrects people, but "Mulattoes".

Tomaytoes, tomahtoes.... Mulluatoes, Mulattoes.

I hate to be that guy that corrects people, but "Mulattoes".

The Lovecraft reference was awesome enough to excuse any spelling error on his part.

The Lovecraft reference was awesome enough to excuse any spelling error on his part.

Point.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080511/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement

Obama overtakes lead in superdelegates for first time

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 43 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama erased Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-imposing lead among superdelegates Saturday when he added more endorsements from the group of Democrats who will decide the party's nomination for president.
ADVERTISEMENT

Obama added superdelegates from Utah, Ohio and Arizona, as well as two from the Virgin Islands who had previously backed Clinton. The additions enabled Obama to surpass Clinton's total for the first time in the campaign. He had picked up nine endorsements Friday.

The milestone is important because Clinton would need to win over the superdelegates by a wide margin to claim the nomination. They are a group that Clinton owned before the first caucus, when she was able to cash in on the popularity of the Clinton brand among the party faithful.

Those party insiders, however, have been steadily streaming to Obama since he started posting wins in early voting states.

"I always felt that if anybody establishes himself as the clear leader, the superdelegates would fall in line," said Don Fowler, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

"It is perceived that he is the leader," said Fowler, a superdelegate from South Carolina who supports Clinton. "The trickle is going to become an avalanche."

Superdelegates are the party and elected officials who will automatically attend the Democratic national convention this August in Denver. They can support whomever they choose, regardless of what happens in the primaries.

They are key because neither Obama nor Clinton can win the nomination without them.

Nearly 800 superdelegates will attend the convention. Obama has endorsements from 276, according to the latest tally by The Associated Press. Clinton has 271.5.

Many of the superdelegates who endorsed Obama in the past week said it is time for the party to unite behind him. Obama is coming off a big win in North Carolina's Democratic primary Tuesday. Clinton narrowly won Indiana's primary the same day, but Obama did better than many expected.

Obama has added 21 superdelegates since and Clinton has had a net increase of two.

Kevin Rodriquez of the Virgin Islands said in a statement that he switched from Clinton to Obama because he thinks Obama has brought energy and excitement to the party.

"He has shown he can connect with Democrats, Republicans and independents across this country, whether we live on the mainland or an island," Rodriquez said.

In all, Obama added five superdelegates late Friday and Saturday. Clinton added one in Massachusetts, but lost the two in the Virgin Islands.

Clinton started the year with a 106-delegate lead among superdelegates, a margin that started to shrink after Obama won the Iowa caucuses in early January.

Jenny Backus, a Democratic consultant who is not aligned with either candidate, said the Democratic National Committee was filled with superdelegates who had long supported Clinton and her husband, the former president. That gave Clinton a built-in advantage.

"The DNC was her turf, and she was the candidate of the insiders," Backus said.

Clinton's margin slipped to 87 the week of Super Tuesday, just as Obama was about to embark on a stretch of 11 straight victories in primaries and caucuses.

Obama was rewarded for his success at the polls.

From Super Tuesday on Feb. 5 to the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas, Obama picked up 51 superdelegates while Clinton had a net loss of one.

"Normally the party activists march lockstep with the establishment candidate," Backus said. "They didn't do that this time."

Even during Obama's toughest stretch of the campaign, when his former pastor's incendiary comments dominated the headlines, Obama kept churning out superdelegate endorsements. And when Clinton posted a big win in the Pennsylvania primary, Obama collected still more.

Clinton picked up the pace of her endorsements after Pennsylvania, adding 11.5 superdelegates in the following two weeks, including the half delegate from the Democrats Abroad. Obama countered by adding 22.

A little more than 200 superdelegates remain undecided, and about 40 others will be named by state parties at state conventions and meetings throughout the spring.

ABC News and The New York Times reported separately that Obama had passed Clinton in superdelegates endorsements on Friday. Both of their counts, however, had fewer Clinton superdelegates than the AP count. The AP verifies all superdelegate endorsements included in its count.

Obama has a 163-delegate lead among the pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. That means Clinton would have to generate an identical lead among superdelegates to catch him.

There are 217 pledged delegates at stake in the remaining six primaries. Obama is on track to secure a majority of the pledged delegates on May 20, when Kentucky and Oregon vote.

Obama argues that the superdelegates should support the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates. Clinton says superdelegates should exercise independent judgment.

In the overall race for the nomination, Obama has 1,864.5 delegates and Clinton has 1,697, according to the latest AP tally. Obama is just 160.5 delegates shy of the 2,025 needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Ohio labor leader Dave Regan, who was selected as a superdelegate Saturday, told the AP that Obama is "the candidate that can unite the country and move beyond the divisiveness and gridlock that we have today."

Regan recognized that Clinton won the Ohio primary March 4.

"But that was two months ago. I think as the campaign has unfolded, Obama is looking like a stronger and stronger candidate," Regan said. "I think it's very likely he will be the nominee."

Besides Regan and Rodriquez, Obama added endorsements from Carole Burke of the Virgin Islands, Kristi Cumming of Utah and Rep. Harry Mitchell of Arizona. Clinton added Arthur Powell, a superdelegate from Massachusetts.

*snip*

From what I understand, most other supers are holding out for concessions, positions of power and the like.

If I was Barack Obama, I'd go on television to say that he will not bargain for concessions. Either people pledge for the best candidate or they don't, if they want to play the old political game they will be disappointed.

In return, he will decide the positions on the criteria of who is best suited for them, he does not want to be hamstrung by bargains made for the presidency.

I wonder if he could get away with it, I think it would grow his respect enormously.

Hillary's superdelegate lead is down to ONE!!!

Its over folks.

Hillary's superdelegate lead is down to ONE!!!

Its over folks.

Her superdelegate lead is actually down to a negative number, Corny...

This has probably been raised before, but TIME's new cover proclaims Obama as the winner.

This has probably been raised before, but TIME's new cover proclaims Obama as the winner.

It is inevitable.

Her superdelegate lead is actually down to a negative number, Corny...

different places use different counts. i think cnn still has him down.

i prefer http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ as they are the only ones with real transparency in their counting process.

different places use different counts. i think cnn still has him down.

They do.

i prefer http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ as they are the only ones with real transparency in their counting process.

interesting and it somewhat matches up with RCP.

More on that down ballot effect, another wife candidate is in trouble as well, as Elizabeth Dole (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/north_carolina/election_2008_north_carolina_senate) faces a challenge to her seat.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in North Carolina Hagan attracting 48% of the vote statewide while Dole earns support from 47%. A month ago, Dole led Hagan by thirteen percentage points.

And here is part of the map we're not seeing, the pockets of McCain's own backyard that he's going to have to expend resources to defend regardless of if he'll win or lose the state-

Any incumbent who polls below 50% early in the campaign cycle is considered potentially vulnerable. Dole is far from the only Republican incumbent in that position this year. In addition to North Carolina, Democrats have at least a chance of picking up Republican seats in Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon,Alaska, Minnesota, Kentucky and Texas.

The Presidential race in North Carolina is also much closer than Republicans would like.

Facing a 50 state candidate with an experienced a invigorated grassroots, he'll find himself stretched thin protecting congressional seats. The biggest favor we could give him at this point is a candidate playing the same old +1 game of electoral politics.

I've just pruned the thread. The prunings can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13686920#post13686920). It's mostly the Wright affair and the Iran discussion. This is now the live thread.

Anyone read the CNN ticker that Clinton is willing to lend her campaign more money?

Anyone read the CNN ticker that Clinton is willing to lend her campaign more money?

Well, someone's gotta pay for it. At this point I don't even think our local Clinton supporters would be willing to back that bet with hard cash.

Anyone read the CNN ticker that Clinton is willing to lend her campaign more money?

Good! Let's watch the hag waste millions while her dreams crumble. After spending this long trying to throw a wrench into the chances of ANY Democratic candidate, she deserves that much at least.

Good! Let's watch the hag waste millions while her dreams crumble. After spending this long trying to throw a wrench into the chances of ANY Democratic candidate, she deserves that much at least.

Well, aside from the step too far I would argue to wish her anguish, if she goes down in flames she's taking the whole tent with her, so it's certainly better to hope for a graceful exit instead of a humiliating one.

Well, aside from the step too far I would argue to wish her anguish, if she goes down in flames she's taking the whole tent with her, so it's certainly better to hope for a graceful exit instead of a humiliating one.

1- I don't think she'll be able to harm Obama or the Democratic Party anymore than she already did.

2- Frankly, given the damage she's done out of sheer and abject hubris, I believe I do get to wish for her suffering. God knows most Democrats probably are at this point. And for what I've seen it can't be against the rules.

3- She can make a graceful exit AND hurt privately at the same time.

Well, someone's gotta pay for it. At this point I don't even think our local Clinton supporters would be willing to back that bet with hard cash.

hey, anybody actually give some money this primary season?

I've just pruned the thread. The prunings can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13686920#post13686920). It's mostly the Wright affair and the Iran discussion. This is now the live thread.

you are a great moderator!

Your cheque is in the mail.:p

1- I don't think she'll be able to harm Obama or the Democratic Party anymore than she already did.

2- Frankly, given the damage she's done out of sheer and abject hubris, I believe I do get to wish for her suffering. God knows most Democrats probably are at this point. And for what I've seen it can't be against the rules.

3- She can make a graceful exit AND hurt privately at the same time.

You "get" to do whatever you like, but your excuses don't actually make what doing reasonable. Wishing people harm, and you've done this in this case and with the stuff about Rush attacks your own credibility as a person honestly attempting to follow the evidence.

I don't think you want that. It makes what might otherwise appear to be a reaction to the facts into a raving rant.

:eek:

I'm suddenly credited as the creator of this thread!

I like :p

http://youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY

From what I understand, most other supers are holding out for concessions, positions of power and the like.

If I was Barack Obama, I'd go on television to say that he will not bargain for concessions. Either people pledge for the best candidate or they don't, if they want to play the old political game they will be disappointed.

In return, he will decide the positions on the criteria of who is best suited for them, he does not want to be hamstrung by bargains made for the presidency.

I wonder if he could get away with it, I think it would grow his respect enormously.

agreed

I don't think you want that. It makes what might otherwise appear to be a reaction to the facts into a raving rant.

Jocabia, in just about any situation, you'd be perfectly right: I'd want to play it well to keep my own strength in the argument.

However, with a woman that is literally trying to bring the house down with her, with a man that wishes for riots, property damage and possibly death, and all for politics, all so he can have his party destroy the world with more pain and death and war some more, with the aforementioned woman claiming that, in effect, black and/or educated people matter less, and with her supporters essentially ignoring anything just to hope she gets the nomination, despite the fact that it would kill any chances the Democratic Party has of seeming democratic, let alone regaining the presidency, it ceased to be only about the facts a long time ago: I will discuss the facts, but I will savor every moment of the woman's fall, because, by now, it became about personal dislike too.

You are being reasonable, though. That's good on your part. But I don't have the habit of rising above the situation I'm in. It doesn't mean I'll troll or flame (I've been running some posts by an OP on MIRC just in case, indeed), but it does mean I'll enjoy her fall.

I wonder if he could get away with it, I think it would grow his respect enormously.

He could. Because they most certainly wouldn't vote for Hillary just to spite him all the while their constituents learn of what they did.

hey, anybody actually give some money this primary season?

To Clinton?

No.

=)

To Clinton?

No.

=)

Heck, I wonder how big a share of her campaign cash did SHE donate to HERSELF. I know it was 11 Million, but I'm wondering the percentage.

Heck, I wonder how big a share of her campaign cash did SHE donate to HERSELF. I know it was 11 Million, but I'm wondering the percentage.

Not that big of one, really. She's had record fund raising, too, it's just been outstripped by Barack's more record breaking fund raising. And she didn't plan for an extended fight. It's like the 2004 thing, where Bush people crowed about Bush receiving more votes than any one in history, but the second most was Kerry, it was just a big election-this one has been a big dollar one. Whats remarkable is the big dollar winner did it primarily with small individual donations.

Not that big of one, really. She's had record fund raising, too, it's just been outstripped by Barack's more record breaking fund raising. And she didn't plan for an extended fight. It's like the 2004 thing, where Bush people crowed about Bush receiving more votes than any one in history, but the second most was Kerry, it was just a big election-this one has been a big dollar one. Whats remarkable is the big dollar winner did it primarily with small individual donations.

God bless the Internet.

Not that big of one, really. She's had record fund raising, too, it's just been outstripped by Barack's more record breaking fund raising. And she didn't plan for an extended fight. It's like the 2004 thing, where Bush people crowed about Bush receiving more votes than any one in history, but the second most was Kerry, it was just a big election-this one has been a big dollar one. Whats remarkable is the big dollar winner did it primarily with small individual donations.

Indeed. That's a huge defiance of the conventional wisdom that says you need special interests and big spenders to fund your campaign if you want to have a chance at winning. That's a big part of why I support Sen. Obama's campaign-- if he doesn't take money from these special interest groups, he won't owe them shit when he's elected and might actually be able to get something done. I mean, a big part of why nothing useful ever gets done is that big businesses have politicians squarely in their pockets.

I even gave some money a couple of weeks ago. It wasn't much, but that's a major part of this campaign-- it isn't about a few people doing a lot, but many people doing a bit.

I even gave some money a couple of weeks ago. It wasn't much, but that's a major part of this campaign-- it isn't about a few people doing a lot, but many people doing a bit.

Did someone match your donation? I think that's kind of a neat mechanic they use for first-time donors.

According to that guy I quoted above, adding those states makes it even harder for her.

yep. every states she didn't win with 80% of the vote makes it that much more impossible for her to catch up. and she couldn't pull those kinds of wins running unopposed.

From what I understand, most other supers are holding out for concessions, positions of power and the like.

that seems unlikely. firstly, because like 20% of them haven't been chosen at all yet, but second, because the dynamics are not such that they would get anything other than scorn. more likely, people have been holding back for fear of offending major players in the party.

also, 2 more for obama so far today, and the idaho party chair is going to announce his in about 2 hours. any guesses as to which way he is going?

btw, this brings us to 26 supers for obama since the last tuesday, with 3 switchers.

that seems unlikely. firstly, because like 20% of them haven't been chosen at all yet, but second, because the dynamics are not such that they would get anything other than scorn. more likely, people have been holding back for fear of offending major players in the party.
And voters. Most of them are people who are facing seat defenses and don't want to piss off their voters. I think they're waiting for May 20 when Obama hits the majority of pledged delegates.

Can we please have a poll:

Should HRC continue or should she step aside...

that seems unlikely. firstly, because like 20% of them haven't been chosen at all yet, but second, because the dynamics are not such that they would get anything other than scorn. more likely, people have been holding back for fear of offending major players in the party.


You'd think...

However, it's not just positions they're bargaining for but also policies.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8867.html

Jocabia, in just about any situation, you'd be perfectly right: I'd want to play it well to keep my own strength in the argument.

However, with a woman that is literally trying to bring the house down with her, with a man that wishes for riots, property damage and possibly death, and all for politics, all so he can have his party destroy the world with more pain and death and war some more, with the aforementioned woman claiming that, in effect, black and/or educated people matter less, and with her supporters essentially ignoring anything just to hope she gets the nomination, despite the fact that it would kill any chances the Democratic Party has of seeming democratic, let alone regaining the presidency, it ceased to be only about the facts a long time ago: I will discuss the facts, but I will savor every moment of the woman's fall, because, by now, it became about personal dislike too.

You are being reasonable, though. That's good on your part. But I don't have the habit of rising above the situation I'm in. It doesn't mean I'll troll or flame (I've been running some posts by an OP on MIRC just in case, indeed), but it does mean I'll enjoy her fall.

We both know I don't agree, but this IS a very reasonable response. I get where you're coming from. I happen to feel like Rush and Hillary would just as passionately argue that they are also justified. Someone always starts it and someone always has to finish it. If you continue that kind of vitriolic and abusive behavior, it's degrades the entire discussion.

I know people think I'm vitriolic, but I, honestly, mean it in fun. I'm making fun of CH, not wishing him harm, emotional or otherwise. In fact, I like CH. I just happen to disagree with some of his views and the style of his argument. I think when it starts getting personal in the way it does for you it's going to naturally prevent reasonable debate.

I don't think anyone wants a debate to be about what a hag Hillary is and how John McCain is a dirty, old bastard, and how Obama is an affirmative-action case with nappy hair, or some such nonsense.

Can we please have a poll:

Should HRC continue or should she step aside...

Poll added - just for you! :fluffle:

We both know I don't agree, but this IS a very reasonable response. I get where you're coming from. I happen to feel like Rush and Hillary would just as passionately argue that they are also justified. Someone always starts it and someone always has to finish it. If you continue that kind of vitriolic and abusive behavior, it's degrades the entire discussion.

I know people think I'm vitriolic, but I, honestly, mean it in fun. I'm making fun of CH, not wishing him harm, emotional or otherwise. In fact, I like CH. I just happen to disagree with some of his views and the style of his argument. I think when it starts getting personal in the way it does for you it's going to naturally prevent reasonable debate.

I don't think anyone wants a debate to be about what a hag Hillary is and how John McCain is a dirty, old bastard, and how Obama is an affirmative-action case with nappy hair, or some such nonsense.

Just for the record: I'm not attacking nor baiting any poster here, nor am I wishing them harm. (A point I will hammer because I was recently DEATed...) My ill-wishes are reserved currently for Hillary Clinton, Bush, McCain and Rush Limbaugh.

But, anyways, I can both be reasoned (as it were) in a few moments and be mean towards Hillary or Rush in others. It WILL weaken my voice in the debate, and I'm fully aware of it. However, I can make up for it with skill.

I was just listening to the radio and they brought up an interesting point. Clinton has a financial stake in staying in the race. She's loaned her campaign something like $11 million and the campaign owes quite a bit of money elsewhere. McCain-Feingold rules (that weren't struck down) will keep her from continuing to try and raise money once the primary election is over. This means that her hope of paying back her debt to herself hinges on continuing to get money from donors.

Her debt to other people can be rolled into her next Senate campaign, but she cannot pay herself back that way.

She's also got something like $23 million that she's raised for the general campaign. The only way she can use that money is if the donors agree to let her keep it for her next political campaign.

I was just listening to the radio and they brought up an interesting point. Clinton has a financial stake in staying in the race. She's loaned her campaign something like $11 million and the campaign owes quite a bit of money elsewhere. McCain-Feingold rules (that weren't struck down) will keep her from continuing to try and raise money once the primary election is over. This means that her hope of paying back her debt to herself hinges on continuing to get money from donors.

Her debt to other people can be rolled into her next Senate campaign, but she cannot pay herself back that way.

She's also got something like $23 million that she's raised for the general campaign. The only way she can use that money is if the donors agree to let her keep it for her next political campaign.

That's interesting. I had been dismissing the whole Democratic party paying her debt back thing off as silly, but the rules bit makes it make more sense. Though I think in the end she's going to have to eat her loses. Time to write another book!

That's interesting. I had been dismissing the whole Democratic party paying her debt back thing off as silly, but the rules bit makes it make more sense. Though I think in the end she's going to have to eat her loses. Time to write another book!

The show did bring up one possibility to help her recoup:

If she drops out gracefully, Obama could agree to ask his supporters to donate to her campaign (she can still take money until the convention). It would be a way of extending an olive branch and might help her recoup (assuming they actually did it).

The show did bring up one possibility to help her recoup:

If she drops out gracefully, Obama could agree to ask his supporters to donate to her campaign (she can still take money until the convention). It would be a way of extending an olive branch and might help her recoup (assuming they actually did it).

I suppose it would ruin the goodwill nature of it if we refered to it as the "If we all give you $5 will you go away?" campaign...

"If we all give you $5 will you go away?"

I will. :D

I currently bracing myself for the flood of Clinton supporters saying she still has a chance after she wins West Virginia.

I currently bracing myself for the flood of Clinton supporters saying she still has a chance after she wins West Virginia.

It's a rock solid certainty. I'd say that the best thing is to give 'em room and wait it out to May 20 when he reaches majority and then let it end. West Virginia is going to be a blow out, maybe even the biggest yet (Virgin Islands aside...), they're going to have a lot to crow about and all we can say is 'too little, too late.'

It's a rock solid certainty. I'd say that the best thing is to give 'em room and wait it out to May 20 when he reaches majority and then let it end. West Virginia is going to be a blow out, maybe even the biggest yet (Virgin Islands aside...), they're going to have a lot to crow about and all we can say is 'too little, too late.'

yeah, its safe to say that from the primary to may 20th I wont be reading this thread. Ill just get annoyed.

It's a rock solid certainty. I'd say that the best thing is to give 'em room and wait it out to May 20 when he reaches majority and then let it end. West Virginia is going to be a blow out, maybe even the biggest yet (Virgin Islands aside...), they're going to have a lot to crow about and all we can say is 'too little, too late.'

We could always try chanting "scoreboard!"

We could always try chanting "scoreboard!"

Meh, I say let 'em have their day. They're going to have a point somewhere buried in their adjusted metric nonsense, that Obama does need to find a way to reach out to those voters. Granted, when the choice isn't between two strikingly similar candidates but rather Obama and McCain, that will be a little easier, but it's definitely the demographic where he needs the most work.

We could always try chanting "scoreboard!"

I'm in for that :D

I'm in for that :D

Corny, you know exactly what a certian person's response will be.

Something along the lines of "typical Obama supporter arrogance that makes me want to vote for McCain".

Corny, you know exactly what a certian person's response will be.

Something along the lines of "typical Obama supporter arrogance that makes me want to vote for McCain".

As I got DEATed recently, I will refrain from saying anything. ;)

Corny, you know exactly what a certian person's response will be.

Something along the lines of "typical Obama supporter arrogance that makes me want to vote for McCain".

Except for the fact that that person decided to leave this thread permanently!

CH hasn't been around much has he?

So what if any impact do people think the expected absolute blowout tomorrow will have?

Do we think it will stem the superdelegate bleeding? Do we think it has any potential to affect the race or re-energize her support? Will we have to listen to 3 more weeks of race-baiting by way too many in the media?

Incidentally, I find it interesting that Clinton's camp is so willing to set the expectations so high. If she ends up with a blowout but everyone acts like she had a poor performance because of puffed up expectations, I would assume she'll be pissed. Even a 20 point margin is gonna hurt after such a high bar was set.

My prediction - 33% and a bit of a depressed turnout.

Except for the fact that that person decided to leave this thread permanently!

CH hasn't been around much has he?

I assure you, he's around. Just not to much to crow about in the Hillary camp of late.

Do we think it has any potential to affect the race or re-energize her support? Will we have to listen to 3 more weeks of race-baiting by way too many in the media?


This.

As an aside, as anyone fact-checked all her comments about how "a president has never won without taking such and such state" (usually just the states she wins coincidentally)? Im far too lazy to.

As an aside, as anyone fact-checked all her comments about how "a president has never won without taking such and such state" (usually just the states she wins coincidentally)? Im far too lazy to.

Doesn't it always seem like it's whatever state she just won? There are too many of these "No one has gotten the white house without eating waffles at Joes in Wyoming on a Tuesday"

Doesn't it always seem like it's whatever state she just won? There are too many of these "No one has gotten the white house without eating waffles at Joes in Wyoming on a Tuesday"

Thats exactly my point. Anyone fact checked?


I suspect that no democrat has won the White House without winning IL, but she never mentioned that one. Could be it that she lost it?


I do believe so.

So what if any impact do people think the expected absolute blowout tomorrow will have?

Do we think it will stem the superdelegate bleeding? Do we think it has any potential to affect the race or re-energize her support? Will we have to listen to 3 more weeks of race-baiting by way too many in the media?

Incidentally, I find it interesting that Clinton's camp is so willing to set the expectations so high. If she ends up with a blowout but everyone acts like she had a poor performance because of puffed up expectations, I would assume she'll be pissed. Even a 20 point margin is gonna hurt after such a high bar was set.

My prediction - 33% and a bit of a depressed turnout.

Personally, I say closer to 25%. Given that her margins of victory lately have been smaller, despite previous polling, I don't think this is going to be a super blow-out. A typical Obama victory, perhaps, but not a super blowout.

My parents are going to use it to annoy me though...

So what if any impact do people think the expected absolute blowout tomorrow will have?

clinton's embarrassingly small list of such will finally have a second member of the club

Corny, you know exactly what a certian person's response will be.

Something along the lines of "typical Obama supporter arrogance that makes me want to vote for McCain".

Back fresh from some time off. At this point in time Hillary should make it a point to do 1 or 2 things... She needs to pay back her debt...and maybe could push hard to get enough people to pressure Obama for the #2 slot. I don't think #2 is a likely option, but it's where I think she can now put her focus. It was hers to lose and she did just that.

Except for the fact that that person decided to leave this thread permanently!

CH hasn't been around much has he?

I think he was referring more to Shal. CH is a little bit above his nonsense. This is unless Shal is CH's puppet as I had felt before.

As an aside, as anyone fact-checked all her comments about how "a president has never won without taking such and such state" (usually just the states she wins coincidentally)? Im far too lazy to.

factcheck.org

Q:

Has any presidential candidate won the general election without winning the Ohio primary?
After she won in Ohio, Hillary Clinton stated that no candidate had ever been elected president without winning the Ohio primary. I think that may be a misstatement, could you clarify that please?
A:

Yes. Richard Nixon did it in 1968, and John Kennedy in 1960. But "favorite son" candidates won the Ohio contest both those years.
On the heels of a big win in Ohio, Hillary Clinton said in an interview that "no person has ever won the White House without winning the Ohio primary, in either party." Her campaign is pushing a slightly amended version: "No candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary."

We don't know how Clinton is defining "recent history," but you only have to go back to 1968 to find an exception. That year, Ohio Gov. James Rhodes won the state's Republican presidential primary. But Richard Nixon went on to win the nomination and the presidency.

Of course, Rhodes had the advantage of the "favorite son" factor – as did Ohio Gov. Michael diSalle, who won the state's Democratic primary in 1960. (John F. Kennedy, the eventual nominee and presidential winner, didn't appear on the primary ballot.) In those cases, it's certainly no surprise that a local politician would bring in a number of votes. But foregone conclusion or not, it means that Clinton's statement is inaccurate.

Clinton's claim does hold true for the last 40 years. But it may not carry as much weight as she implies. Ohio's primaries tend to come late in the political season, meaning a narrowed field of candidates and sometimes a clear front-runner for the nomination.

Clinton's claim does hold true for the last 40 years. But it may not carry as much weight as she implies. Ohio's primaries tend to come late in the political season, meaning a narrowed field of candidates and sometimes a clear front-runner for the nomination.
This is what gets me. In states this late in the season they're always voting for the last dude left, so of course they vote for the winner.

Stick with it to the end. If the super delegates are swayed by popular vote, there is no need for them in the first place, thus showing the inherent stupidity in the system.

Stick with it to the end. If the super delegates are swayed by popular vote, there is no need for them in the first place, thus showing the inherent stupidity in the system.
You have to make the case that he's a party outsider and not in the parties interests. Unless you can do that there is no reason to overturn the voters decision. With the nearly identical candidates it's a difficult if not impossible case to make in which case the should ratify the popular vote.

You have to make the case that he's a party outsider and not in the parties interests. Unless you can do that there is no reason to overturn the voters decision. With the nearly identical candidates it's a difficult if not impossible case to make in which case the should ratify the popular vote.

I am running off of the logic that a popularity contest does not dictate what is best for the system; whether or not Obama or Clinton makes for a better candidate against McCain is a separate issue from the matter at hand as to who has more momentum in a splintered primary where Democratic party voters can only choose one of two options in the party, not necessarily cross-voting for McCain in the general election. The issues are intertwined as to that of a DNA Double-Helix, but still distinguishable in their own right.

I don't realistically think Clinton has a chance any more.

But I think it's right for her to fight on. She's making a point: that a female politician can be just as selfish, just as pigheaded and just as ego-based as any male politician. It isn't pretty, it's just politics.

I don't realistically think Clinton has a chance any more.

But I think it's right for her to fight on. She's making a point: that a female politician can be just as selfish, just as pigheaded and just as ego-based as any male politician. It isn't pretty, it's just politics.

Hillary has a six inch clit and balls as big as Richard Roundtree sitting on a lawnchair and sipping white zinfandel in the shadows just outside the dimly lit circle of a crossburning in rural Kentucky.

She should team up with the pale hombre negro and form the ultimate super loogee in the face of Anne Coulter.

I am running off of the logic that a popularity contest does not dictate what is best for the system; whether or not Obama or Clinton makes for a better candidate against McCain is a separate issue...

Which do you endorse?

Head count of the Party, or some cabal of the Party choosing the most viable candidate?

Or, neither?

Which do you endorse?

Head count of the Party, or some cabal of the Party choosing the most viable candidate?

Or, neither?

How vile, wretched, indeed putrid have we become?

Peter talks about what's best for "the System", you willingly don the chains of the Party, there is utterance of cabals...

This is like Orwell!



You know, Joey Orwell, that guy who always posts about different means of settling party nominations at the national level.

How vile, wretched, indeed putrid have we become?

Peter talks about what's best for "the System", you willingly don the chains of the Party, there is utterance of cabals...

This is like Orwell!



You know, Joey Orwell, that guy who always posts about different means of settling party nominations at the national level.

Lunatic Goofballs has an opponent now... :D

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/mcauliffe-says-clinton-staying-in-will-win-popular-vote/

McAuliffe is saying that Hillary is going to win the Popular Vote.

Of course, this is her campaign chair. His reasoning:

“We will move ahead in the popular vote. There are 1.1 million Democrats in West Virginia, there are 1.6 million in Kentucky, 2.4 million in Puerto Rico. We win by these huge margins, have good turnout there, we will pick up a significant amount of the popular vote."

Someone needs to tell him that the math is impossible.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/mcauliffe-says-clinton-staying-in-will-win-popular-vote/

McAuliffe is saying that Hillary is going to win the Popular Vote.

Of course, this is her campaign chair. His reasoning:



Someone needs to tell him that the math is impossible.

The only state in which Hillary will have a bigger landslide against Obama than in West Virginia is the state of Denial...

hey, you know the clinton camp's "if we were using the republican primary system we'd already have won" line? it turns out that this, besides being irrelevant, is just plain false (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/13/01832/3725/56/514556). the assumption was that republicans use a winner-take-all system for their primaries. flatly untrue - the republican system is even more complex and far less democratic even than that of the dems, with massive variability between states. go take a look (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-Del.phtml) (click a state to see its system).

for example, california actually is winner-take-all...by district, with an additional bonus set for winning the state. so while those rules would have helped clinton, she still wouldn't have gotten what mark penn expected to get out of california. on the other hand, washington has a winner-take-all by district/proportional split state-wide system (which would have benefited obama there). in fact, a good chunk of the true winner-take-all states under the republican rules are obama states.

so apparently the clinton camp's lack of rules mastery extends even to hypothetical match-ups.
"if we were playing by republican rules, we'd be losing by slightly less. go team clinton!"

hey, you know the clinton camp's "if we were using the republican primary system we'd already have won" line? it turns out that this, besides being irrelevant, is just plain false (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/13/01832/3725/56/514556). the assumption was that republicans use a winner-take-all system for their primaries. flatly untrue - the republican system is even more complex and far less democratic even than that of the dems, with massive variability between states. go take a look (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-Del.phtml) (click a state to see its system).

for example, california actually is winner-take-all...by district, with an additional bonus set for winning the state. so while those rules would have helped clinton, she still wouldn't have gotten what mark penn expected to get out of california. on the other hand, washington has a winner-take-all by district/proportional split state-wide system (which would have benefited obama there). in fact, a good chunk of the true winner-take-all states under the republican rules are obama states.

so apparently the clinton camp's lack of rules mastery extends even to hypothetical match-ups.
"if we were playing by republican rules, we'd be losing by slightly less. go team clinton!"

So it looks like Obama would have won anyways if I am understanding this right. Since when has any member of the Clinton Camp told the truth?

also, 4 more supers for obama today so far (new orleans mayor ray nagin, a rep from in, dc party chair, and co dnc chair). plus one openly defecting pledged delegate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202554.html) from maryland for obama.

the question now is, does he pick up more endorsements today than clinton picks up pledged dels from her expected obama-esque landslide in wv?

Carville: Obama likely to win nomination (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/carville-obama-likely-to-win-nomination/)

Now that Carville is saying it, can we now call this race over?

also, one openly defecting pledged delegate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202554.html) from maryland for obama.

Oh, the karma! It's funny enough to make me actually link Fox News! :D

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/03/clinton-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-pledged-delegate/

Does everyone remember Clinton's claim? Remember how utterly pissed some people, myself included, were at her willingness to eschew the very nature of pledged delegates?

Well... I'm not anymore. Way to go, Hillary. Pledged delegates aren't pledged. To you. :p

So what if any impact do people think the expected absolute blowout tomorrow will have?

A lot of blustering, but I don't think it'll change the overall outcome of the primary.

Do we think it will stem the superdelegate bleeding?

Maybe a little. But I think most people will still look at the numbers and realize that they don't add up.

Do we think it has any potential to affect the race or re-energize her support?

Somewhat. But I don't expect it to draw in new support - not this late in the game.

Will we have to listen to 3 more weeks of race-baiting by way too many in the media?

3 weeks? I expect about 6 months of it.

Does everyone remember Clinton's claim? Remember how utterly pissed some people, myself included, were at her willingness to eschew the very nature of pledged delegates?

Well... I'm not anymore. Way to go, Hillary. Pledged delegates aren't pledged. To you. :p

at least obama wasn't lobbying the guy to get him to switch. it looks instead like clinton wasn't so good at picking loyalists to fill her delegate spots - he was an open obama supporter last year, back when she was inevitable.

at least obama wasn't lobbying the guy to get him to switch. it looks instead like clinton wasn't so good at picking loyalists to fill her delegate spots - he was an open obama supporter last year, back when she was inevitable.

Oh, mind you, I didn't even mention that small fact: Indeed, Obama didn't lobby pledged delegates to switch from her to him.

Hillary did. So, one switched.

From her to him. :p

So it looks like Obama would have won anyways if I am understanding this right.

yeah, under a couple different reasonable sets of assumptions of what it means to 'play by the republican rules'

does this strike anyone else as being the sort of thing you ought to actually check on before having the former president of the united states say it publicly? i mean, wouldn't you want to do what you can to have him not make an ass of himself unnecessarily?

btw, i love the internet. the free flow of information means it is now relatively easy for the curious to do this sort of analysis while bored and spread it far and wide. and in the right sort of communities, the work will be checked and the results will be solid. fucking awesome.

You know what really gets me about the Clinton camp? How utterly dishonest it is. They are pulling the ol' "no one wins the white house without winning this primary" game. Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with primaries usually being decided by now, could it?

And, of course, in their list of swing states they've "won" is FL and MI. I'm waiting for them to point out that no one with a non-Anglo name has ever one the presidency. Or perhaps no one who was born in Hawaii.

Hillary, how many people have won the whitehouse while losing the North Carolina primary? Oregon? Montana? South Dakota?

No black person has ever one the general, either, Madame Clinton. At what level does intellectual dishonesty become a reason to compare you to Bush?

Obama picked up 3 more superdelegates:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/three-more-superdelegates-for-obama/

plus one openly defecting pledged delegate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202554.html) from maryland for obama.


I'd rather this not happen. While I appreciate the zing of having a pledged delegate end up going for Obama instead of the direction she wanted, I'd still rather pledged delegates stay pledged. I don't like the precedent and I don't want a goose/gander situation.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/mcauliffe-says-clinton-staying-in-will-win-popular-vote/

McAuliffe is saying that Hillary is going to win the Popular Vote.

Of course, this is her campaign chair. His reasoning:



Someone needs to tell him that the math is impossible.

This guy is just a jackass. Does he actually believe that every single dem will vote in the primary? Does every single member of a party ever vote in an election?

I'd rather this not happen. While I appreciate the zing of having a pledged delegate end up going for Obama instead of the direction she wanted, I'd still rather pledged delegates stay pledged. I don't like the precedent and I don't want a goose/gander situation.

I agree. I disagree on principle with pledged delegates switching their votes. However, I must admit that I do enjoy the karmic justice here. Be careful what you wish for, Senator! :D

I'd rather this not happen. While I appreciate the zing of having a pledged delegate end up going for Obama instead of the direction she wanted, I'd still rather pledged delegates stay pledged. I don't like the precedent and I don't want a goose/gander situation.

eh, the precedent has always been there. that's why campaigns try to make sure their pledged delegates are actual loyalists. you'll recall the obama camp scrubbed a bunch of people who wanted to be delegates in california (well, until there was a bunch of activist outrage). normally you might get waverers and such that really just want in to go to the convention or whatever, so you need to weed out those to ensure your victory. of course obama just had well over a thousand people who really wanted to be delegates for him, so it was something of a special case.

ok, not that it matters but it is now west virginia prediction time!

i'll go with clinton only barely edging her way into obama landslide territory. wild-ass guess based on the fact that i think turnout will be slightly depressed now that the press has more or less called it for obama. i think that will result mainly in her natural advantage there being lessened - because, honestly, i can't see that many west virginians actually excited to be voting for clinton. obama supporters, of course, have been nothing but enthusiastic all over the place.

so lets say clinton 60.5, obama 37ish

ok, not that it matters but it is now west virginia prediction time!

i'll go with clinton only barely edging her way into obama landslide territory. wild-ass guess based on the fact that i think turnout will be slightly depressed now that the press has more or less called it for obama. i think that will result mainly in her natural advantage there being lessened - because, honestly, i can't see that many west virginians actually excited to be voting for clinton. obama supporters, of course, have been nothing but enthusiastic all over the place.

so lets say clinton 60.5, obama 37ish
It's going to be higher than that. She might break 70, and all the pundits that said it was over will check themselves until next Tuesday, when Obama reaches majority with pledged delegates.

It's going to be higher than that. She might break 70, and all the pundits that said it was over will check themselves until next Tuesday, when Obama reaches majority with pledged delegates.

and demography says you have a pretty solid bet there. which will just make my rightness all the better.

counties where clinton got at least 65% of the vote:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/899/Clinton65-small.gif


for comparison, counties where obama got at least 65% of the vote:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/899/Obama65-small.gif

This guy is just a jackass. Does he actually believe that every single dem will vote in the primary? Does every single member of a party ever vote in an election?

Answer 1: No

Answer 2: No

And yes...he's a jackass. He has been taking Clinton Math lessons again.

He has been taking Clinton Math lessons again.

Clinton Math is to math like military music is to music? :p

All I have to say is "oof".

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/obama_memo_sets_wv_expectation.html

Kind of takes the wind out of the ol' sails, eh, Hillary? Nothing like combatting silly claims about primaries with facts about general elections and how Obama is polling.

All I have to say is "oof".

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/obama_memo_sets_wv_expectation.html

Kind of takes the wind out of the ol' sails, eh, Hillary? Nothing like combatting silly claims about primaries with facts about general elections and how Obama is polling.

OUCH!!

WV has just been called.

Lets see how much she won by.

WV has just been called.

Lets see how much she won by.

It was called last week...

It was called last week...

They've not counted the first vote, it's already been called by every network. Same ol', same ol'. They're all always trying to be first.

MSNBC already has an article about what a landslide it was. Duh, we all know Obama lost, but you're already talking about the margin and you don't know what it is?

All I have to say is "oof".

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/05/obama_memo_sets_wv_expectation.html

Kind of takes the wind out of the ol' sails, eh, Hillary? Nothing like combatting silly claims about primaries with facts about general elections and how Obama is polling.

Psh. Clearly that poll was conducted by elitests.

oh fucking christ, somebody make howard wolfson shut up. "we weren't supposed to win ohio, pennsylvania, indiana, west virginia" - dude, that's not spin, that's lying.

I'm entertained by the fact that no one has called WV for McCain yet, but they've already called it for Hillary.

And, yes, Wolfson is a liar. Water is wet. I am hot. That is all.

oh fucking christ, somebody make howard wolfson shut up. "we weren't supposed to win ohio, pennsylvania, indiana, west virginia" - dude, that's not spin, that's lying.

I was saying the same thing. Jinx! You owe me a coke.

oh fucking christ, somebody make howard wolfson shut up. "we weren't supposed to win ohio, pennsylvania, indiana, west virginia" - dude, that's not spin, that's lying.

And now, in response to "Clinton used to be for not counting Florida and Michigan," he said "No, no. Nobody stated any positions on the issue at the time!"

Wow.

And now, in response to "Clinton used to be for not counting Florida and Michigan," he said "No, no. Nobody stated any positions on the issue at the time!"

Wow.

That's so going to be blog fodder.

In the exit polls, women went to Hillary at 71% and men at about 59%. Even if women greatly outnumber men, that's falling well below the line of 80-20 that some of her people were suggesting just a few days ago. Someone should tell her that setting expectations too high is a bad idea.

In the exit polls, women went to Hillary at 71% and men at about 59%. Even if women greatly outnumber men, that's falling well below the line of 80-20 that some of her people were suggesting just a few days ago. Someone should tell her that setting expectations too high is a bad idea.

Good lord, what an unrealistic mark.

EDIT: I know it's only 3% reporting, and ti was above 60% at 2% reporting, but if she wins by less than 60%, it's a defeat. I don't see that happening, frankly. It just occurred to me when I saw that number...

One afterthought on Howard Wolfson (coming in a bit late.) I love how he made a point to say she could catch up in the popular vote if we "counted all the votes." I love how leaves out that he actually means "if you count all the voters, except in states that don't matter because they run caucuses."

That's fucked up! Give Dalton Hatfield his bike and video games back! C'mon, he's 11!

That's fucked up! Give Dalton Hatfield his bike and video games back! C'mon, he's 11!

That's what I was thinking. Poor Fing kid had to sell his few meager possessions to help a multi-millionare win an election. This is America! Suzzanne Malvoeux (sp) just said that "people in Clinton campaign are not telling her to quit. 'This is about Hillary Clinton first and the party second" No shit eh?

That's fucked up! Give Dalton Hatfield his bike and video games back! C'mon, he's 11!

So, the boy sold his video-games to give the cash to a woman that wants to outlaw them...

A child left behind perhaps?

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) Clinton says, "I'm in this race because I believe I am the strongest candidate."

That just crossed my Yahoo news alert. If she was the strongest candidate, she'd be winning. She's not.

Good lord, what an unrealistic mark.

spouted by bill himself, no less

EDIT: I know it's only 3% reporting, and ti was above 60% at 2% reporting, but if she wins by less than 60%, it's a defeat. I don't see that happening, frankly. It just occurred to me when I saw that number...

man, i will laugh so hard if she doesn't pull an obama-esque landslide in wv. that would be just pathetic given the demographics.

spouted by bill himself, no less



man, i will laugh so hard if she doesn't pull an obama-esque landslide in wv. that would be just pathetic given the demographics.

It's definitely a landslide, but she really should be embarrassed for setting the bar so high. She won't be close to the expectations. She might get close to 40%, which is formiddable, but given it's her best state and not more valid than similar landslides by Obama, it really means little.

Even Clinton said the message would be a HUGE turnout AND something in the neighborhood of 80-20.

Everytime I read the CNN Political Ticker Blog, I seriously have to stop myself from Laughing hard.

Sharon Minnesota May 13th, 2008 9:01 pm ET

The Obama people should be a little more discerning. No democrat has EVER won the white house without winning WV.

What this person does not realize is that it is rare for a primary of either party to go this far without a winner. Its funny stuff.

That just crossed my Yahoo news alert. If she was the strongest candidate, she'd be winning. She's not.

*Gives Corny a cookie.*

Everytime I read the CNN Political Ticker Blog, I seriously have to stop myself from Laughing hard.



What this person does not realize is that it is rare for a primary of either party to go this far without a winner. Its funny stuff.

And I would challange that claim. Im sure democrats have won the white house without winning WV in the general. We already know the Ohio comment is false (thanks to Liuzzo for checking that one), so why should we believe the Hillary base is any more informed about this?

Democrat Travis Childers will defeat Republican Greg Davis to capture an open congressional seat in Mississippi, CNN projects.

Well this is interesting. This is not going to be a good year for the Republican Party.

spouted by bill himself, no less



man, i will laugh so hard if she doesn't pull an obama-esque landslide in wv. that would be just pathetic given the demographics.

It's definitely a landslide, but she really should be embarrassed for setting the bar so high. She won't be close to the expectations. She might get close to 40%, which is formiddable, but given it's her best state and not more valid than similar landslides by Obama, it really means little.

Even Clinton said the message would be a HUGE turnout AND something in the neighborhood of 80-20.

It's definitely a landslide, but she really should be embarrassed for setting the bar so high. She won't be close to the expectations. She might get close to 40%, which is formiddable, but given it's her best state and not more valid than similar landslides by Obama, it really means little.

Even Clinton said the message would be a HUGE turnout AND something in the neighborhood of 80-20.
Well, she so far has got the 20% thing about right, there's 12% so far that apparently don't want either.

And I would challange that claim. Im sure democrats have won the white house without winning WV in the general. We already know the Ohio comment is false (thanks to Liuzzo for checking that one), so why should we believe the Hillary base is any more informed about this?

I think the person was talking about WV in the primary sense and not the GE sense.

And with 58% of the Precincts reporting, it is 65-28 Hillary.

Well, she so far has got the 20% thing about right, there's 12% so far that apparently don't want either.

It's a big Edwards state. I've read a lot of pundits both before and after the voting saying that Edwards on the ticket would seriously damage Obama. But who knows?

By the way, even in the best Clinton outcome of the remaining contests, Obama only needs about 25% of the remaining supers to win.

Gotta love the down ballot effect- (http://www.wxvt.com/Global/story.asp?S=8319840&nav=menu1344_2) (does it cheapen anyone else's impression of the news source that where the lead photo would go there's a Pizza Hut ad?)
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) - Democrat Travis Childers has won a north Mississippi congressional race, claiming a seat the Republicans have held since 1994.
Was Obama a drag?
Davis tried to cast the election in 24 counties as a referendum on the national Democratic Party by saying Childers would be beholden to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and presidential candidate Barack Obama.
And it's from the supposedly unchanging south, where-
Childers' victory marks the second time this month for a conservative Democrat to win a Deep South congressional seat that had been held by a Republican.

In Louisiana, Democrat Don Cazayoux won a special election May 3, bolstering his party's majority on Capitol Hill by taking a seat Republicans had held since 1974.

However, this element cannot be ignored-
Childers has spoken against abortion and for gun owners' rights - positions that are nearly identical to his opponent's.

It's a big Edwards state.

yeah, i totally forgot he was on the ballot there

I'm watching CNN's website for the percentages on the vote counting for West Virginia...am I the only one to notice that the numbers don't add up to one hundred percent? Obama's number keeps decreasing but Clinton's isn't increasing...

I'm watching CNN's website for the percentages on the vote counting for West Virginia...am I the only one to notice that the numbers don't add up to one hundred percent? Obama's number keeps decreasing but Clinton's isn't increasing...

Undecideds or Edwards supporters.

Undecideds or Edwards supporters.

Most likely the latter. I don't quite see people walking up to the voting booth in a non-mandatory vote just to go "I don't know".

Most likely the latter. I don't quite see people walking up to the voting booth in a non-mandatory vote just to go "I don't know".

On Politico.com it merely says 'Other' - so about 66% for HC, 26% for BO and 8% to other.

In exit polls, 20% of voters said race had been a factor as a reason for not voting for BO.

20%!

On Politico.com it merely says 'Other' - so about 66% for HC, 26% for BO and 8% to other.

In exit polls, 20% of voters said race had been a factor as a reason for not voting for BO.

20%!

Just shows you how fucking stupid those people are.

Most likely the latter. I don't quite see people walking up to the voting booth in a non-mandatory vote just to go "I don't know".

The primary isn't just for the presidential campaign, though. They may be there because they care about who their senator or representative is or who their local and state politicians will be.

The primary isn't just for the presidential campaign, though. They may be there because they care about who their senator or representative is or who their local and state politicians will be.

Ah, right, sorry.

Just shows you how fucking stupid those people are.

Seconded.

With 90% of the precincts reporting, Hillary has a 67-26 lead over Obama.

I'm entertained by the fact that no one has called WV for McCain yet, but they've already called it for Hillary.
The Republicans held their West Virginia contest (a caucus, if I recall) separately, months ago, and I think it was a Huckabee win.

The Republicans held their West Virginia contest (a caucus, if I recall) separately, months ago, and I think it was a Huckabee win.

Actually...that was the Republican Convention that Huckabee snagged 18 Convention votes on. Nine votes were up for grabs in the Closed Republican Primary today that McCain won.

With 90% of the precincts reporting, Hillary has a 67-26 lead over Obama.

About 43%.

About 43%.

Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=WV) reports 93% reported in.

Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=WV) reports 93% reported in.

Um, 43 is the difference between them.

Um, 43 is the difference between them.

oh, oops... er...

um...

HEY, look at that. McCain came in third against two guys who dropped out! :D

Undecideds or Edwards supporters.

On Politico.com it merely says 'Other' - so about 66% for HC, 26% for BO and 8% to other.

In exit polls, 20% of voters said race had been a factor as a reason for not voting for BO.

20%!

So why doesn't CNN's site show them?

i find the fact that something like 25% of clinton voters in wv admitted that race was "an important factor" in their vote fucking frightening. also, just a little depressing.

So why doesn't CNN's site show them?

Well, luckily, as head of CNN I can answer that - see we don't really care about our viewers and look, we made shiny graphics so shut yer mouth.

i find the fact that something like 25% of clinton voters in wv admitted that race was "an important factor" in their vote fucking frightening. also, just a little depressing.

Actually, I was slightly wrong here, the correct fact is that 20% of white voters for Hillary Clinton said race was a factor.

However, for the 7th election running, Mississippi wins the title of Most Racist State, congratulations Mississippi.

An incredible 20 percent of white voters in West Virginia said race was a factor in their vote, according to exit polls, a percentage second only to that of Mississippi.)

With 100% of the precincts, Clinton comes in under 70%. She received 67% of the vote to Obama's 26% of the vote. A 41% victory.

Wow. Big win. No surprises there. Completely un-surprising that Obama's said nothing about it. Why would he? He has bigger fish to fry. Although I was a little concerned to read here (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZecbKcAcd5BUKos1DBquVPqnlUQD90L99L00) that "there was no reason to worry — West Virginia was demographically suited to Clinton and won't be part of their general election plans". Damnit Obama, stick to your all state guns. Please? It was cool.

Well, luckily, as head of CNN I can answer that - see we don't really care about our viewers and look, we made shiny graphics so shut yer mouth.



Actually, I was slightly wrong here, the correct fact is that 20% of white voters for Hillary Clinton said race was a factor.

However, for the 7th election running, Mississippi wins the title of Most Racist State, congratulations Mississippi.

Congratulations to Hillary Clnton for winning the redneck vote.:rolleyes:

Congratulations to Hillary Clnton for winning the redneck vote.:rolleyes:

That is her base.

That is her base.

So, would the rednecks supporting her and the rednecks supporting McCain cancel each other out?

So, would the rednecks supporting her and the rednecks supporting McCain cancel each other out?

Maybe but Hillary is not and will not be the nominee.

Maybe but Hillary is not and will not be the nominee.

Which then brings the interesting question.


Will those racist rednecks who cited race as a very important issue vote against their economic intrests?


I say yes. But Im a cynic.

So, would the rednecks supporting her and the rednecks supporting McCain cancel each other out?

racist tend to be sexists as well, so I am guessing no....

i find the fact that something like 25% of clinton voters in wv admitted that race was "an important factor" in their vote fucking frightening. also, just a little depressing.

8% of voters (most for Clinton) listed it as the most important factor. Seriously.

8% of voters (most for Clinton) listed it as the most important factor. Seriously.

Cue "Dueling Banjos"


da-na-ner-ner-ner-ner-ner-nerrr

Cue "Dueling Banjos"


da-na-ner-ner-ner-ner-ner-nerrr

dats a gud song. Why'dya have ta go an' mak fuhna it fer?

With 100% of the precincts, Clinton comes in under 70%. She received 67% of the vote to Obama's 26% of the vote. A 41% victory.

Please do the actual math. Obama didn't win NC by 14%. Hillary didn't win PA by 10%. Hillary didn't win WV by 41%. The first and the last actually had a wider margin. The middle one smaller.

Please do the actual math. Obama didn't win NC by 14%. Hillary didn't win PA by 10%. Hillary didn't win WV by 41%. The first and the last actually had a wider margin. The middle one smaller.

2 + 2 = 5...

For high values of 2.

Please do the actual math. Obama didn't win NC by 14%. Hillary didn't win PA by 10%. Hillary didn't win WV by 41%. The first and the last actually had a wider margin. The middle one smaller.

Um last time I went to school 67-26=41

Unless of course you have better numbers than what CNN is broadcasting.

Maybe but Hillary is not and will not be the nominee.

Not for the Dems, anyway. I fully expect that when Obama officially wins the nomination, she'll mount an Independant campaign.

Cue "Dueling Banjos"


da-na-ner-ner-ner-ner-ner-nerrr

http://youtube.com/watch?v=esl2NNOtHQE

Not for the Dems, anyway. I fully expect that when Obama officially wins the nomination, she'll mount an Independant campaign.

Not like that will make a difference. The only thing I forsee is the election being decided by the United States House of Representatives.

Not like that will make a difference. The only thing I forsee is the election being decided by the United States House of Representatives.

Good. If recent special elections are any indication, the Dems will still have the House.

-- Former Sen. John Edwards will endorse Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, Obama's campaign says.

That showed up in my email box from CNN.

Its over folks.

-- Former Sen. John Edwards will endorse Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, Obama's campaign says.

That showed up in my email box from CNN.

Its over folks.

yeah i got that bulletin from the NYT. its kinda late but better late than never eh?

I saw it and immediately turned on my TV so when he gives the speech I can watch it.

I'm happy with this. I like Edwards; he was one of my top choices after Senator Obama.

yeah i got that bulletin from the NYT. its kinda late but better late than never eh?

Indeed.

I saw it and immediately turned on my TV so when he gives the speech I can watch it.

I'm happy with this. I like Edwards; he was one of my top choices after Senator Obama.

My TV is on as well. Its taking place in Michigan as well which makes this even funnier.

Her campaign chair just released a note stating that this is far from over because of her big win in West Virginia.

WOW what a fucktard he is.

He just entered the hall. We are getting close to the big moment.

*pops champaigne*

EDIT: Edwards is now joining him on stage

hahahahah

edwards said that obama promised him a jet ski!

Looks like it's all over but the wailing and lamenting from Hillary's camp. Bet she was hoping Edwards would turn to her side and put her over the top.

The more she fights, the better it gets for my boy John McCain

Looks like it's all over but the wailing and lamenting from Hillary's camp. Bet she was hoping Edwards would turn to her side and put her over the top.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/14/clinton-campaign-were-ahead-in-the-popular-vote/

Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Wednesday Hillary Clinton has overcome Barack Obama in the total popular vote.

“Senator Clinton took the lead in the popular vote last night because voters believe she is the candidate best able to beat John McCain and lead our country," McAuliffe said.

But the problem is, after looking at all four scenerios:

Clinton trails in all four counts, but by significantly different margins. In the first scenario she trails by by about 397,000, in the second she's behind 699,000, in the third she has a 405,000 vote deficit, and in the fourth scenario she trails by 77,000 votes.

The only way she leads is if you exclude caucus states.

What a loser.

What a loser.

She's tenacious, gotta give her that. Delusional but tenacious.

The more she fights, the better it gets for my boy John McCain

In what world?

-- Former Sen. John Edwards will endorse Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy, Obama's campaign says.

That showed up in my email box from CNN.

Its over folks.

Maybe it's a sign of how jaded I am with politics, but I can't help wondering what he did get (I'm sure it wasn't a jet ski). Why now, if he wasn't offered something? Y'know?

On a non-political note: Do you think Obama picks out the music for his rallies or does someone else do it?

Maybe it's a sign of how jaded I am with politics, but I can't help wondering what he did get (I'm sure it wasn't a jet ski). Why now, if he wasn't offered something? Y'know?

On a non-political note: Do you think Obama picks out the music for his rallies or does someone else do it?

he said right up front that he was promised a JET SKI!

i dont see him going for VP. he did that once and it sucked. plus his wife is dying. if they cant go to the whitehouse surely she would rather die at home.

Maybe it's a sign of how jaded I am with politics, but I can't help wondering what he did get (I'm sure it wasn't a jet ski). Why now, if he wasn't offered something? Y'know?

On a non-political note: Do you think Obama picks out the music for his rallies or does someone else do it?

Most likely a promise of the VP slot.

hey, i finally get to update the obama-esque landslide post in clinton's favor. that's good, arkansas was feeling lonely since february.

west virginia is the 10th largest landslide of the season (and is essentially tied with three more, which clocked in less than half a percent below it)


Contests Obama has won with 60% or more of the vote:
Alaska (75%)
DC (75%)*
Dems Abroad (65%)*
Colorado (67%)
Georgia (67%)*
Hawaii (76%)
Idaho (79%)
Illinois (65%)*
Kansas (74%)
Maryland (60%)*
Minnesota (67%)
Mississippi (61%)*
Nebraska (68%)
North Dakota (61%)
Virginia (64%)*
Washington (68%)
Wyoming (61%)
The Virgin Islands (90%)*

And we should probably spot him Vermont (59.81)* and Maine (59.47%) too. Wisconsin* falls just short of making the list at 58.13%.

Contests Clinton won with 60% or more of the vote:
Arkansas (70%)*
West Virginia (67%)*

Her next highest is Rhode Island (58.46%)*, then New York* at 57.39% and then Massachusetts* at 56.16%

* primary rather than caucus contest

Maybe it's a sign of how jaded I am with politics, but I can't help wondering what he did get (I'm sure it wasn't a jet ski). Why now, if he wasn't offered something? Y'know?

On a non-political note: Do you think Obama picks out the music for his rallies or does someone else do it?



I'm guessing the answer lies somewhere in the line:

He said Obama "stands with me" in a fight to cut poverty in half within 10 years.

He probably gave him promises on certain legislation that Edwards hopes to pass.

Oh I read further into the article :P

A person close to Edwards, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he wanted to get involved now to begin unifying the party. Obama also signed on to Edwards' anti-poverty initiative, which he launched Tuesday with the goal of reducing poverty in the United States by half within 10 years.

You know what is aggravating about this. I'm all for trying to win. I'm all for competing as hard as you can. But when you make out like it's being stolen from you, you upset everyone on your side. I hate when sports teams do that and you end with fans that feel like it was stolen. I hated when Gore did it. And at this point, Hillary is creating a situation where 10 years from now, people will be talking about how it was Hillary who was truly elected.

She lost. She lost fairly. And no matter what set of rules you use, she is losing and going to lose. You can't pick and choose voters to count. Obama is already agreeing to count both MI and FL, even after they violated the rules. Now she wants to not only discount caucus states, completely disenfranchising legal voters, but also to suggest that Obama should get not ONE vote from MI.

When she had a chance at winning, there was an argument for this. However, she has no chance. There is only two things she has power over at this point. Having her campaign help to unify the party and using the remaining states and events to do so or having her campaign sow as much distrust and spin as possible, anger Obama voters (thus causing them to up the rhetoric) and angering Clinton voters (causing the effect on them as well). As the rhetoric among supporters increases, the more likely it becomes that people will stay home or switch teams out of spite.

Most likely a promise of the VP slot.

He's been mentioned for Attorney General, which I think would be a better slot for him. Richardson would be my bet for VP, unless Barak decides to roll the dice and ask Hillary (looks unlikely now, but August is a long time away).

Please do the actual math. Obama didn't win NC by 14%. Hillary didn't win PA by 10%. Hillary didn't win WV by 41%. The first and the last actually had a wider margin. The middle one smaller.
Oh I see....it is okay to quibble with Corny about his math, but you take me to task over trying to correct his spelling & grammar. Now let's see if I can spell hypocrite correctly. Ahhh yes...that is it.

BTW, Corny is correct....67 minus 26 does = 41. :D

BTW, when your favourite whipping boy is not around, it is interesting to see how quickly you revert to past favourites.

Oh I see....it is okay to quibble with Corny about his math, but you take me to task over trying to correct his spelling & grammar. Now let's see if I can spell hypocrite correctly. Ahhh yes...that is it.

BTW, Corny is correct....67 minus 26 does = 41. :D

BTW, when your favourite whipping boy is not around, it is interesting to see how quickly you revert to past favourites.

Um, actually, Corny, among others made a big deal out of the fact that Hillary did not have a two-digit win in PA. I was requiring him to be accurate.

Meanwhile, the problem is you always, always should do these calculations by yourself or you get inaccurate results. Hillary competing against Obama is what we're talking about, not nonsense numbers like MI where Obama wasn't even on the ticket. 41% is inaccurate. How inaccurate? That's anyone's guess. I mean, it's not like we can look at the ACTUAL votes and see what her lead was.

See, when you want to calculate the percentage of a win, you do this thing called subtracting. 239,298-91,747=147,551. The - signs means you subtract. That gives the difference (another name for an equation where you use subtraction) between the two candidates.

Then you do this thing called adding. 239,298+91,747=331,045. That's called the sum or total of the people who voted.

To get the percentage by which she won, you do this thing called division. No, no, it's not the thing that she's doing to the Democratic party. It's a mathematical operation. 147,551/331,045=44.5% Should she claim this figure? I would. She crushed him. She got 44.5% more of the votes than he did. Much like when comparing the difference in their popular vote numbers, they don't count Edwards. You'll notice almost none of the networks actually show a figure for Edwards.

This is the way, we've calculated every result. And it continues to work. As far as whipping boys, it's good to know you acknowledge you were getting a whipping. It shows progress.

He's been mentioned for Attorney General, which I think would be a better slot for him. Richardson would be my bet for VP, unless Barak decides to roll the dice and ask Hillary (looks unlikely now, but August is a long time away).

I like that idea. I hope Obama comes up with it. Edwards would be a great AG.

he said right up front that he was promised a JET SKI!

i dont see him going for VP. he did that once and it sucked. plus his wife is dying. if they cant go to the whitehouse surely she would rather die at home.

I like that idea. I hope Obama comes up with it. Edwards would be a great AG.

Edwards probably would make a good AG, but if it were my wife, there's no way I'd leave her before the end, no matter what they offered me.

hey, i finally get to update the obama-esque landslide post in clinton's favor. that's good, arkansas was feeling lonely since february.

west virginia is the 10th largest landslide of the season (and is essentially tied with three more, which clocked in less than half a percent below it)


Contests Obama has won with 60% or more of the vote:
Alaska (75%)
DC (75%)*
Dems Abroad (65%)*
Colorado (67%)
Georgia (67%)*
Hawaii (76%)
Idaho (79%)
Illinois (65%)*
Kansas (74%)
Maryland (60%)*
Minnesota (67%)
Mississippi (61%)*
Nebraska (68%)
North Dakota (61%)
Virginia (64%)*
Washington (68%)
Wyoming (61%)
The Virgin Islands (90%)*

And we should probably spot him Vermont (59.81)* and Maine (59.47%) too. Wisconsin* falls just short of making the list at 58.13%.

Contests Clinton won with 60% or more of the vote:
Arkansas (70%)*
West Virginia (67%)*

Her next highest is Rhode Island (58.46%)*, then New York* at 57.39% and then Massachusetts* at 56.16%

* primary rather than caucus contest

As one poster brought up earlier, you're missing one for Clinton: her campaign is racking up enourmous leads in the state of Denial.

Oh I see....it is okay to quibble with Corny about his math, but you take me to task over trying to correct his spelling & grammar. Now let's see if I can spell hypocrite correctly. Ahhh yes...that is it.

BTW, Corny is correct....67 minus 26 does = 41. :D

BTW, when your favourite whipping boy is not around, it is interesting to see how quickly you revert to past favourites.

You're back just for the nail in the coffin of the Edwards endorsement. With the Republicans trying to campaign on an anti-Obama track for a congressional seat shows his down ballot effect. His electability is just fine, it's still Hillary who has the problems. This is right about over. Let her campaign through to the end and then concede when he has 2025. Is it all right to tell you that Hillary is done? He will not take her as vp so she's right about done.

As one poster brought up earlier, you're missing one for Clinton: her campaign is racking up enourmous leads in the state of Denial.

true, but i am only counting contests in which there were actual delegates at stake.

Um, actually, Corny, among others made a big deal out of the fact that Hillary did not have a two-digit win in PA. I was requiring him to be accurate.

Meanwhile, the problem is you always, always should do these calculations by yourself or you get inaccurate results. Hillary competing against Obama is what we're talking about, not nonsense numbers like MI where Obama wasn't even on the ticket. 41% is inaccurate. How inaccurate? That's anyone's guess. I mean, it's not like we can look at the ACTUAL votes and see what her lead was.

See, when you want to calculate the percentage of a win, you do this thing called subtracting. 239,298-91,747=147,551. The - signs means you subtract. That gives the difference (another name for an equation where you use subtraction) between the two candidates.

Then you do this thing called adding. 239,298+91,747=331,045. That's called the sum or total of the people who voted.

To get the percentage by which she won, you do this thing called division. No, no, it's not the thing that she's doing to the Democratic party. It's a mathematical operation. 147,551/331,045=44.5% Should she claim this figure? I would. She crushed him. She got 44.5% more of the votes than he did. Much like when comparing the difference in their popular vote numbers, they don't count Edwards. You'll notice almost none of the networks actually show a figure for Edwards.

This is the way, we've calculated every result. And it continues to work.
Oh, I see......it is your job to ensure accuracy here at NSG. :p

I do find it intriguing that you would actually ramble on in detail about a moot point. Ask me if I care.

As far as whipping boys, it's good to know you acknowledge you were getting a whipping. It shows progress.
Oh....it was no admission whatsoever of actually losing to you....it was more in reference to your preference of trying to flog worthy adversaries.

CanuckHeaven, Jocabia, knock it off. Again.

As one poster brought up earlier, you're missing one for Clinton: her campaign is racking up enourmous leads in the state of Denial.


Nice to meet you, I'm One Poster. :p

The people of West Virginia are fucking idiots. The Daily Show just showed a bunch of interviews with various women being asked what influenced their vote.

Woman One: "I cant vote for the other race because they kind of scare me and we've had some conflicts with them..."

Woman Two: "I cant vote for a Muslim."

Woman Three: "I dont like that Hussien thing. Ive had enough of Hussien."


I seriously think we should drop a nerve agent on that state if everyone there is that fucking stupid.

Oh, I see......it is your job to ensure accuracy here at NSG. :p

I do find it intriguing that you would actually ramble on in detail about a moot point. Ask me if I care.

I love when people post to say they don't care. "I don't care so much that I must hit that quote button, type out a reply and post it. That's how much I don't care."

Whether you care or not Corny cares about accuracy. I corrected him. He likes to be correct and generally doesn't accept media numbers. I was simply making sure he remains consistent. I think when he appears you'll find that he cares and doesn't need you to tell me what I can and cannot inform him of.


Oh....it was no admission whatsoever of actually losing to you....it was more in reference to your preference of trying to flog worthy adversaries.

Well, Corny will appreciate the compliment. I'll make sure I quote this and bring up every time you're focusing on him rather than replying to points.

I'm curious. Which part of this post contains an argument?

My post demonstrates that she actually won by 43%. It's relevant to a thread about the competition between them. I'm wonder in this series of post, what you contributed?

You got anything to say about WV? I think it made no difference, but I do think some of the exit polling is a sad commentary on the state of racism.

You have anything to say about the FACT that it is not impossible for your candidate to win? I say, she should at least admit that she's losing. What do you think?

You got anything to say about the Edwards endorsement? I say it's a little late, but nice to have. I've always liked Edwards. What do you think?

You got anything to say about where Edwards or Clinton might fit in Obama's cabinet? Edwards for AG. I don't think I'd give Hillary a cabinet post at this point. What do you think?

You got anything to say about who should be Obama's VP? I don't have a specific person in mind, but I think he should choose someone older and with a military background. Maybe Clark. What do you think?

You got anything to say about KY? It's Hillary's and I think she'll win by 25+ points. What do you think?

You got anything to say about OR? It's Obama's by double digits. What do you think?

You got anything to say about PR? It's Hillary's and I think she'll win by double digits. What do you think?

You got anything to say about SD? It's Obama's by a small margin. What do you think?

You got anything to say about Montana (forgot the two letter abbreviation for that one)? It's Obama's by a small margin. What do you think?

Look... no one cares if you tease a little here and there, but contribute or just go away. Offer something to the topic. I know you're upset your candidate lost and has now taken to spreading what can only be called lies, but there is still a contest going on and it's relevant to the entire world. You have lots to say and there are tons of different things you could be talking about.

Instead of offering what you would at least consider an educated opinion, you came to snipe and only snipe. Doesn't it occur to you how useless that is. Contribute.

You got anything to say about Montana (forgot the two letter abbreviation for that one)?
MT

MT

Thanks.

the video of Edward's endorsement is now on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzkAjd3xQ7w&feature=user
I think the part about hillary was meant to help her bow out gracefully. If she can do that, I think we might be able to pull this together.

I do find it intriguing that you would actually ramble on in detail about a moot point. Ask me if I care.

You didn't think it was moot when you called him a hypocrite over it.

Yet, when Jocabia makes a cogent, factually and numerical sound response, you have a sudden attack of apathy.

I've had my beefs with Jocabia, but he's got you on this one. It would show some grace and class for you to just admit it.

You didn't think it was moot when you called him a hypocrite over it.

Yet, when Jocabia makes a cogent, factually and numerical sound response, you have a sudden attack of apathy.

I've had my beefs with Jocabia, but he's got you on this one. It would show some grace and class for you to just admit it.
Perhaps you, like Jocabia, are missing the salient point. I would love to elaborate on why you are wrong and also reply to his lengthy response but alas Ardchoille threw up the stop sign. I think discretion is the better part of valour, and thusly will refrain from doing so.

Perhaps you, like Jocabia, are missing the salient point. I would love to elaborate on why you are wrong and also reply to his lengthy response but alas Ardchoille threw up the stop sign. I think discretion is the better part of valour, and thusly will refrain from doing so.

I think Ardchoille was telling you to stop those things that were not consistent with cogent, forum-rule consistent debate.

A meaningful response on your part wouldn't violate that at all, so please, respond to his point.

I've noticed in the past you accuse people of flaming (then later claim you never made the accusation, even when its quoted right to you), then when the mods say there was no flaming, you ignore it.

Yet when there's a chance to hide behind a mod, you're all ears.

Okay, on topic, then...which of your "salient" points am I missing?

Some times I feel like this thread should be resolved by digging a big ditch and then throwing in a bunch of knives. Maybe we can get Tina Turner and a neo-primitive game show host to procide over it. Ignoring that if I hadn't been at work I'd probably been warned too...

Anyway...hey, look-a silver lining! (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/clinton/index.html)

"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."

Someone must of reminded her that they're in the same party...

To make it clearer, my stop sign referred to the apparently unending nonsense between CH and Jocabia about such non-election issues as Corneliiu's maths, whether or not either of you cares for the other's opinions, what your respective roles are on this forum, and so on.

That sort of thing is irritating to other posters and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and it had better stop.

CH, you have my blessing (if you need it) to discuss any of the points Jocabia raises in the series of questions that end with "What do you think?".

Any of these look fruitful to me:
You got anything to say about WV? I think it made no difference, but I do think some of the exit polling is a sad commentary on the state of racism.

You have anything to say about the FACT that it is not impossible for your candidate to win? I say, she should at least admit that she's losing. What do you think?

You got anything to say about the Edwards endorsement? I say it's a little late, but nice to have. I've always liked Edwards. What do you think?

You got anything to say about where Edwards or Clinton might fit in Obama's cabinet? Edwards for AG. I don't think I'd give Hillary a cabinet post at this point. What do you think?

You got anything to say about who should be Obama's VP? I don't have a specific person in mind, but I think he should choose someone older and with a military background. Maybe Clark. What do you think?


If you find yourself tempted into percentage-niggling, though, it might be better to take it to the polls thread.

Oh, and Jhahannam, no more of this:
I've noticed in the past you accuse people of flaming (then later claim you never made the accusation, even when its quoted right to you), then when the mods say there was no flaming, you ignore it.

Yet when there's a chance to hide behind a mod, you're all ears.

It just encourages them.

To make it clearer, my stop sign referred to the apparently unending nonsense between CH and Jocabia about such non-election issues as Corneliiu's maths, whether or not either of you cares for the other's opinions, what your respective roles are on this forum, and so on.

That sort of thing is irritating to other posters and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and it had better stop.

CH, you have my blessing (if you need it) to discuss any of the points Jocabia raises in the series of questions that end with "What do you think?".

Any of these look fruitful to me:


If you find yourself tempted into percentage-niggling, though, it might be better to take it to the polls thread.

So that's a no on the knife pit?

I think Ardchoille was telling you to stop those things that were not consistent with cogent, forum-rule consistent debate.

A meaningful response on your part wouldn't violate that at all, so please, respond to his point.

I've noticed in the past you accuse people of flaming (then later claim you never made the accusation, even when its quoted right to you), then when the mods say there was no flaming, you ignore it.

Yet when there's a chance to hide behind a mod, you're all ears.

Okay, on topic, then...which of your "salient" points am I missing?
And I think this post of yours is "not consistent with cogent, forum-rule consistent debate", especially your suggestion that I am hiding behind the mods. And on some of that other stuff, you might want to refresh your memory.

And I think this post of yours is "not consistent with cogent, forum-rule consistent debate", especially your suggestion that I am hiding behind the mods. And on some of that other stuff, you might want to refresh your memory.

Well, a mod saw what I wrote, and elaborated. See for yourself. Would seem your evaulation is incorrect.


As for my memory, you expect ME to help you find saliency in your own argument? Can't do it yourself?

CanuckHeaven, YOU were the one claiming a point was missed, even though its clearly you that is running away from the ontopic points made by Jocabia.

So, again, if you can, on topic, please tell me which of your points you feel is being missed. It is your responsibility to do so if you are going to claim a point of yours is not being addressed.

Well, a mod saw what I wrote, and elaborated. See for yourself. Would seem your evaulation is incorrect.


As for my memory, you expect ME to help you find saliency in your own argument? Can't do it yourself?

CanuckHeaven, YOU were the one claiming a point was missed, even though its clearly you that is running away from the ontopic points made by Jocabia.

So, again, if you can, on topic, please tell me which of your points you feel is being missed. It is your responsibility to do so if you are going to claim a point of yours is not being addressed.
I believe that you are misinterpreting what Ardchoille stated especially the part about what "encourages" me/Joc whatever. Your suggestion that I am "running away" gets you squat. Your bait is stale dated.

I believe that you are misinterpreting what Ardchoille stated especially the part about what "encourages" me/Joc whatever. Your suggestion that I am "running away" gets you squat. Your bait is stale dated.

Well, the mod obviously looked at what I said, and didn't find it to be "inconsistent with forum rules".

So, really, can you respond on topic?

I mean at this point, you've typed so much just to avoid what would presumably take one sentence to describe, its obvious evasion.

What salient point of yours is being missed?

Because most of the potent saliency was on the part of Jocabia, and you don't seem to be able to counter it, or even give us the secret identity of your own self claimed "salient point".

Perhaps you, like Jocabia, are missing the salient point. I would love to elaborate on why you are wrong and also reply to his lengthy response but alas Ardchoille threw up the stop sign. I think discretion is the better part of valour, and thusly will refrain from doing so.

You can prove that they are wrong CH. Don't let the mods stop you. That's a cop out.

Nice to meet you, I'm One Poster. :p

I knew someone had said it but i didn't want to credit the wrong poster and I was too lazy to go check. Sue me.

I knew someone had said it but i didn't want to credit the wrong poster and I was too lazy to go check. Sue me.

No way, you'd just put up the Chewbacca Defense. :p

So that's a no on the knife pit?

I wouldn't rule that option out entirely, just yet. How about a couple of Northern Territory crocodiles, too?

Jhahannam, to make it as explicit as possible: do not goad CanuckHeaven or anyone else. It is inconsistent with forum rules.

CanuckHeaven, to make it as explicit as possible: do not respond to goading. Do not goad others.

Look, I'm assuming that people who want to discuss politics must be old enough to vote, or at least fairly close. So you should know how to stop squabbling and start debating.

SO DO IT.

Having looked through the rest of the thread and seen Arch's request not to do percentage math, I'm going to just say this:

While it would certainly be consistent with her usual tactic of talking about "counting all the votes" while discounting certain voters, I don't think it would be a good idea for Clinton to ignore 26,196 West Virginia voters and claim that the percentage by which she won should be calculated without them.

I wouldn't rule that option out entirely, just yet. How about a couple of Northern Territory crocodiles, too?

You do realize that lions are more traditional, right?

Ave, Ardichioillius! Morituri te salutant! :D

Having looked through the rest of the thread and seen Arch's request not to do percentage math, I'm going to just say this:

While it would certainly be consistent with her usual tactic of talking about "counting all the votes" while discounting certain voters, I don't think it would be a good idea for Clinton to ignore 26,196 West Virginia voters and claim that the percentage by which she won should be calculated without them.

The percentage by which she won has always been a calculation of the votes distributed between them. I'm not discounting all of the people who voted for other candidates. Similarly, I don't think it's fair to suggest that all of the voters in MI who voted for no candidate where voting for Obama. Many of them would have voted for Edwards there as well. We're not pretending they don't exist, only that they are not relevant to how much better than Obama, Clinton did. In every calculation of their difference prior to this we've only included votes for Clinton or Obama.

I suspect if you check, you'll find that in most states there were non-votes, write in (if that's allowed) and various other responses. Your number likely does not include them either.

The percentage by which she won has always been a calculation of the votes distributed between them.

It has? I haven't seen anyone do those sorts of calculations until today.

In some states, it appears that all the votes were either for Clinton or Obama, so the math comes out the same regardless. But in places where there were votes for other candidates or for no candidate, I think those should work into the percentages.

I'm not discounting all of the people who voted for other candidates.

Yes, you are. For the purposes of the math, anyways, you are completely ignoring that those votes even exist.

Similarly, I don't think it's fair to suggest that all of the voters in MI who voted for no candidate where voting for Obama. Many of them would have voted for Edwards there as well.

Indeed.

We're not pretending they don't exist, only that they are not relevant to how much better than Obama, Clinton did. In every calculation of their difference prior to this we've only included votes for Clinton or Obama.

Really?

So Obama won Iowa by 56% and Clinton won New Hampshire by 51.7%? I don't recall ever seeing those numbers associated with those states.

We're going to have to update the list of states won by 60% or more. According to your reckoning, Obama won South Carolina by 67.65%.

As a general rule, we've been using percentage of the total vote, not percentage of only the votes that happen to have been cast for Obama or Clinton.

I suspect if you check, you'll find that in most states there were non-votes, write in (if that's allowed) and various other responses. Your number likely does not include them either.

This is true. And, if I could find a source that listed everything down even to the 1 write-in vote for Mickey Mouse or some such, I'd use those numbers.

But there is a difference between not having a relatively small number of votes and discounting a significant percentage of the vote.

It has? I haven't seen anyone do those sorts of calculations until today.

In some states, it appears that all the votes were either for Clinton or Obama, so the math comes out the same regardless. But in places where there were votes for other candidates or for no candidate, I think those should work into the percentages.

Well, if you haven't seen it must not have happened. It's pretty obvious we've not contested the numbers in the news and shown those calculations throughout the contest. We cannot have done so. You didn't see it.


Yes, you are. For the purposes of the math, anyways, you are completely ignoring that those votes even exist.

No, I'm not. I'm accepting that they aren't relevant. Actually, And in a race where Edwards has dropped out, they aren't. However, it would be hard to claim I'm ignoring their existence in reply to a post where I specifically noted that they exist and aren't being used in the calculations. You know what else I did. Last year, when my brother-in-law and I were in the Fantasy Football Championships, I only considered our two scores. I didn't even consider the scores of all the players no longer in the competition. I'm crazy like that.

Really?

So Obama won Iowa by 56% and Clinton won New Hampshire by 51.7%? I don't recall ever seeing those numbers associated with those states.

At the time, they other candidates hadn't dropped out. Since it's been Obama and Clinton, every single contest I've caculated the difference by only using their votes. All the while, I was FULLY aware that there are other votes that networks don't display. But, as I said, if you didn't see it, it didn't happen. I'll remember to notify you in the future before I make an argument. What's your phone number?

We're going to have to update the list of states won by 60% or more. According to your reckoning, Obama won South Carolina by 67.65%.

Not my list, not my numbers. I do know that Corny used my calculation from PA, and I know how I caculated it. And since it was Corny I was correct, I'm not sure how Free Soviets list is relevant. Free Soviets calculates himself or uses some source other than the general news outlets, since they round by much more than he does. If you'd like to discuss HIS numbers, you'd have to ask him.

As a general rule, we've been using percentage of the total vote, not percentage of only the votes that happen to have been cast for Obama or Clinton.

As a general rule, I doubt you know the total vote. Reading further, I see you actually don't. So let's discard this inaccurate representation of what we've done in the past. As you acknowledge, we have yet to even present the total vote. So, let me know when you've got the FULL list. Here's a hint: you won't find it on ANY of the news sites.

This is true. And, if I could find a source that listed everything down even to the 1 write-in vote for Mickey Mouse or some such, I'd use those numbers.

But there is a difference between not having a relatively small number of votes and discounting a significant percentage of the vote.

There is? Why? Because you said so? What's the difference? I see that when you say you count all the votes, you don't actually mean ALL the votes. Good to know. You let me know exactly which votes count before I make calculations in the future, k? I'd hate to completely ignore that votes exist. Only partially ignoring seems to be more acceptable.

Not my list, not my numbers. I do know that Corny used my calculation from PA, and I know how I caculated it. And since it was Corny I was correct, I'm not sure how Free Soviets list is relevant. Free Soviets calculates himself or uses some source other than the general news outlets, since they round by much more than he does. If you'd like to discuss HIS numbers, you'd have to ask him.


Actually, Free Soviet's list is only the total percentage won by Obama or Clinton, not the gap. And would it be whining to ask that this percentage battle move to the polls thread? Not to be too picky or 'all about me,' but it's boooooooooooorrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnngggggggg.

Actually, Free Soviet's list is only the total percentage won by Obama or Clinton, not the gap. And would it be whining to ask that this percentage battle move to the polls thread? Not to be too picky or 'all about me,' but it's boooooooooooorrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnngggggggg.

Oh, come on. One time, in this thread's is predecessor, Ard counted the number of words in some of my posts. I'll drop the argument, because, frankly, none of it matters much. It's a difference in opinion about how the vote difference between the candidates should be looked at. Nothing more. It's also distinctly possible that my way of calculating the difference is due to laziness, but don't tell anyone.

Also, lest anyone be confused, none of this personal. I'm actually friends with Dem and she regularly solicits me to be her mistress... mistresser... mister. However you say that, she wants me to help her cheat. Now, of course, she would deny that, but that's only because I'm lying.

Similarly, I actually have a lot of respect for CanuckHeaven. It's true I haven't been impressed by his arguments throughout this campaign, but don't confuse that with a personal disrespect. And, despite appearances, I have strong evidence he feels the same way. Unfortunately, unlike Jhaha, he's never been overseas with me, though, so our friendship is limited to online harassment.

We may not be civil, but we are friendly. And finally, friends, I'm wearing pants but just mentioning them makes you picture me without them. Enjoy.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/edwards-delegates-in-south-carolina-move-to-obama/

CNN) – At least six of John Edwards’ eight pledged delegates in South Carolina will throw their support to Barack Obama following Edwards’ endorsement of the Democratic frontrunner on Wednesday, CNN has learned.

Daniel Boan, Christine Brennan-Bond, Robert Groce, Susan Smith, Mike Evatt and Lauren Bilton — all elected as pledged delegates for Edwards following his third place finish in the South Carolina primary on January 29 — announced Thursday they will follow Edwards’ lead and pledge their support to Obama at the Democratic National Convention in August.

Clinton come on! Read the tea leaves! You've lost now get out.

Clinton come on! Read the tea leaves! You've lost now get out.

I don't know that Clinton wants to win as much as she wants Obama to lose.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7396501.stm

Interesting analysis on who should be the one to tell Senator Clinton to give up the ghost, as it were, and step out of the race. What do you peoples think?

I wouldn't rule that option out entirely, just yet. How about a couple of Northern Territory crocodiles, too?

Jhahannam, to make it as explicit as possible: do not goad CanuckHeaven or anyone else. It is inconsistent with forum rules.

CanuckHeaven, to make it as explicit as possible: do not respond to goading. Do not goad others.

Look, I'm assuming that people who want to discuss politics must be old enough to vote, or at least fairly close. So you should know how to stop squabbling and start debating.

SO DO IT.

Very well, your honor, I'll rephrase my question.

CanuckHeaven, please tell me which point is being overlooked that you consider salient. Jocabia has presented several, I'd like to give yours fair attention, and I would appreciate it if you would emphasize the specific element of your position that you feel is not being given consideration.

Actually, Free Soviet's list is only the total percentage won by Obama or Clinton, not the gap.

yeah - seemed simpler.

the idea of disqualifying votes that don't meet the viability threshold (15%) is interesting. of course, it gets weird in that each of the states is actually a whole bunch of separate races so you can wind up with, for example, edwards winning a bunch of (unsanctioned, non-voting) delegates in some florida districts, but failing to meet the viability threshold to get any of the statewide ones.

and i should probably go back and check my numbers, since a bunch of the vote totals have been certified now, so we have real official numbers rather than the hodge-podge of sources i used originally.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/edwards-delegates-in-south-carolina-move-to-obama/

plus another edwards del from nh and another from ia. and 4 more supers. and certified results from nc put obama over the next line in one district, giving him another pledged del and costing clinton one of hers.

who should be the one to tell Senator Clinton to give up the ghost, as it were?
Hey, don't point at me, I ain't a'gonna do it!
* retreats to corner, tries to look inconspicuous *

On a side note...

Is Obama 31337ist?

Like, he doesn't respect the common script kiddie, and claims script kiddies cling to scripts, trolling and DOS attacks?

I don't know you, but I wouldn't want a 1337 president! :p

Ah well, he's better than Hillary, the n00b, and McCain, who is teh suxxorz.

\/073 084|\/|4 !

Oh, I see the light now! It wasn't all the negatives with that bitch that dragged her down but it was the media (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10420.html).

Right....

Pull my finger... It has bells on it! :D

I'm all for continuing, but she's painting it like they're stealing this race from her and it's going to result in a lot of bitterness. It wasn't stolen from her. She lost. Not "is losing". She LOST. There is no reasonable way she wins at this point without splitting the party. It doesn't matter what happens in the last contests, if they give her the race, she will not win. The entire black population will have been alienated.

So here's the problem. She can either try to bring her backers into the fold by showing them that Obama is the legitimate nominee, or she can continue to protest and create a bunch of protest voters in the general. This doesn't end with her beating Obama. It simply doesn't. Now, is the time to begin your exit, Mrs. Clinton. Please. It's for the best.

Disclaimer: No, I'm not saying quit. I'm saying accept that you've lost. Run out the remaining contests without try to hobble the team that beat you.

On the CNN ticker, several posters are indicating that they'll write in her name or encouraging her to disown the party and run as an independent because the party "turned their backs on her".

On the CNN ticker, several posters are indicating that they'll write in her name or encouraging her to disown the party and run as an independent because the party "turned their backs on her".

im pretty sure she is too smart to do that.

im pretty sure she is too smart to do that.

I'm sure but we are talking about a lady here who is claiming falsely that she has the popular vote lead.

I'm sure but we are talking about a lady here who is claiming falsely that she has the popular vote lead.

yeah i know but thinking that its smart to run as an independant is a whole nother level of delusion.

yeah i know but thinking that its smart to run as an independant is a whole nother level of delusion.

I would not put it past her but I do not think she'll run as an independent.