It's not a beauty pageant. We're electing a President. To the convention, Democrats!
that's why nobody will count FL and MI. Sorry.
I had a post on this but I'm going to turn it into a diary..
wow. it even includes threats.
I'm shocked at this diary's divisiveness!
Agreed.
Are we going to see one of these every day until August?
Not exactly. Soon the "delegates don't really vote until the convention" diaries will outnumber the "Hillary won the popular vote" diaries.
Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.
Followed by the "Draft Hillary, even if she dropped out" diaries, and the "She suspended, she didn't drop out" diaries and the "If he doesn't pick Hillary for VP, I'm leaving the party" diaries.
Hopefully to be followed by the "I was wrong" diaries
At the risk of stating the obvious, I think the "I was wrong" diaries will be something we see in November, not necessarily sooner.
It's hard to say who will be writing them though.
;-)
We'll see those two years into a McCain presidency, assuming the Clinton cultists own up to what they did.
She did it by being a far superior fit for the job of President. Most of the primary voters, most of the Democrats how don't do primaries all agreed she would be so much better in the job that Obama lost.
Maybe the Obama people are so eager to end the campaign because they are noticing that his numbers are dropping, he does not have a broad enough coalition to be a winner and, oh yes, he has no experience and is tememperamentally totally unsuited to handle the respondibility of the Presidency and he cries 'racist' at every turn and always refuses to take responsibility for his mistakes but is very quick to take responsibility for others acheivements and ideas and speeches. Start with his pre-law school "community organizer" job and google it.
Try to find an acomplishment he actually did the work for or contributed his dues to. Maybe a lot of people are seeing this coming and really sorry he got such a good head start in the primaries.
Can't imagine what anybody thought qualified him for President except his self annointing and the money.
And all that money came from who? Oh yes, millions of people who think he will be a good president. Remind me how many thought Hillary would be so good that they bothered to donate to her?
Have you done any research on the investigation of the under $200 donors who don't have to be reported and who make up the bulk of Obama's 1.5 million 'donors'. Are you familiar with the way things are done with money in Chicago campaigns? You might want to check out some of the articles in the Chicago press. The Republicans already have.
Obama does have John Kerry's list of 3 million donors from the 2004 campaign and has been using it to "share" with friendly superdelegates as a reward. But...nevermind.
If you are interested in the subject, start with the Sun-Times archives. You can google Chicago Board Games or the current Fitzgerald Investigations on money and political coruption in Chicago involving Obama donors. Also the NY Times had a revealing summary piece July 30, 2007 on Obama in Chicago.
Is it possible for you to give him even the slightest credit for running an amazing fundraising machine - or must you smear every achievement?
I vote for "must smear every achievement". Honestly - popping over here from a link on the Big Orange is - alarming. The logic being applied is illogical.
I"m in la-la land!! Go Obama!
Can we have one diary on the rec list hat does not manage to have a comment that throws the city of Chicago under the bus...? It really IS a nice town...
When the inexperienced male novice fails.
The political process starts with lots of Presidential hopefuls and winds its way to November when there are 2 candidates with a chance, 1 or more candidates with no chance, and ultimately a winner is determined.
Blame and credit are assigned willy nilly - and can be pretty much ignored because most are completely useless hysterical gum-flapping.
I will a while longer before I decide who's to blame for Hillary's failure to capitalize on her early inevitability.
yeah keep playing that pathetic card...go cry your tears at taylormarsh.
I know gender-baiting when I see it.
And "bitches"? Grow up. If McCain wins it'll be the fault of the people who voted for him. The diarist says a lot of people will do that as revenge against the voters.
It's not blaming Hillary. It's quoting the diarist.
And, of course, the resident troll strikes again in all his divisive glory, complete with a picture of himself.
God, shut up with these facts already.
Obama learned something from the MI/FL pledge signing that the candidates did. He learned that you never, ever, ever trust Hillary Clinton. She says one thing and does another, every f*ing time.
Never trust her. She'll keep insisting on changing the rules in this contest so that she comes out the winner, until the DNC puts a stop to it.
Someone at some point will have to tell the Clintons that they are no longer the center of the universe. All the candidates knew the rules. Obama was smart enough to win within the rules. Hillary wasn't. It's as simple as that.
Hillary lost. Obama won.
Here's what happened:
Clinton pledged to not participate, then she participated. Then she claimed that those votes wouldn't count for anything, and now she's claiming that they did indeed count. In the meantime she experienced sniper fire in Bosnia while being read a poem by a little girl.
Never trust a Clinton.
"Some news organizations have already declared her the popular vote leader."
Such as?
Skywatch Media [pretty big snark]
Nice....You nailed that one!
The Twilight Zone Gazette?
The EIB Network?
taylormarsh.com
Oops. Even ABC knows to break out the MI/FL vote since it has yet to be deemed a legitimate vote.
How can you count ZERO VOTES FOR OBAMA in MI?
TexasDarlin - you are making me rip my hair out by the roots! How can you POSSIBLY make an argument based on the "popular vote total" when you're counting ZERO VOTES for Obama?
Have you no shame?
When one is desperate, they grasp at Desperate straws. And I wonder if those numbers include Caucuses.
You don't want to count Causues or give Obama his extrapolated share in Mich, then fine? But then we don't count contests where they both didn't campaign... OOOPS YOU LOSE!
doesn't include the "disenfranchised" caucus voters in four states.
Nor the "disenfranchised" 40% in Michigan.
I'm sorry to break it to you, but West Virginia is NOT a "swing state".
The latest poll I saw of WV had McCain leading Hillary there by 14 points or something like that. Which is another reason why the Electoral Vote counter on the front page is wrong, btw.
post the link. WV is actually a Democratic state.
NOT at the Presidential level. Sorry to burst your Hillary-bubble. It is not a state a Democrat needs to carry to win the White House. Just b/c Bill Clinton won it in '92 and '96 dosent mean he NEEDED it to win. Kerry could have won it in '04 and it wouldnt have made a difference.
All of the Hillary supporters conveniently overlook that fact.
Not a swing state... It went blue in '88, '92, and '96!
Plus; most recent poll show Hillary beating McCain by 5% and McCain beating Obama by 19%
Read and weep http://www.270towin.com/states/west+virg inia
Oh where oh where can Obama make up those 5 electoral votes... Well there is Missouri, Nebraska, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, etc.
Not to mention Hillary is flirting with losing Washington a state worth more than twice West Virginia.
You can treat WV as the end all and be all but Obama's map is much different than Hillary's, there are many states he is competitive in that she doesn't have a hope in hell of getting.
Hillary may need WV to win the nomination but Obama has many more options in play.
was taken in February. I'm not sure it qualifies as up to date.
You just have to know the history of the state in pres. elections. Also note: a Dem governor, two Dem senators, two out of three Dems in House. Most certainly a swing state and we should be able to compete there.
Just like Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisonsin, Maine and even MAryland are'nt swing states with Hillary.
With Obama they are solid Dem.
Just like Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado are leadn dem with Obama.
With Hillary they are lean McCain.
She's a weak GE candidate.
Not that it matters with Obama already heaving the nomination wrapped up but both candidates are running about equal in GE electability.
So lets stop this non debate from both sides.
Actually, having both of them in makes those polls absolutely useless. Unless you could find a sufficient poll sample for each candidate that was amnesiacally unaware of the other candidate.
I'm just sayin; as long as people perceive another option (dem candidate) the sample is skewed.
No not really. We know what percentage is influenced by that. And as both candidates suffer from roughly the same bias it doesn't affect their relative electability compared to each other.
Ernst,
Tell you what, once (say October?) we have a single nominee, let's see what happens to those comparability numbers.
Then you and I can compare our polling techniques. That sounds so wrong.
I'm sorry for my lack of comprehension, currently I can't make head or tails of your comment.
Of course they will chance quite drastically once we have a single nominee as one will have won and continue campaigning and the other will have lost and will stop campaigning. Both winning and losing effect the numbers as does whether or not you are in the race at all.
Your comment right now seems to be that a candidate that would be actually in the race would stand a better chance to be elected then a person that isn't a candidate? That seems rather obvious and well, irrelevant to the discussion we were having, namely that Clinton and Obama were running about equally in the general match up when that the situation was equal.
(not anymore though, now that more and more people have recognized that Obama has clinched the nomination and that Clinton is not going to be on the ballot in November.)
The only way we could measure their general performance after a single nominee has been chosen if both were in the same situation. That can't happen without a universe safe function that would allow us to let both candidates run against mcCain as a single nominee.
Could you explain what you did try to get across? Because this is all so generally know that I don't believe you could mean this.
My original and, if you follow my comments around the nets, constant position is that head-to-head polls are useless when one nominee is still contested. Until that is settled, and the public has time to absorb it, you will get false results.
It annoys me when activists of ALL stripes use these as evidence of, well, anything but what the results are, without predictive power.
Good call!
Let's do it 1980 Ted Kennedy style...open rule motion!
yes, that's a great idea--considering that neither Kennedy nor Carter nor any other Democrat won the GE that year.
So are we going to again have a member of a powerful Democratic family go "to the Floor!" and thereby make sure we elect a very old Republican?
Current standings. Apologies for the formatting, but I'd rather put this out there in the clear, as I'm surprised no one else has.
Popular Vote Total Obama +593,610 +1.8%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* Obama +703,832 +2.1%
Popular Vote (w/FL) Obama +298,838 +0.8%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* Obama +409,060 +1.2%
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* Clinton +29,471 +0.08%
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA Obama +80,751 +0.22%
Source: realclearpolitics.com
Delegates: Pledged Super Total Needed Obama 1,601.5 291.5 1,893 132 Clinton 1,444.5 271.5 1,716 309
Source: demconwatch (via great satan)
But as we all know it is much more important to include a state where one of the competitors wasn't on the ballot than include those that don't tally a popular vote. Haven't you heard of the "46 state + Puerto Rico" strategy?
I don't understand how anyone thinks counting MI in the popular vote is helpful. Since the nomination process is a race for delegates, the popular vote is only useful as a guide to the superdelegates in determining that all important 'electability'. The current MI results are only useful in that regard if we can convince McCain to keep his name off the ballot in November. Then there is the whole ambiguity around caucus states and what sort of popular vote there 'might' have been if they had primaries instead.
Here is an interesting experiment... take the percentage difference in the caucus vs primary results in Texas. Now apply that same adjustment to the percentage results from all the caucus states and multiply by the projected turnout in each state if they had gone with primaries. Guess what happens to Obama's popular vote lead. IT GOES UP. Is that what really would have happened if primaries had been the norm? Nobody knows for certain. In essence, it means the popular vote is pretty much useless in determining 'electability' or the will of the people.
So, is it safe to assume that in this formula that includes Michigan that Obama gets zero votes since his name wasn't on the ballot?
So, since their were four candidates that removed their names from the ballot in Michigan (Obama, Richardson, Biden, and Edwards), let's, for the sake of argument give each candidate 1/4 of the "uncommitted" popular vote (even though everyone in their right mind knows Obama was the intended recipient of more than 25% of the "uncommitted" vote).
238,168 people voted uncommitted in Michigan. Divide that by four, and you've got 59,542.
Add that on to Obama's popular vote count "including Michigan," and here are the totals:
Obama - 16,740,369 Clinton - 16,710,298
Sorry folks, no matter which way you slice it, Obama is winning.
It should also be noted that this does not include the estimated popular vote totals of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.
When those totals are included and Obama STILL receives ZERO votes from Michigan, he is leading by 80,751.
Add on 1/4 of those uncommitteds, and we're talking a 140,293 vote lead for Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l
Didn't the exit polls say he would have gotten a third of the total vote?
So the estimate would increase to well above 200.000.
Obama is winning according to all the metrics.
Also - most of the losing former Dem presidential candidates are supporting Obama. McGovern, Carter, Kennedy, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Edwards....great lineup of losers - also backed by the Washington establishment.
Well, at least those folks won the Democratic Primary.....
Maybe that goes to show that being the party's nominee doesn't necessarily mean that they are the most likely to win the G/E - And in the end that is what really matters longterm, isn't it now?
Each and every one of those is worthy of enormous respect.
We might want that they were worthy of even more respect as ex-presidents instead of ex-nominees, but every one of those is a good Democrat that tried to improve this country.
Lost they may have, losers they aren't.
What will the Clinton supporters say if their leader bows out? Will they attack her as they have everyone else who has smelled the coffee?
Hi, TD.
You write:
'"Hillary Democrats" will feel aggrieved if the Superdelegates over-turn their votes."
And yet, a few short months ago, when it seemed as if superdelegates would be Clinton's only path to the nomination, you wrote:
"But there's more good news for Clinton: Many of those same party leaders acknowledge that their duty as super delegates is to exercise independent judgment."
So superdelegates overturning the will of the voters by exercising their independent judgment is okay when it helps your candidate, right?
Here's the cite:
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/04 03/hillarys-winning-coalition-mydd-reco mmended-list-selected-for-hillaryhubcom
Enjoy the day, --Koan
Ooh, here's an even better one, giddy about the prospects of SD's overturning the will of voters! Note how excited you were at the idea of having Brazile in your camp, too.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/28/ brazile-for-hillary/
Cheers.
Texas Darlin for Secretary of Defense!
