"Obama is going to Idaho - what a fool"

[grantcart]

In the run up to Super Tuesday there was wide spread derision by Clinton supporters that he was going to all of these funny places. "Obama is going to Idaho - what a fool".

Then on Super Tuesday he won more delegates.

He won more delegates in Jan and Feb.

Clinton said that March would be better for her. Obama won more delegates in March.

Now in here and among Obama surrogates there is the beginning of the whisper that "only the popular vote should be counted". Of course Senator Obama has a 721,993 lead in popular vote in contested primaries. By somehow adding in the uncontested and disallowed primaries in Michigan and Florida Clinton math experts hope that they can reverse the lead in popular vote and claim legitimacy for their campaign.

Their is a word for this. A simple clear word for changing the indicator, the finish line, the time on the clock or whatever else you want to call it.

The word is: Cheating.

And now as Obama is only 221 pledged delegates from securing 50% +1 of the pledged delegate total Senator Bayh and supporters in here are trying to recast the goal. Now it is about finishing with the most popular vote .

Senator Bayh - that is cheating. In a family growing up with two brothers we spent half of the time competing and half the time trying to change the rules so we could change the outcome. We cheated. When we reached twelve we stopped cheating.

If the popular vote was going to be the determining factor then we really don't even need a convention. Oh and by the way Senator Obama would not have spent time and money in places like Idaho. He wouldn't have bothered with a single caucus but would have been running up popular vote totals instead.

This race is about delegates not the popular vote.

Senator Bayh, Clinton surrogates and some Clinton DU supporters if you keep insisting on trying to change the rules at the end of the game then you leave me with no alternative.

I am going to have to tell your mother that you are cheating again.

[Cha]

1. In retrospect I wonder if team hilary

would have done anything differently so they wouldn't have to resort to trying to cheat now that it's almost over?

[adoraz]

8. their whole campaign

First they needed to shut Bill up in SC. That started everything.

Then, they needed to actually focus on all the small states on Super Tuesday. Even if Obama still beat them, it could have been a lot closer instead of blow outs.

[catgirl]

49. I'm glad they let Bill talk

They are a "team" after all. And he asked people to vote for HIM.

I'm glad they denounced the smaller and/or red states. Again, their
true colors needed to be seen.

[LVjinx]

127. The funny thing is Bill never said any of the "racist" things he supposedly said.

[grantcart]

98. Their arrogance restricts their vision and limits their opportunities

[LiberalLovinLug]

99. One wonders...

Even though I am now backing Obama, there was a time that I was open to ALL of the Democratic candidates. The nastiness of the Clinton campaign has put me off of BOTH Clintons. And I am truly sorry about that because I used to have great respect for both Bill and Hillary.

One wonders how this nomination would have shaped up if Hillary had gotten other advisers and decided to go uber-positive instead of the opposite. You know, talk about YOUR vision for the country, instead of mocking Obamas, talk about how YOUR experience in the White House was beneficial, instead of using derision to isolate Obama and elevate McCain.

You know what, it may have worked. I for one would not be as turned off and tuned out and frankly angry with the Clintons at this point if she had taken the positive route. Instead she employed a scorched earth policy that will give the GOP a lot of ammunition to use against whoever wins. She did not believe in herself enough to simply stand on her own accomplishments, she had to stomp on others. That was childish behavior and we have simply had enough of that in the last 7 years.

And BTW I would still vote for Hillary if she somehow still wins. As I would hope all true progressives will vote for Obama even if their first choice was Hillary. It is imperative that this neo-con nightmare ends!

[grantcart]

100. A great point

A couple of months ago I saw her on Nightline. It was a low pressure piece - who watches nightline andymore?


She was relaxed, normal, entertaining as hell - all I could think of was god if she had run like that then she would have been President.

Now here is the kicker - remember when McCain was absolute toast. No advisers, no money just shucking around going to townhall meetings in NH.


If Hillary had just fired everyone and did exactly what McCain had done and just went out and talked to people without advisers and her entourage she would have kicked ass.

[Cha]

107. But, it didn't

happen 'cause that's not hilary. hilary is the one who votes for bombing Iraq and panders to it when bush's numbers were ridin' high and changes her speeches when it becomes obvious, to more than just a few million of us, that it was a terrible mistake. bil clinton talked up bush's war on Iraq, too, and then lied about it.

[grantcart]

111. I think it was them once but it is a classic case of power and privledge corrupting

one of the things I really like about Obama - ne never moved his family to DC

[Cha]

119. Yes, the clintons are corrupted

alright, and I got in Oct 2002.

[KittyWampus]

2. there is no such thing as a "popular vote" in a Primary that includes caucuses

[papau]

4. indeed - winning in states we will not win in the general proves what?

[jgraz]

15. The same thing it proves when you win a state we're guaranteed to win in the general

It proves you won that state and got more delegates. Same thing it proves when you win a swing state.

Only the Clintons seem to have trouble understanding that the primaries and the general elections are different. They ran the primaries like it was a general election and they got their ass whipped. Now they want to change the rules so they can still be handed their "inevitable" victory.

[papau]

30. New Jersey polls flip and McCain wins if Obama is nominated

[Alexander]

43. The same polls that said Bush would beat Kerry in New Jersey?

Uh huh. Right. And why should we believe those?

[Kber]

57. Or that Bush would beat Gore?

No worries - not gonna happen, my friend.

[stahbrett]

51. Polls for the general election at this stage are all but useless

Bill Clinton was in 3rd place in the national polls, going into the Democratic convention in 1992, behind George H. W. Bush and Ross Perot.

[grantcart]

125. Hillary was in the white house 6 months ago

[LVjinx]

128. And still might be

[Richard D]

105. Much will likely change . . .

. . . once the campaign for the GE starts full on. I can't wait to see a debate between mccain and Obama.

[pokercat999]

108. I'm going to feel sorry for the old man....for about two

seconds then I'll be: :rofl: :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[grantcart]

106. polls six months ago showed that no one could stop her getting the nomination

[grantcart]

17. well actually following the rules and remaining intellectual consistent proves

that we are adults worthy of governing a nation.

Now if you want a system that is heavily weighted in another way then change the system. Obama would have still won that system.

[papau]

31. there is no "win" - only decision points for super delegates to consider

[roseBudd]

114. And pissing on all the African American voters who backed Obama to hand it to Clinton achieves what?

Yeah lets just hand the nomination to the white one who didn't win.

[grantcart]

120. it is simply not going to happen.

[grantcart]

20. By the way when you are suggesting changes, In so much that Clinton only placed

3rd in Iowa - have them removed altogether.

[papau]

32. primaries are indeed the Democratic way - not caucuses

[grantcart]

33. completely and utterly untrue

caucuses are a way for the party to do its business and build from the bottom. Having an active precinct base allows the party to listen to its members on a regular basis. From precinct to county to district to state. It allows the party to have a conversation with itself about the issues that the party is interested in. It is not only about candidates.

Moreover parties cannot tell the states when to have their primaries. In fact if a state does not have any issues for a ballot referendum you cannot compel the state to have a primary. So for many smaller states that do not have primaries and do not want to pay millions simply for a primary when parties can run caucuses for nothing, their only alternative is caucusing.

People in DU who participate in caucuses love them. In some ways the huge caucuses undermind the consultative quality that caucuses can provide.

Hillary loved caucuses right up to the point that she lost them. Moreover it was universally assumed that she was going to sweep the caucus states because they would be ablet to rely on their institutional connections to out manouver the smaller candidates. It is only when Obama's supperior organizational management dealt the Clinton campaign serious blows did the Clintons change their tune about caucuses. Simply another example of the growing avalanche of intellectually dishones positions that the Clinton campaign has embraced so far.

Finally the issue isn't about this way or that way or the highway. The issue is that having won by the rules the Clinton's are now trying to change the rules.

[jgraz]

46. There you go with all your creepy "facts" and "reasoning"

It's people like you that are fucking up Her Hillness's coronation!!

[FatDave]

34. OK, first of all

You know damn well that had your candidate performed well in the caucus states, you wouldn't be saying this crap. It's not like some brand new system was sprang on Hilary. This is how it's worked for decades. Seriously, take a step back and accept that she underperformed in caucuses. If you have to blame the system, a system everybody was familiar with and happy with going in, well, you're just ducking reality.

Not only that, just a couple posts up, you said: "there is no 'win' - only decision points for super delegates to consider" So is that the democratic way? Or is that the undemocratic way. Or is that some, I dunno, third way?

Look, I've got no problem with who you supported in the primaries. That's everybody's choice to make. But you really need to start thinking about letting it go now. Your tortured logic isn't helping, it's only making you look foolish.

[Chulanowa]

47. So we should hide in California, Vermont, and Massechussetts?

That's ridiculous. Ever thought that we don't win more states in the GE because Democratic candidates don't try to win them?

[rocktivity]

74. Winning in states we will not win in the general proves what?

That we have enough of a base there to foster future Dem party growth. It's called the fifty-state strategy, Howard Dean thought it it up, and it the reason why we did so well in '06.

:headbang:
rocknation

[gort]

36. Because it is not a popular vote

It is a party picking its candidate.

Why do you think the Republicans choose to do Winner-takes-all instead of proportional?

Because it not based on popular vote.

The Popular Vote is in November.

[odelisk8]

52. nope

Electoral College...Al Gore won popular vote in 2000....remember....

[tblue37]

97. He also won the Electoral College vote, but since that info

came out on Sept. 12, 2001, it got well and thoroughly buried.

[bluestateguy]

3. In the future, the rules should be changed to give the popular vote some weight

First, abolish superdelegates. Then tack on a bonus of say 200 winner take all delegates for the winner of the national popular vote. But that should be in 2012. The rules in 2008 are what they are.

The Obama strategy, if it succeeds, is brilliant: blowout Hillary in the small red states where she does not campaign, and then hold Hillary to a narrow win in the big states. That way Obama makes a bigger net gain of delegates in the small red states than she gains out of her marginal wins in the big states.

[grantcart]

7. I am ok with that as long as they do the following

Say disparaging comments about primaries/caucuses after they lose - 5 delegates

Change the 'framing' of what is important for deciding the election - 20 delegates

Indicate a state is not important - 5 delegates.


This thing would have been over Feb 10th

[ThatBozGuy]

9. This is not just the genious of Mr Obama, but Mr Dean and the fifty state

Democracy, that they and many others believe in. Every American counts not just those in a few geographically "lucky" states.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

5. Speaking of Idaho:

I don't have the link right now, but I remember reading a Rolling Stone story (the one with Obama on the cover) about Obama's 50-state strategy.

Apparently, the delegates he won in Idaho canceled out the net delegates Hillary won in New Jersey.

[grantcart]

11. speaking of Idaho two of the best videos of the campaign

Obama entering the Rally

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_yqVo-SIss


Idaho caucus, folks this is a caucus and it is unbelievable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fwJEWLUv8

[Oilwellian]

24. The caucus video is awesome

In so many ways. :D

[goclark]

80. grantcart ~ you sure know how to make goclark

cry some happy tears!

It's a remarkable experience for this African American woman and a Senior to watch these videos.

I can't believe it ~ to see that Idaho loves him so much and that those in attendance believe in him "for the content of his character" is Extra Special.

I want to give a special hug to every one of the people that welcomed him for that Rally ~ that was America to me.:hug:

I also want to give a special hug to all those on DU who are working for Sen. Obama. Working for him not because he is AA, but because they believe he is the right person THIS TIME!:hug:

[CitizenLeft]

87. ohhhhhh, I'm at work, I can't watch it...

can't wait to see these when I get home.

[IDemo]

91. Here is another great video from the caucus

For those of us who migrated from John Edwards to Barack Obama:

Kurt Holzer, of Idahoans for Edwards — "I am a John Edwards Democrat"

Part 1 - Part 2

Listening to Kurt's speech, and then to Boise mayor Dave Bieter's speech for Obama, along with being surrounded by thousands of noisy Democrats made this a night I won't forget. Dave said it all: "Ladies and gentlemen, isn't it nice to be among friends?"

[grantcart]

93. I get really fed up with some folks who keep belittling the great things that

are happening in places like Wyoming and Idaho - There is such a great ignorance do they not know who Sen Church is or Govenor Andrus

[Cha]

12. Gotta love a campaign that includes

all our 50 United States of all the States of AMerica!

[Adelante]

89. What is so difficult about that concept?

I just can't fathom how it's not clear as a bell to all Democrats.

[grantcart]

28. that is correct

[ThatBozGuy]

6. The popular vote can not count as a final measure, it is only the tool to measure .....

Delegate division, and then it is discarded.

The proof of that is in the fact that the caucus popular votes have not been included in any count, only the delegates are reported.

Ms Clinton knows the rules enough to know that there is NOWHERE IN THE RULES OF THE PRIMARY WHERE THE POPULAR VOTE COUNTS FOR ANYTHING BUT DELEGATE DIVISION.

But that balloon is of desperation and counting on public opinion being ignorant of the truth.

[grantcart]

27. This is a very good point and it also points out the fact that because of the way

delegates are selected by a district and that the split is always going to be relatively close (2-3 or 4-3) that except for landslide victories it is very difficult to get much of a lead in a relatively competitive close race. It really shows the genius of the Obama campaign in running up landslide votes in small states rather than trying to move big states

Net delegate advantage in some big states

IL +55 Obama
NY +24 Clinton
CA +38 Clinton
GA +33 Obama
VA +25 Obama
MN +24 Obama
AR +19 Clinton
MA +17 Clinton
MD +14 Obama
SC +13 Obama

As the campaign gets tighter it gets more difficult to run up delegate differences

compare for example

OH + 9 Clinton compared with + 12 in LA or + 9 in KS.


And your other point about the Clintons already knowing this is particularly frustrating. Back on Feb 14 Sen. Schumer admits that it is almost impossible to catch up beause of the way delegates are distributed by districts:

snip
Schumer also suggested that the current system of awarding pledged delegates is flawed. "The delegate counts are so close, and you can win a state by quite a lot and you still don't win the delegates by quite a lot,” he said. "Maybe that's a flawed system. But that will be for the next election, not this one.

"I think if you win a district 55 to 45," he said. "The delegates shouldn't be three to three. Yes, I think proportional representation makes some sense but they sort of overdid it."
snip

and then he goes on to say

snip
But he also said he doubted that one candidate would stay on long after it became clear he or she could not win the nomination.

"The number one thing that people worry about is that the candidates will cut each other up and make it harder to win the general," he said. "But I think that is not going to happen. Because everyone cares about winning so much. Not only the candidates, but the electorate. So if one candidate is doing something that is regarded as really self-destructive, of the ability to win, that's really going to hurt them."

"It would widely be regarded negatively in the electorate," he said.
snip

Are you listening Senator Clinton?

http://www.observer.com/2008/schumer-avoiding-self-destructive-end-clinton-vs-obama

[Shae]

10. It reminds me ...

Apparently in 2000, GWB's team thought he would win the popular vote, but not the electoral vote.
In light of that, they were preparing to make tremendous objection as to the legitimacy of Gore's win.
But, in the end, Gore won the popular vote, so they had to make it appear that Florida went to Bush.
Now it was all about the electoral vote, and once again, the popular vote didn't mean anything.

[grantcart]

13. good point

[greyghost]

14. It's a fucked up system that should have been done away with with

the advent of radio.

[Cha]

16. Yeah, all the limpbaughs were

going to blast it from their hate radio megaphones that if bush won the popular vote he should be the decider.

[truedelphi]

21. And the repugs used the court's resources to get the voting in FL

To be stopped.

According to some wording inside voting legalese - if a contested election is an election where all the votes are counted, then you can demand a recount.

But if the voting gets stopped, the chance for recount are legally nil.

And once the activists went in, after Bush was declared the winner, and looked at all the votes in FLorida and the rest of the uSA, Gore won Election 2000 totally.

Except that fact got buried in the NYT on the day of Sept 12th 2001.

[truedelphi]

18. You say, and I agree wholeheartedly --

There is a word for this. A simple clear word for changing the indicator, the finish line, the time on the clock or whatever else you want to call it.

The word is: Cheating.

[NanceGreggs]

19. BRILLIANT!!!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[grantcart]

22. from you on Easter means I get an extra cookie before bed.

[NanceGreggs]

23. Just a FABULOUS post!

So have two cookies. You've more than earned them.

[LeFleur1]

25. Whoda Ever Thunk.....

that if one counted popular votes in America it would be called cheating.

[NanceGreggs]

26. The primary process isn't about popular votes ...

... it's about delegates.

But you knew that, didn't you?

[grantcart]

29. Because had the campaign been about popular vote and not delegates

the campaigns would have had different strategies.

Small states would not have been included at all and so on.

Of course right now Obama still leads in popular vote so the Clinton campaign is not banging this drum too loudly just kind of warming it up should they actually go ahead in the end.

Not to put to fine a point on it - had it actually been about popular vote Senator Obma would have stayed in the most populous states and not spent a lot of time and money on the smaller states. He played by the rules in place at the time and now they want to reframe the rules. That is cheating and everybody knows it.

[Capital_Hill_Ender]

35. k

[Tatiana]

37. KICK - Cause the black vote put him over the top in Idaho! n/t

[grantcart]

38. please see post # 11 for video of them doing so

[Scurrilous]

39. Great post.

:thumbsup:

[krkaufman]

40. Going with the "popular vote" winner would disenfranchise all the caucus states, of course.

... but I doubt Hillary's concerned with that.

The candidates are running to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, not the nominee of the Democratic Primaries.

[bigbrother05]

44. Caucuses don't count, cause I didn't win! - HRC

As some others astutely pointed out before, if the results were reversed, the MSM would have ridiculed BHO ceaselessly after Super Tues to quit being a sore loser and concede. The whole meme, "you can't count a Clinton out", only serves the MSM's selfish corporate purposes.

[krkaufman]

48. Yes, the lunacy, hypocrisy and utter irony of the Clinton arguments would be hilarious ...

... if not so damaging.

e.g. The caucuses aren't sufficiently democratic, because they're not as reflective of all voters (but mostly 'cause I didn't win 'em); so I think the superdelegates (the most undemocratic of delegates) should select me as the nominee, 'cause I think I'm more electable.

[jillan]

41. I don't get it - in 2000 Democrats were screaming because Gore won the popular vote and now we don't

care?

It's only okay to ignore the popular vote when your candidate is winning in the delegate column?

:shrug:

[grantcart]

59. you really don't get it - it is cheating

if it was going to be about the popular vote Obama would not have gone to Idaho and spent tremendous time and resources on 12 caucus states that were not going to generate popular vote.

He would have been piling up huge leads in population centers and instead of leading in the popular vote by 700,000 he would have been leading by several million.

The reason that the analogy is garbage is that in Presidential election you do not have a mix of different kinds of elections (primaries and caucuses) some that have popular vote and some that don't.

[BearSquirrel2]

130. He won the popular vote in Florida ...

The primary reason Democrats were screaming is Gore actually won the popular vote in Florida.

The second reason is that GW Bush was claiming mandates when he didn't even get a popular national vote.

[bigbrother05]

42. Your family quit at 12? Mine still counts cookies

I'm 55 and they still owe me a macaroon.

:rofl: he said macaroon

[phrigndumass]

45. You speak common sense, my friend ...

... in a place sorely lacking of it (GDP). I would seek out your writing anywhere, just for a good, honest read.

:thumbsup:

[cooolandrew]

50. If cheating was wrong for te GOP it si more than wrong .for our party. The time is here to concede.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Going to Idaho was brilliant.

There are lots of fundie whackjobs who were happy for the invitation to become Democrats for a day to vote against a Clinton.

If you think this phenomenon holds some meaning for the general election, you're naive, but it was a brilliant tactic in the primary. Now we are where we are.

If I could have one wish, it would be for the more smug among the Obama supporters to stop heaping derision and ridicule on HRC supporters. Unlike the Idahoans who crossed parties to vote for BO, it is possible (despite the abuse) that most HRC supporters may still vote for BO in the general.

[grantcart]

65. The 'abuse' is aimed at the Clinton campaign spin which is dishonarable.

I specifically said some Clinton supporters in here who will parrot the party line. Go up and down the thread and you will see people making the case that we should throw the delegates from Idaho out because it is unlikely that we will carry it in November.

For the Clinton supporters who have, like you, been painted in a corner and are admitting that the Clinton campaign has been completely out manouvered, I ask, would it not be better to direct your anger at the people who screwed up her campaign.

And please note the title of the OP. I didn't go out of my way to start a fight. I am responding to the smug Clinton supporters who heaped abuse on Obama at the time. At the time he was roundly pillaried for an idiotic strategy. Now it turns out that it was brilliant as you say.

The phenomenon that holds for the General Election is this: A person who runs a 'brilliant' primary campaign has the same skill set necessary to run a brilliant GE campaign.

Are you suggesting that we not nominate the person who has run a better primary campaign and has a commanding lead in pledged delegates?

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. Completely outmanouvered. Perhaps.

I don't mind all that much if my candidate is outwitted by another democrat. I do mind if she's outwitted to the detriment of the party.

Hillary consciously chose to not court primary voters who won't support the D candidate in the general. Obama did. He found the fork in the road and took the road less traveled. Sometimes there's a reason that the road is overgrown.

He's campaigning for the nomination - not the presidency. It is a brilliant execution of that goal.

Although I prefer Hillary, I'm okay with Obama as a nominee. That said, his state campaigns have gone so far out of their way to alienate our base, that I think he's doing irreparable harm to our GE prospects.

Every day there's a new poster with one month and 200 posts at DU under their belt explaining why (s)he is switching from HRC to BO and would never EVER vote for HRC - even if she's the nominee. Each of these posts get 30+ recommends.

Explain to me that this isn't a symptom of harm. Hint: it isn't HRC supporters who operate these sock puppets nor are they the ones recommending these posts.

[IDemo]

66. Democrats like me who actually live here would disagree your assessment

The perpetuation of the myth that Obama's success in Idaho was a direct result of 'fundie whackjobs' following instructions from Rush is insulting and ignorant. You apparently have not a shred of an idea what occurred here. The Obama campaign had five offices statewide; Clinton had none. There was a tremendous amount of time and energy put forth by hundreds of volunteers, leading up to an Obama rally three days before Super Tuesday with 14,000 people and an overflow crowd of 2,000. The caucus was basically another Obama rally, without Barack.

Enjoy a view of "fundie whackjobs" here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z__BFQuDSkE&feature=related

and here -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fwJEWLUv8&feature=related

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. The campaign's embracing of "new democrats" is well demonstrated.

... as is their embracing of temporary democrats.

http://correntewire.com/bush_latte_obama_democrat_for_a_day_scheme_in_florida_not_only_in_nevada

Many Obama supporters are going to lose some of their naive faith in their fellow man on election day.

[IDemo]

92. What percentage of the 16,000 who showed up for Obama's rally

do you also believe to have been "fundie whackjobs"? What might have been their reason for driving on icy roads on a 25 degree morning to see this event? To pump each other up as part of a vast right-wing cross voting conspiracy? This is a state where Hillary would have significantly less chance than Satan of winning an election. Isn't that the person nefarious cross-voting repubs would rather see on the ballot? Most of the sources I have seen on DU and elsewhere seem to agree it is Hillary they would rather face in the GE. That was particularly true on Super Tuesday, before the "pastorgate" story broke.

[VinnieF]

143. Another Hillarhoid for the ignore list.

My God, this place is so much more pleasant without you Hillarhoids.

[invictus]

54. Every candidate should pursue a 50 state strategy! It's cheating not to. n/t

[BzaDem]

55. You are completely wrong.

Show me the rule that shows super delegates must vote for the winner of pledged delegates.

Show me the rule that shows super delegates can't vote for the winner of the popular vote.

Show me the damn rule -- because otherwise, it is NOT cheating.

I'm so sick of Obama supporters making up rules for their own gain.

[grantcart]

61. There is nothing in the OP about compelling super delegates what to do

The point that you refuse to address is to the 'legitimacy' of the process. They are trying to 'delegitimize' the primary/caucus process by changing the meaning of the rules. It is very much like the argument after a marbles game - I got bigger marbles, yeah but I got more.

The superdelegates are and will do the right thing




The plain fact is that the current Clinton spin is and will increasingly be that the process is flawed, that the superdelegates should not pay any attention to the results of the 30 primaries and caucuses Obama has won.

Of course they actually have to lead in the popular vote before they say that too loud.

[BzaDem]

64. Hey -- I'm not the one claiming that caucusgoers are more important than primarygoers.

I'm not the one (neither are you -- it's someone else) thinking its legitimate to multiply caucuses by 5.5 to determine the popular vote.

There are many people who want to weight caucuses *lower* than 1.0, since they disenfranchise so many people, don't have absentee ballots, etc. etc. The Obama supporter argument here is that if people couldn't get off their ass and vote, they shouldn't have a say.

There are some who want to weight caucuses *higher* than 1.0 (such as 5.5). The Obama supporter argument here is that if people couldn't get off their ass and vote, we should count them anyway.

I simply argue that we should count each person who voted for a particular candidate the same -- in the popular vote, and that superdelegates should look at that. That is not cheatin -- that is completely within the rules. So stop saying it is cheating.

[grantcart]

67. The reason that it is analgous to children cheating is that if you

were going to say that the popular vote is the determining argument for winning the nomination then Obama would not have gone to Idaho he would have run a different campaign. At the begining after Iowa when the delegate split was basically even the Clinton campaign said well all that counts is the delegates and on the delegate side we tied.


You can fantasize all about what you are saying to the superdelegates. The fact is that superdelegates come from the states that Clinton denegrates with her spin. Those superdelegates - like the delegates chosen at the Iowas countyr convention are going for Obama 100%.


Don't count the caucus attendees and Obama still leads the popular vote by 700,000.

[VenusRising]

56. The Clinton Camp is using the rules of "Calvinball" for this primary.

The Unofficial Official Rules of Calvinball

Permanent Rule: You may not play the Calvinball the same way twice.

Primary Rule: The following rules are subject to be changed, amended, or deleted by any player(s) involved. These rules are not required, nor necessary to play Calvinball.

1.0. The following words in these rules are mostly freely interchangeable, the Primary Rule applies:

Can
May
Must
Shall
Should
Will
Would

1.1. All players must wear a Calvinball mask (See Calvinball Equipment - 2.1). No one may question the masks (Figure 2.1).

1.2 Any player may declare a new rule at any point in the game (Figure 1.2). The player may do this audibly or silently depending on what zone (Refer to Rule 1.5) the player is in.

1.3. A player may use the Calvinball (See Calvinball Equipment - 2.2) in any way the player see fits, whether it be to incur injury upon other players or to gain benefits for himself.

1.4. Any penalty legislation may be in the form of pain, embarassment, or any degradation the rulee wishes to execute upon the other player.

1.5 The Calvinball Field (See Calvinball Equipment - 2.3) should consist of areas, or zones, which are governed by a set of rules declared by players. Zones may be appear and disappear as often and wherever the player decides. For example, a corollary zone would enable a player to make a corollary (sub-rule) to any rule already made. Or a pernicious poem place would require the intruder to do what the name implies. Or an opposite zone would enable a player to declare reverse playibility on the others. (Remember, the player would declare this zone oppositely by not declaring it.) (Figure 1.5a and 1.5b)

1.6 Flags (Calvinball Equipment 2.3) shall be named by players whom shall also assign the power and rules which shall govern that flag (Figure 1.6).

1.7 Songs are an integral part of Calvinball and verses must be sung spontaneously through the game when randomly assigned events occur.

1.8 Score may be kept or disregarded. In the event that score is kept, it shall have no bearing on the game nor shall it have any logical consistency to it. (Legal scores include 'Q to 12', 'BW-109 to YU-34, and 'Nosebleed to Pelvic Fracture'.)



http://www.bartel.org/calvinball/

[grantcart]

68. too brilliant and of course it is immediately followed by folks who can't miss the fun and want to

play calvinball

[VenusRising]

73. It must be the masks.

They are so cool! :headbang:

:rofl:

[grantcart]

75. of course that small final detail is what made the comparison even better because when they come in

here they are anonymous and are 'wearing masks' and can say whatever they want and walk away and hide.

[VenusRising]

76. Exactly what I was thinking.

That kind of anonymity gives people mighty big......mouths. :evilgrin:

[northzax]

58. yup, and he's going to win Idaho in November, too!

oh wait, no he's not. he could spend every day in Idaho from now until Novemnber, spend a hundred million on advertising, and he wouldn't win Idaho, or Utah.

[BzaDem]

60. I can't believe that this even needs to be stated.

[northzax]

63. he's going to win all the red states

even the ones he got almost 15,000 votes in for the caucuses. don't you know that?

15,000 Idahoans are more important that two million Ohioans.

[DWilliamsamh]

126. And Hillary is? Hillary is not hated with wwhite hot intensity by

movement cons in every state?

[grantcart]

62. and what is your point?

[northzax]

69. um, that he's been winning small, red states

that have caucuses? 20,000 people came to the Idaho Caucuses (http://www.idaho-democrats.org/ht/display/ReleaseDetails/i/1129358) 20,000. he picked up 17 delegates on 16,000 caucus votes. that's fewer than 1,000 people per delegate in a state that McCain will win without ever visiting. big deal.

[grantcart]

70. The point is that they set up a system to win delegates

not popular votes
not big states
not red states
not blue states


He developed a campaign to do that and he has succeeded - even as one Clinton supporter reluctantly admitted upthread - brilliantly.


Had you said at the begining it was going to be only about certain states and the rest don't matter he would not have gone to Idaho. He would have campaigned in the only states that actually 'mattered'. Puerto Rico has a huge number of delegates more than many states and is a demographic that Clinton leads big time.

At the end of the game to now say "well you won a bunch of states and are winning in delegates but it doesn't mean anything because . . ." is reminiscent of children arguing at the end of the game.

If it had been about winning only in certain states rather than about delegates then he would have run a campaign for those certain states.

[northzax]

71. and then they set up a system of superdelegates

to make sure the candidate met with the Party's approval. That too was in the rules. IF you are a superdelegate, and you are looking at a Clinton win in Ohio and Pennsylvania and maybe even the CArolinas, how much weight are you going to give to an Obama win in Idaho?

yes, it was a brilliant strategy, the only problem is, he didn't win the big states he needed to. anytime there was a must win for Clinton, she won. those were all, with the exception of New Hampshire, big, complicated states. He won the places that she didn't campaign, and knowing that she wouldn't campaign and putting your own resources into place is smart, but you have to win head to head as well, and since it has been the two of them, in any state where both campaigned, she won. if you were a superdelegate, wouldn't you pay attention to that?

[grantcart]

72. Two problems with your reply

***Another Lie Debunked*** Obama actually outperforms Clinton in the Big States***
Posted by grantcart in General Discussion: Primaries
Sat Mar 08th 2008, 01:55 PM
The last myth standing is that Hillary has outperformed Sen. Obama in the "big states that really count"

The only problem, is that with all most all the other Clintonian spin it is not true.


1)In the top Nine contested primaries to date Sen.Obama has outperformed Sen Clinton by 156,000 votes

Here they are:


State . . . . . Obama . . . . . . Clinton

California. . . .2,126,000 . . . . . . .2,553,000

Texas . . . . . .1,358,000 . . . . . . .1,459,000

New York. . . . .698,000 . . . . . . . 1,003,000

Illinois. . . . . 1,302,000 . . . . . . . .662,000

Ohio . . . . . . 982,000. . . . . . . 1,212,000

Gerogia. . . . . . 704,000 . . . . . . . 330,000

New Jersey. . . .492,000 . . . . . . . 603,000

Virginia . . . . . 627,000 . . . . . . . 350,000

Washington . . . 354,000 . . . . . . . 316,000


Total . . . . .8,643,000 . . . . . . . .8,487,000



2) The superdelegates are deciding and they are not buying your argument - they seem to be better informed

[northzax]

77. check out that actual difference

it is entirely the margin of difference in Georgia, a state where 75% of the Democratic Electorate is black. also a state where Hillary Clinton didn't campaign. at all. so, let's drop the two states that no Democrat has a chance in hell of winning this fall (Georgia and Texas) who's ahead now? oh, wait. it's not Obama.

and wait a minute, that chart is Clinton's superdelegate LEAD? you mean she's been holding at a roughly 40 superdelegate lead for three weeks? and it hasn't changed at all in ten days? since the speech, that is?

call me when he gets to 2025, maybe he'll get there in Pennsylvania? oh wait, no, that's a contested state.

[grantcart]

79. wow you just don't get it lol

1) still parsing the argument - so we will take the big states but only certain ones. I could also say why is it that Obama got a bigger difference in votes in Illinois (where Clinton was born) than New York, but I won't bother because its about the delegates.

2) Hillary's lead
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/superdelegate-history-tracker.html

two months ago it was 96 superdelegates 1/27

one month ago it was 64 superdelegates 2/24

and today it is 36 superdelegates



In the last 10 days Obama has gained 6 delegates what is unusual is that Hillary actually got a few endorsements. I am fine if they continue to split the superdelegates. She has to get a 4-1 split on superdelegates to catch up with his pledged delegates.


3) The number today is 2024. (It goes up and down when superdelegates die or their congressional seat is filled Rep. Lantos for example.

[northzax]

83. makes you wonder what the rest of them are thinking?

you make it so clear, why aren't the rest of the superdelegates flocking to Obama to end it?

[grantcart]

85. Excellent point and I have been making the same point for a long time

Here you have their real peer group

Senators - have known Clinton for a long time but more Senators support Obama than Clinton 15 -13 - makes you wonder what are they thinking? Oh and more govenors support Obama than Clinton 12-10 - even though they have knows the Clinton's for decades what do they know what are they thinking?

And then there is the very curious case of Barbara Boxer - known the Clintons intimately and their family has intermarried. She says she will vote for Clinton at the convention (only because she won the CA primary) but refuses to publicly endorse her or to campaign for her. Wonder what she is thinking?

[northzax]

86. then Boxer is a coward

she will vote for someone she doesn't support? classy.

[grantcart]

96. Well 1/3 are add on delegates and have not yet been named

those delegates will be added by the states at their conventions through June. So far every single delegate that has been added on and declared who they wanted have endorsed Obama.

A large number have indicated that they will wait until the pledged delegates have spoken and will follow their lead. Speaker Pelosi leads this group. Sentator Obama has only 221 more pledged delegates to get to this number. At that time I expect a number of super delegates will make their intentions known.


A number of superdelegates have made it clear who they favor (Pres Carter for one) but have not made a formal endorsement.


Some (and this includes some for Clinton) have decided but have not made a formal statement and it takes a while before the media can confirm one way or another who they are for.

[LWolf]

78. What if

the party only allows votes by democrats to count; either that, or has a completely open primary? What happens then?

[grantcart]

88. Don't know but again that would be changing the rules to rig an out come

What I can tell you is that in California the Republicans have a closed primary and every year since then the number of people who consider themselves Republicans declines.

The democrats allow people who are registered as independents can ask for a Democrat ballot and each year the number of democrats increase.

[LWolf]

94. I don't think the rules should ever be changed once

the primaries begin. At the same time, I think those rules should be guided by democratic principles and guarantee a clean, even, democratic process.

[elixir]

81. It's not cheating. Cheating would be trying to affect the outcome, this is not changing the outcome

Maybe you should look towards your own campaign and explain why Senator Obama is obstructing the MI re vote. I'm not certain that I have a problem with the process as agreed to by the MI democratic party, the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Is this a good example of how your candidate is going to work w/ others?

[grantcart]

95. The rules that decided before the campaign on what to do with any

state to jump ahead and have an early election was written and voted on by Howard Ickes and other Clinton supporters. They were afraid that a state like Illinois would jump the line and they would lose control. They wanted as many states to load up on Super Tuesday as possible because then their advantage of a 20 year brand and connections to all of the machines would give them a huge advantage and a lock on the nomination. This is why they had no plan for post super tuesday.

Now the Clinton campaign wants to undo the rules that they wrote and had adopted to force one big primary.


Changing the rules and now letting them back in - again is gaming the rules to try and engineer an outcome.


The fact is there is no evidence that it would have more than a 10-15 impact on delegate count at all. The only reason that Clinton

is going through this exercise is that she wants to lump in the popular vote into her totals so that she can claim a victory again

not with delegates but with the popular vote.


But it does leave you with this question: If she cannot get a bill through the Michigan State Legislature who effective is she going to be at getting legislation passed in congress.

[tbyg52]

116. Obstructing?

I saw a clip of him saying that he supports whatever the DNC decides. Period. Dunno how that is "obstructing."

[Skywalker]

82. LOVE THAT LAST LINE !!!!

K&R

[grantcart]

109. thanks

[greyghost]

101. KICK!

[BringBigDogBack]

102. K&R

[bagrman]

103. Cheaters, well , someone tell me ho Obama couldn't get any votes in black precincts in Harlem.

And why isn't it news?

[grantcart]

110. excellent point

[FightTheRight89]

104. My sentiments exactly!

[KamaAina]

112. Virginia used to be considered a "red state"

the last two statewide elections have gone to Dems, and by next year, they may well have two Dem senators and a Dem governor, which is more than "Blue" Hawai'i can say!

[grantcart]

118. exactly and Idaho had a democratic Govenor and Senator when I was

growing up. Remember Sen Church - he would have loved DU

[Sadie5]

113. Grantcart you are fibbing here

Better yet lying. Produce a link to this quote from evan Bayh. Bet ya can't. Bayh is an only child and has no brothers and never said this.

[grantcart]

117. It has evolved slightly - when I first heard him it was popular vote

now it has been changed to popular vote of electoral college

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.


Democratic Underground (whoever they are)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x127797

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.

He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

[tbyg52]

115. Oh *here* it is....!

I was wondering why this wasn't on the Greatest page, didn't associate this headline with it.

I am sick and tired of watching people try to move the goalposts. Who was it last time? Oh yeah - Lieberman.....

[L0oniX]

121. Kicking

[pnwmom]

122. A majority of the pledged delegate vote for either candidate is not enough.

That WOULD be changing the rules.

The rules specify that the winning candidate needs a super-majority. Also, even pledged delegates can change their choice after the first ballot. Superdelegates may vote for whomever they wish -- there is nothing in the rules that says they should echo the votes of the majority of pledged delegates or the majority of the population.

This race WILL be about the the Super-delegates, and what happens between now and the convention to affect their votes. I, personally, think Obama will win. But history tells us . . . we won't really know anything until the convention.

[grantcart]

134. your right but a number of important superdelegates have indicated

that they will support the candidate who has the most pledged delegates.

A more likely scenario is that Clinton will run out of money first.

The Bosnia tape, Carville screaming Judas - these are all the kinds of things that effect small donors.

[rainbow4321]

123. Pre TX primary her TX campaign leader deal was "Obama's never been south of San Antonio"

Then reality set in over in the HRC camp when they actually took TIME to learn about the TX hybrid system..ruh-ruh..all of a sudden HRC/her surrogates were flooding N TX airwaves, holding multiple rallies up here (like 3 in one day on Chelsea's part). All of this came too little, too late.
They figured out a little too late that the majority of the DELEGATES would be awarded in N Texas...and guess what, all those people in densely populated North TX were going to CAUCUS that night. Guess who won the caucus part of that night's primary---Obama.

Then came along the threats of lawsuits from HRC's camp because they lost the caucus vote. Who's fault is that?? Not Texans. It's the fault of her people who didn't do their homework and came here taking 3/4's of the state for granted.

[Fyddlestyx]

124. K & R

[ThatBozGuy]

141. Kick n/t

[LVjinx]

129. Surprise surprise. Another complete fabricated Clinton quote.

[grantcart]

131. really? it started out as popular vote but

now it has been changed to popular vote of electoral college

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaig...
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.


Democratic Underground (whoever they are)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.

He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

[RBInMaine]

132. FL and MI KNOWINGLY broke the rules. CASE CLOSE !

[bagimin]

133. CLOSED too!

[AmericanUnity]

135. BAYH SAID 'ELECTORAL VOTES' LOL - This 36 year veteran of the Dem Party says 'ENOUGH'

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

136. Hillary reminds me of the lone kid that no one will play with

cause she cheats all the time.

[Major Hogwash]

137. 15 delegates for Obama - almost wipes out the gain she made in Ohio and Rhode Island.

Think about that!

One little red state that Hillary ignored.
One little red state that roared!

Bayh is a warmonger who wanted to invade Iran last year.
He constantly voted against all of the amendments to end the fighting in Iraq.
He voted against Kerry's proposal to add a timeline to the DOD budget of 2006.
And he voted against Murtha's concept of moving the troops "out of harm's way" and relocating them in Kuwait.

Bayh also publicly criticized Kerry during the campaign in 2004 in August, after the convention.
Bayh is as red as Lieberman.

[grantcart]

138. Iowa the caucus that keeps on giving

[Major Hogwash]

139. It's good to be here in Boise, Iowa.

Obama actually said that at the rally he held the weekend before we had our caucus.
It was so damned funny.
When he said it, he looked out over the whole crowd, it was so packed.
I think he did it on purpose because he paused to wait for all the laughter to die down.
Idaho gets confused with Iowa all the time.
We've heard pundits on teevee do it for years.

One of the things that someone else pointed out to me about Obama's speech here, was when he made mention of guns and going to a Christian church for 20 years almost in the same sentence.
That's how people here talk.
I didn't take note of it at first because it just seemed normal to me.

Obama was great.
I mean it, he was just great.

[grantcart]

142. And why is he able to make small little changes in his stump speech to fit in where he is at

He is clearly an excellent listener.

I think this is perhaps the most underrated quality that a good President has to have.

[goclark]

140. Go grandcart Go!